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?

low earning parents say 10k year each.

wont be paying much tax
be entitled to hosuing benefit
tax credits
child benefit

the same as unemployed parents

both groups get back far more then they put in if just talkng monetary value.

A large amount of benefits are to people in work

as housing is so high
childcare expensive
wages too lowcosts
high living

that they cannot afford to get by wthout state support when they in
empoyment quite depressing

Ok I dont work but my husband does and pays in more than we get back.

often hear pensioners say wel i paid in so you cant touch our benefits yet its ok to move goalposts when comes to child related benefits.

i dident forsee in 2006 having eldest that they woul take away child benefit as universil benefit.

I think if they removed the 15hours for 3tyear olds be political suicide as any preschools struggling on numbers, closing down, run by commitees mix of workng and sahm mums.

Retro, I agree that not all children are suited to childcare, but I don't think that means that every SAHP who doesn't do any extra kind of work is contributing to society.

The point is though, that it's ok not to contribute to society while you are caring for very young children. We don't need to pretend that it's something that it isn't to protect the feelings of some particularly oversensitive and under confident people.

And WOHPs contribute to their child's mental well being too! Lots of people believe that having parents who both work contributes enormously to a child's work ethic, something that is also very valuable.

"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 dislike tax credits with a passion, be it general tax credits or childcare tax credits. The tax scheme is different though as a direct deduction and you cant take more than you actually pay in tax.

However, there is a huge difference between the two scenarios you describe. For instance, in another post you clearly admit you will never work for an employer again and therefore have many years on tax credits whilst your husband draws his SE salary that keeps you under the limits to receive them. Thus you wont be paying tax and he will be likely claiming more that putting in. Whilst a person claiming childcare via tax credits may draw out more than they put in for a few years but will be paying tax long after the childcare help ceases. Even if starting out an NMW people can get pay rises, promotions, find hours that mean no childcare needed etc. Not to mention that when then do need childcare they are helping another person have a job and pay tax.

If we do have to assist as a state, then its far better to help those trying to help themselves than those that choose not to work. Nobody should be expected to be paid to raise their own children. Yes some SAHPs will return to the workplace and when they do then they qualify for the same tax benefits as every other existing worker.

Think i'll start moaning i dont get the unform tax saving or bike, it would appear irrelevant that i dont actually need either but why should others get it and i dont

I am at a loss to understand why this has become an issue of validation for SAHP. To my mind this is a red herring.

As far as I can see this is simply a tax incentive for two parents that work and who will as a consequence need to pay childcare costs. Why do SAHP need validation in this way?

Broken

I think the problems occur when people generalise about one or the other.
Lots of people believe that having parents who both work contributes enormously to a child's work ethic, something that is also very valuable. Yes this is sometimes used as an argument against sahms.
My older dc both work and have a great work ethic. I haven't worked in over 20 years. Whereas my future dil brought up with both parents working is in no doubt about being a sahp. "I couldn't do it to my kids" her own words. We are all different sometimes we want better than we had for our dc.

Happy

May is the determining word in your post, but who knows.
My dh business may really take off in a big way, he may come across a rare brand of his instrument and become a multi millionaire, and if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
I don't think you get the point at all if you think sahps are pissed off because they don't receive help with child care. They don't need it.

rinoachicken yes that first month is hard, perhaps there is room for a scheme to help with this, although no doubt that would be another slur on SAHPs.

And I responded ages ago about the workers who earn so little as to not pay tax. Of course they are contributing! They do a job which an employer requires to be done. I gave the example of my teacher assistant friend who earns very little, but is contributing by doing a hugely valuable job required by society. She is also increasing her chance of earning higher wages in future by staying in employment now. She is also ( together with her working husband) raising her children.
How anyone can argue that because she's low paid she's not contributing anything is frankly beyond me!

I think the thread is getting derailed now with this issue of 'valuing a persons contribution'. A SAHP is of course performing a valued role. They do it because they and their partner value it. No one is disrespecting that whatsoever. No way can you suggest that it's equivalent to paid employment though- its a totally different thing

Retro pear- I agree with your list about what a GOOD parent provides. I disagree that only a SAHP can provide those things. Things like values, fostering independence etc are imparted through the all encompassing task of parenting, not the preserve of a SAHP. Of course we don't sent our children to a nursery or childminder to learn those things- we as the primary carers have the major influence. Childcare provides another dimension but is nowhere near as significant as the parents

If you have a child and find that your child doesn't flourish in the childcare settings available to you, then I agree, you have a tough call to make as a parent and between you, you need to decide how to manage that- whether one parent gives up work , both reduce hours, one works evenings etc.

