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?

You also vehemently defend that you worked and brought up your own children. So when they were at nursery and needed a nappy change, you didn't do it. When they wanted a cuddle, you didn't give it. When they were hungry, you didn't feed them. Someone else did all of those things for all of those years. I did and continue to do it all myself and it's actually bloody hardwork. I have many WOHM friends and they all say that they go to work for a break, so don't you start banging on to SAHM who has the moral highground. I DON'T claim any benefits BTW for the umpteenth time.

Nobody is bashing SAHPs, its the SAHPs whining they dont get a tax break to help pay for childcare despite neither paying tax nor needing childcare!! Or stating that want validation for doing "unpaid work" and volunteering despite lots of working people with and without children doing exactly the same plus a job.

I dont give a monkeys tail what anyody else does with their life as long as its legal and they fund their own choices and dont expect the state too.

Begrudging a tax rebate when you aren't paying tax is petty.

janey I don't begrudge the tax break, but for the reasons I've stated it won't help anyone return to work, only people who are already working.

If there was a one off 'returning to work grant' or loan to covere the first months childcare fees or whatever, I would be delighted and more that happy to pay it back once my husband was earning again, since it would have enabled him to earn again.

And I think that would ba a fantastic thing for the governemt to offer, so those who do want to return to a double income, through financial need or desire, can be helped to do so, and yes then two people wouldbe paying tax and contributing to the treasury blah de blah.

Racmum not just married tax allowance but between partners and the threshold for CB capping needs to be identical to childcare help ie you don't get it if you have a joint income of £300k.

Whilst we're at it all other universal benefits need the same treatment.

That is fair.

Until then the Condems can whistle as far as I'm concerned.

I considered CB to be a tax rebate, but no one considered that when they stripped us of it.

What makes you think there is a moral high ground to fight for and claim ihategeorgeosbourne?

And what makes you so sure you've got it if there is one?

No one has a problem with the choice you have made for your own family!

And I would dispute this

Someone else did all of those things for all of those years.

Someone else did some of those things some of the time. It doesn't mean the parent didn't ever do them at all. They did it in addition to paid work, albeit fewer times than a SAHP.

Yanbu, I don't get why a sahp would want childcare vouchers or begrudge those who need them having them. I pay a lot more tax than I recoup in tax rebate on vouchers, surely it's no big deal, just an incentive to work?

Broken, I was just getting the feeling from a couple of posters on here that I contribute nothing and WOHM are the salt of the earth and the whole world would collapse without them.

Oh bingo, I think we've reached the REAL issue for ihategeorgeosborne and the militant WOHM bashers... You just want to try and make us feel guilty for not changing as many nappies as a SAHM!!
Oh dearie me...

How can CB be a tax rebate. It is nothing to do with paying tax. Or have I missed something all these years.

No one other than SAHP have said SAHP contribute nothing actually. Stop beating yourself up for your choice. And don't beat up other women who make a different choice

Janey

Vivienne, it was called family allowance, which used to be a tax allowance paid to working families with children. Labour changed it to child benefit and broke that link.

To be fair though, a SAHP who doesn't do anything other then look after their own children doesn't contribute anything.

And that's fine as long as they aren't taking financial hand outs to enable it. I really don't think anyone has any issue at all with a SAHP being supported financially by their partner.

But please don't pretend that changing your own child nappies and feeding them when they are hungry is a contribution to society. It isn't. It's valuable to you, your child, the rest of your child's family, and that's enough.

Erm, I might have pissed on your point a bit there Janey! Sorry!

Janey, surely you have more confidence in your choice for a stranger on an internet forum to make you feel guilty.
Which sahms have said they contribute nothing?

I'm a sahm and I said that people who contribute nothing are the working parents who receive help with child care, don't pay tax due to low earnings, work in min wage job (so your argument about promotion doesn't wash) make no profit so not paying any bills, but expect the state to fund their life style choice. They are no different than those receiving tax credit allowing a sahp. It is exactly the same.

