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?

A lot of SAHP don't get any benefits or tax credits! And yes, working is a. 'Lifestyle choice' if you are relying on the government to find that choice. Why does that only apply to SAHP?

Fund!

soverylucky exactly, the government are just letting you keep more of your own money, however they will only let you keep this money if you pay a lot more money out first.

So why does every WOHP not get that tax break then, soverylucky, even if they have a SAHP doing the childcare?

littlemisswise because they aren't spending money on childcare.

NO because more often than not one parent has given up their job because they can not afford child care, so they have sacrificed a lot more!

Actually currently they can get this tax break if they are an employee working in a company that partakes in a childcare voucher scheme, but this scheme isn't open to all tax payers with children.

They are opening up the scheme to more people by closing it to those who have a parent at home available to do more childcare.

Not sure why you think this unfair, tbh.

NO because more often than not one parent has given up their job because they can not afford child care, so they have sacrificed a lot more!

Now you just aren't making any sense at all, because tax breaks like this are designed to help people afford childcare so that they can stay in work.

You seem to be arguing that parents should be paid to stay at home, by people who have to pay for the privilege to go to work.

I've said this before - but then all these arguments are circular because its the same reasons which crop up!- when someone says they need to have a SAHP in order to enable the other parent to pursue their career...

These situations don't arise out of nowhere. Either you meet a partner who already has a high flying job involving travel and long hours and you willingly enter that relationship knowing that's the deal. Or, you start off in more equal positions but somewhere along the journey, you decide to prioritise one career and let the other take a back seat

We have quite a few couples friends who met at Uni. Same abilities, same qualifications. Some, like us, have both followed pretty much parallel careers, neither earning mega bucks but both earning pretty much equal. Others have taken a different choice, with some, the woman stopped working, the husband took on more pressure and promotions. Some of these women are now saying they'd like to work but can't because of their husbands job.

There is nothing wrong with either of the above choices, but they are exactly that- choices. Both come with pros and cons. It's just a bit disingenuous to make it sound as though you've arrived out of nowhere, unable to work because of your husband. There will have been decisions along the way which meant you arrived at that point.

Soverylucky it is £100 a month IIRC. Families with a wage of up to £300k can claim it if they pay childcare.

A family where one person earns £25k, but has a SAHP because they gave up work due to being on a zero hours contract so would have no clue if they could afford childcare, can not claim that £100. But IMHO they could do with it a darn site more than the family on £300k. That is why it is unfair.

This is just another Tory policy of buying votes.

Having a SAHP in the family is sometimes the only way some families can have children FFS.

That's why there's a need for help in paying with childcare!

happymummy:

"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?"

"Suprisingly, lots dont want to be on benefits."

"We are right to encourage people to work rather than rely on benefits as its unsustainable."

Since when does being in a single income household, with a one worker and one SAHP, mean you are dependent on the state/benefits? You've expressed this belief three times now, so you evidently believe it to be true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that having one parent a SAHP = 'benefit scrounger', that the SAHP will never work again but will spend the rest of their days lying on the sofa watching Jeremy Kyle whilst the other parent slaves away at work, when since the majority of SAHP used to work before they had children, I image most will seek to return to at least part time work once their child/children are of school age, .

Also - when dh is at work and I am at home with the children I am by your definition doing the childcare - where would you draw the line in payments. Could I claim more money for when dh is at work?

No, because you are not paying yourself to look after your own children, and you are not a registered childcare provider. Nor are you inspected by OFSTED.

Littlemiss- would you rather the couple on 300k gave up one job and stopped paying the £4500 per month tax just so they can't get that £100 ?!

Given less than 1% of workers earn over £150,000 the number of households with two workers earning this is probably very small, so there really wouldn't be a lot left to go round if they weren't included.

Actually, I happen to think that two working parents aren't necessarily good for the economy. They have pushed up house prices to stratospheric levels, where many families are now stuck paying extortionate rents to land lords and the housing benefit bill has increased, again due to landlords charging silly rents. Houses were much cheaper when it was normal for one parent to stay at home and care for the children. Also, not all SAHP claim benefits. We get nothing. I think two parents working has pushed the cost of everything sky high, because everything is now geared towards two incomes.

For the record, I am quite happy for people on 300k to not get any help- I'm just making the point that jointly they will be paying about 8- 9k every month in tax, and probably doing the sort of job that requires extensive childcare- probably a nanny, so I hardly think keeping an extra £100 as a tax break is going to cut it.

But like others say, let's take the focus off the handful of couples on 300k and focus on the fact that this makes childcare more affordable to many couples on far lower incomes. That's a positive move, and doesn't in any way take anything away from couples who choose to have a SAHP. It doesn't affect them at all.

janey68 I just looked this up a family with two incomes of £150,000 a year will pay £120,000 in tax and national insurance. It's probably not a bad idea to let people contributing at this level feel like they are getting something back once in a while, afterall the tax system relies very heavily on goodwill.

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.

^ Well said.

Children are a choice, if you choose to have one or ten you do so knowing that they are going to need you to financially provide for them for 18 years at least. No point moaning about giving up your job or that workers get a tax break, if you dont like the choice you made you can change it by gaining employment.

Workers keep the economy going, if the government need to do something to encourage more then so be it. Far better to give workers tax breaks than to pay people to do nothing.

ihategeorgeosborne I agree with your last post 200%