But tbh most SAHP make the decision as a matter of principle because its what they want to do. They don't make the decision because they've tried working and feel its damaging their child- they choose to not go back to work in the first place. Which is fine, but not something they need to be paid for

morethan - your post a while back about very low income families, ie the working poor living a "lifestyle choice" is beyond bizarre. These are people doing the low-paid, low status jobs, the awful stuff that no-one else wants to do, these are the people who cannot make ends meet because NMW is not a living wage.These are the people living in absolute poverty and using food banks, and who would probably get more money if they gave up work and lived completely off benefits - yet they keep up doing these jobs no-one else wants to do for scraps of wages. You serious begrudge them help? You seriously think their incredibly difficult lives are a lifestyle choice?

Look, there are issues with the tax credit sy stem and the child benefit system and I can see why some SAHP feel they're being sidelined. And I can also see how it would be a hugely useful for someone seeking work to be able to get a grant or loan to cover childcare while job hunting and for that first upfront month of childcare.

But these are completely separate issues to the one at hand, which is the question of how on earth does it discriminate or reflect badly on SAHP if people who PAY FOR CHILDCARE can get a TINY BIT of the extortionate amount they pay out back in a tax break?

Once again, for the hard of thinking:

1. This is not a benefit - it's a tax break
2. You have to pay out a lot of money and pay a lot of tax before you get anything back
3. you're not getting your childcare paid for, you just get about 10% (or less) back after you've already paid for it.
4. there are plenty of other things you can claim back tax on. Why is no-one complaining about these?

So I still really don't understand what this particular tax break has to do with SAHP at all.

Annie, morethan believes that every household can have a SAHP if they are prepared to budget/cut back and that spouses cannot work if one parent is not home. However the "budgetting" would also appear to include tax credits but apparently they dont count as not in her name . So its would seem its ok to claim benefits for not working but heaven forbid a worker may need help for the expensive years of childcare.

We need all types of earners from NMW to high flying 300k earners, as long as they are earning who cares if they get a small tax break to help with the costs of working. Without them, there would be no tax payers and no money. Labour spent time and effort throwing money at non workers and none of it did much good, focussing on helping people work and self support their families is the way to go.

Annie - i think that basically retropear and morethan want the government to pay them to stay at home and care for their kids.

And I agree that post about people on low incomes was frankly bizarre.

Agree annielobseder

Although this doesn't need to be a SAHP/WOHP issue I think one thing it highlights is that some parents simply want to stay at home, not because they can't afford to work, but simply because they believe it is the best thing for their family. Which is fine but please be honest it.
I have a sneaking suspicion that some posters on here, if they were offered free childcare to enable them to go for an interview or a loan to tide them over the first few months childcare fees, would turn around and say 'I'm not leaving my child.' There are two distinct groups here: SAHP who want to work but are struggling to Afford to get back, and these measures help those, and SAHP who do not want to work. I still cannot get my head around why if you are home by choice, you are begrudging the small amount that working parents are saving. It's not a handout. As Annie says, it's simply that they get to keep a little more of what they earn

Janey, just to add to your TA example, I'm a TA and although I don't earn a lot, I do pay tax and NI, and maybe more importantly, I contribute to my own pension.

I'm also earning that money myself rather than being given a freebie in tax credits, and I'm around my school age children as much as any SAHM, bar a few inset days. My wage doesn't enable me to contribute much in tax, but it enables me to at least be self sufficient.

Thinkaboutitomorrow: I have to say I think you're right. The more I read, the more it seems a couple of posters really do think they should receive some financial perk for choosing to be at home

And the bit about low waged workers (who are often doing the least attractive but necessary jobs) not contributing .. Well, that certainly took ludicrous to a new level

janey

SAHP who want to work but are struggling to Afford to get back

How exactly does it help them get back into work? Sure, it certainly helps them once they are earning* as they can then claim the tax rebate. But until they find that job, they can't claim it so can't afford the childcare to get back into work.

This policy has two aims, according to the treasury:

"We need to focus our resources," the document said. "Working families who are struggling with their childcare costs or families where parents wants to go to work but can?t afford to"

The first partm yeah it does help parents who are already working with their childcare costs. But it does not help a SAHP get back into work.

er broken tax credits aren't a freebie. They are giving you back some of the tax you already paid.