I used the contribution/value of WOHP to illustrate why they should get help with childcare - that they provide the services we all need and use.
This was turned into SAHP are not valuable, when I said they are ... to their families and their children.
I am actually part SAHP/part WOHP- I wont benefit from the payments at all as I don't use childcare. I still think that WOHP should gain from this and women in particular might not be forced to give up the career they have trained long and hard for- why anyone would fight against this is beyond me !
It still gives you the choice to be a SAHP if you choose to and can afford to.

Been out all morning entertaining the kids.
all 3of them.

last week had job of taking all 3 to breastfeeding group as I volunteer and runs all year round.

This summer hols I have preschool business plan and end of year accounts to complete to return to charities commision.

so yes im a lazy sahm of 3 who claims no no benefits other than child benefit who lives off her husband who does pay taxes.

in addition to income tax

we pay vat
road tax
tax on petrol
council tax.

make our landlord very wealthy
support local enconoy and local shops
pay nursery staff for middle ones preschool education.

if my yiounger 2 dont get school place im prepared to home educate them for a while home educators get paid nothing in uk in usa its tax decductable.

I know a few who help elderly relatves they not offically pad as their carers .

a sahm wanting to go interveiws.
has pressure to earn 11k according to martin lewis to be even eligible for these vouchers
who cant afford upfront nursery fees
employers want full flexibility.
nurseries do not offer taht ist 4weeks notice to leave and change of hours.

saddened by how mean people can be sahm bashing the new thing on mumsnet it seems.

No potato, it's not the same at all.

It baffles me how you can honestly believe it is.

I thought all parents were entitled to Family Allowance in the old days. I know at one time people didn't get it for a first child. But I didn't think it was related to tax in any way. As even unemployed people received it.

Whatever anyone says about SAHMs, the child benefit policy was a clumsy policy and I'm prepared to bet that they wouldn't do it again now if they had really thought about it. They will lose a lot of votes for that and it will hurt them in 2015. I'll bet money that after the election, they will finally admit that it wasn't one of their brightest moments.

I am a SAHM and I do contribute to society in many ways. Who is teaching my children how to behave in public, manners, time management, helping educate them? Feeding children and tending to basic physical needs is child care but not raising children in my opinion. The working parent obviously contributes to society by doing this as well with their children. That is parenting though and not limited to whether you are at home or work.

I do agree that the typical SAHP does not need the vouchers but many SAHP are also unpaid carers for maybe elderly/disabled parents/children and some are students and they do need additional child care and help funding it. Hopefully the scheme will be extended to help them.

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if banging on an open door. In answer to the OPs's question I do not think she is being unreasonable. I cannot see why a SAHP would need childcare vouchers. It's a tax rebate for those who need to pay for childcare.

Both my husband and I work full time and get £243.00 a month each in vouchers. Given that we both contribute more in tax than we get back makes comments from people who think tax breaks like this should be universal galling. If you do not have to pay for childcare why should you be entitled to a tax break?

As regards the upper limit why shouldn't high earners be entitled to tax breaks? I don't follow the logic. Its precisely those earners that you want to encourage through tax incentives so that they continue to contribute the vast taxes that they do.

That 'are you a net contributor' thing seems like a load of rubbish anyway. I am single, living alone, haven't visited the doctor in years, have no children etc and yet it claims that I am a net taker to the tune of £5,000 a year.

I fail to see how I 'take' from the state to the tune of nearly £12,000 a year. The only thing I can think of is the measly single person's council tax reduction. This adds up to less than £150 a year.

Can someone explain how this can possible be correct? Are they just averaging out all expenditure by the state per person? Are they counting things like having roads? My past state education?

Broken sorry sahp contribute to their children's mental well being (if they feel being at home does),prepares them for school,teaches them values,gives them security which in turn benefits their future class.

And no all childcare does not provide the above.Childcare also doesn't suit all children,far from it.

The gov sticking it's fingers in it's ears won't make it so.Parents know what is best for their children,governments don't.If having a sahp benefits a child it benefits society.