AIBU to think that saying the new childcare proposal discriminates against SAHP is like saying JSA discriminates against the employed?

[AnnieLobeseder]

So I know it's fairly old news, but the new government proposals to help working parents with childcare costs have been popping up on my BBC newsfeed this week.

Now there are plenty of things wrong with these new proposals, such as the "help" only being available for parents with under-5s to start with, and that students don't count as "employed" so if you're both/one of you are students and need childcare while you're at college you get no help at all. At least they're apparently going to count being a carer as "employed" so families where one parent stays home to care, they will get help with childcare.

However, what I don't understand is why these aren't the issues being highlighted, but instead, just people whining that SAHPs will lose out. Erm, please correct me if I'm missing some fundamental point here, but isn't that because SAHPs, by their very nature, don't need childcare!! That's why they stay at home - to look after their own children.

I've seem quotes that this is a "carrot dangled at SAHMs to tempt them back into work". Um, no, who the heck would put themselves into a situation they don't want for the sake of claiming a benefit they don't really need?

So to my mind, it's like complaining that you aren't entitled to JSA because you have a job, and saying that having JSA for those who need it is "dangling a carrot in front of people with jobs to tempt them into unemployment".

AIBU?

There are a few flaws, it needs to go up to age 12 for a start. Whilst a step in the right direction it would have been better to extend the existing scheme and to be able to salary sacrifice more of your own salary.

We all parent be it SAH or WOH. Neither one is more superior, a good parent depends on many factors. Being home all day doesnt automatically equate to be a great parent and vice versa.

I disgree people are forced to be SAHPs though. If your wage doesnt cover childcare (and its a household not individual expense) then you will have known that prior to having a child. It takes one minute to google childcare costs in your area. Those with multiple children all made a choice to have x number so complaining about the costs is futile, its not like they are unknown. Either save beforehnd, work around each other or use childcare like thousands of other working parents do.

If people want to benefit from the new policy then go back to work and pay tax. We are right to encourage people to work rather than rely on benefits as its unsustainable.

I think people are worried that the government will take away the 15 hour entitlement to nursery provision for over 3s.

I'm not a SAHM I'm self-employed. I don't pay tax at the moment therefore I won't receive the tax break which is fair enough. I do receive the free 15 hours nursery for over 3s. Without free nursery provision I would not have been able to start my own business. If this was scrapped it would prevent parents like me from starting their own businesses.

Studies have shown that preschool education offers children lots of advantages. If this is taken away children with only one working parent will lose out. The government haven't announced plans to scrap this entitlement however it wouldn't surprise me, they never offer anything without taking something else away. The head of Ofsted recommended that free preschool provision is only offered to the poorest families. If the Tories win the next election I would place bets on them scrapping this entitlement. Thankfully I will be past the stage of needing it by then.

Happy.

People choose to work though the same as a sahp chooses too. They are both life choices. I know some people who work make a profit and pay bills. However, so many people argue they have no profit i.e nothing left after paying childcare and other related costs.
Giving these people help with childcare is not helping them to support their family because they have no money to. Surely if it is fair to support this lifestyle choice then a sahp who is also not making any profit should be given the same.
The argument that the support is only needed prior to the dc starting school is rubbish, unless you believe that wrap around care is free.
If we are going down the road of stopping Tax credits to allow a sahp then we should also stop childcare support when it is not needed.

Soverylucky- agree 100%

The thresholds need changing, and it's unfortunate that people jump on the headline figures - as we keep saying, how many families with a joint income of £300k are there? Not many! And as they already pay tax of around 8k per month, the few quid they'll benefit from is nothing. Lets face it: the country loses far more in tax if these people decide to give up work and stay at home. It's so easy to just look at the figures and think people on those incomes are living the life of Riley, but tbh it's a tough world out there- if someone is earning 150k they are probably earning it in blood, sweat and a big dollop of stress. I wouldn't want the kind of life which goes hand in hand with the really big bucks, so it would be dishonest of me to resent those who are prepared to do it

And it all distracts from the real issue which is the people just over the threshold, who don't qualify for tax credits and have to pay for childcare, and are both paying tax.

What morethan said.

Giving these people help with childcare is not helping them to support their family because they have no money to.

Yes, it is because it's helping them be in a position to be fully self sufficient sooner than they would be if one parent takes years out of the work place.

It's also enabling them to pay more tax, and be more economically active than they would be otherwise.

A WOHP who makes no profit after childcare can't be compared to a SAHP because the WOHP is still contributing: they are paying tax. The person providing the childcare is also taxed: thus they are continuing to pay into the system even if temporarily they are working for no net profit. There is also the longer term view, that by remaining in employment, they are more likely to move up the ladder and contribute more in future

(Disclaimer: not SAHP bashing. It's a valid choice, but you cannot pretend that it's the same as working. And yes, I know SAHP paid tax while working in their pre children days- but so did the WOHP. The difference is the WOHP continues to do so)

So, Happy if one of a couple is on a zero hours contract and the other is on a wage of £30k how are they going to know if they can afford childcare before they have a family? Should they not have a child? But a couple on £300k who could afford the childcare without this scheme can have the tax break!

Where are all the jobs and nursery/childcare places for everyone to go back to work?

And who said families with a SAHP "are relying on benefits"?

Daft to say work is a lifestyle choice, its puts food on the table and a roof over a families head. Financially supporting yourself and children is a very important thing. Suprisingly, lots dont want to be on benefits. Not working is a lifestyle choice as you are relying on either the state or another adult to fund that choice or both even.

Childcare costs do drop dramatically once a child is in school. We can book care for £7.50 for 3 hours after school compared to a full days nursery care its by far cheaper. I cant see where anybody has said its free after they start school though.