To be honest, I'd just rather they taxed me less in the first place but there we are.

Its interesting that those posters who claim to above earning money as they "couldn't do that to my kids" still want validation by being given financial help in the form of childcare payments they don't need !

Rino- I have already said I would like to see support for parents to get back to work. This particular policy doesn't address that- but it sure as hell is a step in the right direction. This is part of a process .. It's no good complaining because its not perfect. Honest to god, things are way better than in the past. At least you get a year off on maternity leave, transferable parental leave, childcare help when in work and free nursery hours for all 3 years olds. NONE of these things existed just a few years back. If you think being a working parent is hard now- try doing it a few years ago with 12 weeks maternity leave and no financial help. And while house prices weren't so high, housing costs were way higher

Like I say, my children are older, I won't benefit personally from this at all, but I'm massively in favour of it. You could look at it that I've had to pay for all my childcare, and am now as a taxpayer contributing towards the childcare subsidies which other mums and dads will benefit from! But you know what ?- I don't view it like that, I see it as right and proper that they should get vital support in enabling them to work.
So, it's a little galling when the people who seem to be protesting most are not the likes of me, who has had years of shelling out tens of thousands of pounds on childcare, but the SAHM who don't need or want childcare but begrudge those that do.

Retropear

"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."

Whereas WOHP do what - chuck scraps at their caged children when unfortunately they have to be picked up from nursery.

janey thank you for acknowledging that this policy doesn't help people trying to get back into work. In your previous post you said that it does help.

And yes, I do agree that things used to be an awful lot worse.

My gripe is that the government is claiming they are trying to help parents already working and parents trying to get back to work, when actually, they are not. Because they haven't done their research properly or whatever.

And I do actually agree with you that if a parent doesn't actually want or need to go back to work and doesn't use childcare anyway, not sure why this policy is an insult to them.

I also agree that the validation thing is...a personal thing to be honest. My husband is a SAHD. He gets no validation from the other SAHM's (who can be positivly hostile towards him), let alone anyone else. But then he doesn't care what others think. As long as I value him (which I do) and our son value's him then that's all that matters to him. Maybe it's a woman thing? (dons flame suit!)

Not sure what sort of validation is being sought here if I'm honest - a certificate to hang on your wall from the PM saying 'well done for being a SAHP'?

As a working mum I knpw it's b**y hard work parenting and working. And I also know my husband works hard caring for our son and the house. Neither is easier or harder than the other, they are just different.

Happy. you don't half twist things and tell lies in fact. Firstly I do not believe that spouses can't work if the other does, what tosh. I don't care what others do, however I will make a comment on principles that are unfair. I choose to be a sahm whilst my dh works, I don't believe I have said anywhere

I don't believe I should be paid to be a sahp any more than I believe workers who don't NEED to work should receive support for child care as both are life style choices. If your money is required to put food on the table of course you need support, but if you and your partner earn enough no you shouldn't expect support.

So why is somebody working and not paying tax contributing more than somebody not working? Also, what does it matter?

Annie, we are also a family on a very low income, I was asking a question that is all. My problem with child care support is as stated above.If it is needed like for e.g people on low incomes then fir enough. However, its not right to support one life style choice and not another imo

Well I agree 100% with your last post rino!

I'm confused about what validation these SAHP want as well. Tbh I agree with you that if, like your DH, they feel they are doing the right thing and doing it well, that should be validation enough in itself. It's a shame though that he gets hostility from some SAHM though, and I have to say I kind of agree that it may be a female thing (dons flame proof suit too!!) I do think there is a certain type of woman who wants to be a SAHM, and actually feels she has more of a right than her partner to be the one who stays home, and is maybe threatened not only by WOHM but by SAHD. Which is sad but maybe true. I hasten to add I don't think all SAHM are like this at all, but it seems there is some truth in it from your DHs experiences

Morethanpotatoprints. You have stated on other threads that prior to having children, you were a HR tax payer. You have also said your husband is on NMW. Therefore you made a choice to have the parent with the highest earning power giving up work. You deliberately chose this situation as a lifestyle choice, when you could have chosen to still have a parent at home and be less reliant on benefits . It just beggars belief, even more so in this context, that you persist in thinking its unfair for families where both parents work to get some help