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?

oh, morethan, please try to understand.

1. It's not "supporting a lifestyle choice" to enable people to work. People in work benefit the economy, even when they have partners who also work and could hypothetically afford to stay home. They do jobs which mesh and interact with other jobs, plus they pay thousands of pounds in tax and boost the economy. So in return, they get to keep £100 of these many hundreds that they are putting into the economy by working.

2. what equivalent would you actually like the "other lifestyle", ie SAHP, to receive? Because if they were also to receive £100 a month, it would be a simple cash hand-out, not earned, not a small rebate from hundreds paid out.

I honestly don't understand your point or what you expect SAHPs to receive to balance this perceived inequality.

Rino,

why are sahms nasty to your dh? That is awful. I know 2 single sahds and they were always helped and supported, the women flocked to help but both were left holding the baby to coin a phrase.
I don't think it will ever be right until everybody has free choice to woh or sah, and the support to make those choices.
Maybe females are more in tune with what society thinks in general, especially through forums such as this. I think some men just get on with it and don't bother as much. I also think that sahps quite often seek validation for their role because people say they are lazy if they don't work, or scroungers if they dare to accept benefit to which they are entitled.

Recieveing childcare tax credits is nothing like using them to be a sahp. Sahps are only bringing up their own children, whereas the ones working and doing that are looking after the elderly, sick, disabled, large groups of children etc. As well as working in lots of other valuable services we couldnt cope without.

You don't think it will ever be right until everyone has the choice to work or stay at home? seriously ??

Wow. Wonder what happens when hordes of people decide that life not working is more comfortable. Who pays their rent/ mortgage/ bills/ food...never mind who will provide all those important services such as hospitals, schools, shops...

In fact, I'll throw my question out to all the folk crying "unfair!" about this proposal. We've identified flaw with it, true enough, and hopefully they'll be addressed before it becomes policy.

But those of you who are just stamping your feet and saying it's not fair to SAHP who are in that position by choice - what would you like to see done to redress this "inequality" of WOHPs getting back a small amount of the tax that is taken from their salaries every month to help cover childcare costs?

And why aren't you equally upset about uniform, bicycle and equipment tax refunds?

Potato, I have to pick you up on this.

but if you and your partner earn enough no you shouldn't expect support.

Why do you think that?

Why shouldn't people who aren't on the breadline, meaning the majority of the population, expect to be recieve support at certain times in their lives from the system that they contribute to? They are worthy of consideration from their government too you know! The state is supposed to support all it's citizens, not just the ones that claim benefits.

Janey don't think we need the high drama.

Very few people want to be a sahp forever or all at the same time.

Particularly, brokensunglasses, in the context I mentioned earlier. Morethan potatoes has said before that she was a HT tax payer pre kids, and her husband earns minimum wage. They have chosen to have the partner with the greatest capacity to support the family financially, give up work, thereby facilitating the lower earner to receive tax credits. Yet families with two earners are begrudged a bit of bloody tax relief on their huge childcare bills. The mind boggles at the sense of entitlement coupled with resentment

Annie the type of families you refering to wont be helped by this scheme as its for earners earning 11k each per year so lowest amount on national min wage would be combined income of 22k to get these vouchers.

They may get the working tax credit element but only if they both working total of 24hours now. if they zero hours contract or just 1 in employment and others looking for work then yes they probably stuck in poverty.

I dont want validation big pat on back,
if I could find job that worked well and had childcare i would go back.
I dont think im better than working mums I used to working mum myself when just had 1 so have been there,

I think some jobs are more flexible and suited to part time of family life sadly retail manager wasent .

I know lots of part tme teachers and nhs workers.

Infact most mums here are part time dont know many fulltime.
many have high earnng husbands, well paid jobs and nice houses but many brought years ago so their mortgage not sill amounts something like 20-300 quid a month,Many rely on family and childminders not many use nurserys.

Its their choice and think good on them allows them foreign holidays and huge cars

Someome said easier to go part time if already with employer,if wantng ob share or part time and you not flexible quite tricky to find jobs.
Also helps in both parents on comparative incomes having 1 high earner and 1 low or no earner skews things a bit.

under these proposals part time mums will be xcluded even though they going out and making a contribution.

I used the low earners contribtion and fact they get kire as example as few were saying we put nothing in why should we get anything back we not contributing to the tax pot.

Anything we do could be lifestyle choice we could say to low income low skilled worker well you chose not to get qualifications or go u i so why are we subsidising your income because you have kids and dont earn enough.

Im not saying I belive that we have a welfare state to be fair,

Over the years think its become very skewed and out of control.

there are 3groupps sahm

the very wealthy who do lunch, spas ecet never even dream of workinga s they dont have to.

midel group some choose to stay at home as its best for ther family often making saqrafices,

3rd group who maybe redundant, couldent find job who want to go back could do with going back as need extra money but cant get over the childcare costs.

I dont think sahm want validation some acknowldgement by governemnet and others that we not lazy its not the money that5s bugging me its

the language they use hard working familys
strivers not shirkers that people object to,.

also the stupid contradcitory anomolys

of you can tac as indivual and as a couple pck one as tahts what creaded child benefit fiasco and now this silly 300k thing

I think theres groups which wont get the scehme and they wont get child tax credits,.