I wonder how many of the SAHPs moaning about this claim tax credits from the workers yet want to deny them keeping more of their own wage whilst holding their hand out for their tax credits for doing nothing?

There are lots of tax deductible schemes like the bike one etc, no good to me but im not moaning about them just because i dont benefit. We wouldnt benefit from this childcare one unless we have another child but i do believe its important to encourage workers for the future good of society. If people want to choose not to work, then thats down to them but it shouldnt be funded by anybody but the family.

You are so blinkered HappyMummy.

My DH is a worker, even my DC are workers! We get nothing, we have only ever got the basic £40 a month tax credits, but don't get that anymore. We will fund our DC through Uni with no help, no encouragemnt for workers of the future good of society, there!

People on the lowest incomes, the student parents, the ones who need the help from this scheme the most won't get any.

janey.

I disagree, and know many people who work and don't earn enough to pay tax so aren't paying into the system neither. Ok the childcare provider is paying tax but there are plenty of dc to keep them employed.

Happy
I wonder how many of the SAHPs moaning about this claim tax credits from the workers yet want to deny them keeping more of their own wage whilst holding their hand out for their tax credits for doing nothing? None, as sahps don't get tax credits, households do.
This is where it is unfair, there are households with a sahp losing tax credits, but other life stle choices are to be supported. Wouldn't you complain?

But people on the lowest incomes do already get a lot of help With childcare costs! That fact seems to be conveniently ignored

And on the point about 'where are all the nursery places for people to be able to work' - well, I am fully in support of the govt funding more childcare initiatives. The irony is though, that any govt policy which assists parents working - whether it's financial help with childcare or creating more nursery places - is usually jumped on by people claiming the govt are anti SAHP and trying to force everyone back into the workplace!

It's a bit of a no win situation really- they are criticised for childcare costs being prohibitive and the fact that it can be really difficult to work. Then the moment measures are taken to make it easier to work, there are cries of 'stop forcing us back into the workplace!'

I agree with happy mummy- I think there needs to be more honesty about the fact that if you want to SAH, then do it because you believe in it and want it. Don't complain because other people are getting some support towards helping them work.

soverylucky yes it is a tax break. You also don't just get given £1200 per child, you first have to spend £4800 on childcare.

... And as for people who work but are so low paid that they don't pay tax.. Well, they are contributing to society by doing a job which society wants done. One of my friends is a teacher assistant- I imagine she pays little or no tax as I know the job is low waged. But she is providing a very useful function, doing a valuable job which society needs someone to do. As well as the very valuable role she plays in raising her own children.

I don't know why people keep trying to compare people who aren't working with people who are. They are two completely different situations. The teacher assistant is also keeping her skills updated and will be in a stronger position to earn more in future than if she had stopped working.

That's not a value judgement; it's a plain fact.

Having a SAHP in the family is sometimes the only way some families can have children FFS. How many times does it have to be said?

And it cuts both ways. If you think going out to work is the best for you and your family, then do it. Don't expect everyother person in the country to chip in for childcare, especially when hospitals are at breaking point, people are relying on foodbanks, benefits are being capped, disabled people are being losing benefits all together and there's no money in the pensions pot of the public service workers who have paid in for years!

Don't expect everyother person in the country to chip in for childcare, especially when hospitals are at breaking point, people are relying on foodbanks, benefits are being capped, disabled people are being losing benefits all together and there's no money in the pensions pot of the public service workers who have paid in for years!

Who do you think funds all this?

Sovery, yes its a tax break. So the worker and possibly childcare worker can keep more of what they earn. I dont see any SAHPs moaning they cant take advantage of the cycle scheme etc.

Morethan, it doesnt matter whos name the tax credit claim is in its still being paid as one adult chooses not to work. As for would i complain if nobody was handing me money so that i could choose to not work, no i wouldnt. I am able bodied and therefore should work rather than rely on others. if i chose not to work then i would expect to have to fund that choice myself as its a complete luxury.

Working is not a lifestyle choice, do you seriously think we have enough money in he country for everyone to not work and claim benefits instead?

Its also an indication of why the government are trying to assist workers, if parents are sending out the message to their children that working is a lifestyle choice rather than somethinng adults do. Sad indication of what society has become.

Sorry my post doesn't really make sense.

Littlemisswise my point is all of those services can only be rescued if more people pay tax, this scheme helps people to work and pay tax, think of it as the government making a move to secure future tax revenues.

Not just the workers who have kids in childcare Mrslyman!

SAHP's are not sending out messages to their kids that it is ok not to work. Both my kids were working before they even took their GCSEs, so how does that fit in to your stupid theory, HappyMummy?

Being a SAHP does not mean you claim benefits.

LOL at the idea of every other person in the country chipping in to provide childcare!! If only!

Look- at the end of the day, the govt is interested in an economically viable country. I've said it before: if having a SAHP was economically better for the country, if it meant we could provide better health, education services etc etc by only having one parent in every family working, then I'm under no illusions... The govt would quickly chase mums one parent back into the home.
But that isn't the case. Overall, going to work and performing a role which society needs doing- whether that's high paid hospital consultant or low paid teacher assistant- IS more valuable to the govt. It's also valuable to the govt to have good parents- because good parents are more likely to raise children who will do well and not be a drain on resources through dysfunction. And good parents are good parents- whether they work or not.

If you believe that you need to have one parent at home to be able to raise your children , then fine- your choice, but don't kid yourself that you are performing some highly valuable function that the govt should subsidise. You are raising your children just as Millions of WOHP do.

Yes but workers who have to pay for childcare are more likely to stop working than those that don't. You see loads of threads on here from women who are contemplating stopping work because childcare costs are so high, helping them to stay in work protects those tax revenues.