I dont think the 50-60k group are rolling in it and being told they have to give up their cb because they rich then this cack handed policy of giving 2nd home owners mortage relief and thse childcare voucher threshold so high can see why they bit peeved.

sorry for typos spelling errors small boy on my lap whislt cooking tea and typing multiask too far.

morethan who knows! They just ignored him totally (even though he tried startig conversations) or they were patronising as in 'you see, it's not as easy as it looks is it, men can't cope with young children' sort of thing. My husband has looked after our son since he was 6 months old so that used to annoy him more than the ignoring! Our son has never even asked for a playdate (though he has lots of friends at his preschool), my husband is never invited for a 'coffee while the kids play'. They seem to just think its odd for a man to be a SAHP or something.

Things only hanged very recently, after I went with him for drop off/collection a few times when on annual leave.

Since then he's been talked to an our son has even been invited on a play date. It's like because thy saw e was married they thought 'oh, he must be ok then'.

It's truly bizarre!!

Changed not hanged!!

To follow on from BrokenSunglasses and to look at it from another angle - should people therefore expect to be put on the breadline by having children, since childcare costs will usually effectively reduce their pre-DC income by half? I understand that when a parent opts to stay at home this may also mean a similar reduction in income. But surely it's not unreasonable to for people to expect not to be reduced from comfortable to poverty by producing the children that everyone needs to become the society of tomorrow while still paying taxes?

Let's look at it from yet another angle.

Say someone earns £2000 a month. They pay £400 of this to tax, so have a nett of £1600 (I'm leaving out NI etc for simplicity). Then they pay £1000 on childcare, leaving them £600.

The nursery will then pay tax too, plus the nursery staff paying income tax on the salaries that are paid out of the £1000 our hypothetical someone earned. I don't know how much businesses pay in tax (if you're Amazon, Google or Starbucks, nothing, but then they don't provide childcare! ) but a quick Google search suggests 23%. So that's 230 of the £1000 going to the government.

In total, out of the £2000 earned, the government gets £630, the worker gets £600, the nursery gets the rest. All the new proposals do is change the balance slightly so that it's £530/£700.

But yes, sure, let's say that people who work should get to keep less of their salaries than the government's cut.

Omg this is going round in circles.

SAHP don't need childcare, therefore don't need £100 a month tax break towards it. Tbh does £100 actually make that much difference to an individual family- not really. As a country though this policy will cost billions which as a whole we probably can't afford. It is just the Tories trying to win votes. I vote Tory and I'm a SAHM.

However the tax system needs to be fairer and allow the SAHP to transfer their personal allowance to the working parent otherwise it is a very one sided policy.

It seems to have also become a competition over what is better, SAHM or WOHM everyone has their own opinion, everyone has their own circumstances and own experiences which influence the decisions they're making. Having children is a lifestyle choice for EVERYONE that has them regardless of your employment status. Saying that being a SAHM is a lifestyle choice is IMO an evocative phrase and was used to diminish any moaning from SaHP and to paint the picture of a privileged middle class parent.

The major problem I see with this is that the government isn't allowing the free market economy to exist. It's a bit like housing benefit and some other benefits in general - the Governemt is subsidising incomes and in effect therefore artificially inflating affordability which ultimately leads to inflation. It's a great big house of cards waiting to crash down .....

Annie agree but why cant they do what they do in other countres

subsidise more nursery places/ open more state ones.

making it cheaper affiordable for all.

which means more people likly to use chldcare
more jobs created and employees paying tax,
Also assume my nursery bill pays vat.

would love to know how other countries manage it when they dont start school until 6-7,

Extending 15hours to 2years olds be good. at moments its for very deprived and kids that come from troubled backgrounds.

I was thinking earler about some comments

sahm mums begrudge working mums help I dont think we do,

before they messed about with child benefit everyone got it weather they were prince george or lived on council estate.

It certainly wasent enough incentivise people have kids but token gesture that our breeding is rceognised and our kids will cost now but be tax payers of future and probably get less in benefits and pensions that we get now in future years to come

No one ever quibbled that rich people got it was not a stigma and very few thourght if it as benefit

Then in the space of a year

we get

child benefit for join earners not single income but couple
then we get the rheotiric aqbout hardworking families and how higher tax rate payers should realise this is fair as uk broke and we need to support the people that need it.

The we get this childcare propsoal which takes away vouchers from one working couple household and gives to too highre rate tax payers who are keeping their child benefit and you dont expect people to feel this is unjust?

It sends a message they not said it but message is clear.
then when god forbid sahm voice an opinion as we entitled we get accused of being jealous, silly and mean spirted.

There are far too many hols in this policy.
its gong to be expensive to administer
it wont push everyone back to work if they can find jobs.
baffled why they pioss off so many voters over such a small saving ok we dont pay direct incokme tax but we sure do have avote.
They would never dream of doing this this to pensioners.

Agree rac mum

I hate tax credits.

all they do is subsidise low wages.

only person whos doing well out uk is business

We have hghest working hours in europe.
non freindly to family employers

if large firls were forced to have their own on site nursery would be good.

that they realise sometimes they had to invest and give a leg up so making retraining and education for adults to do complete mistake.

why they not building affordable housing
making private tenancies more secure
taxing 2nd home owners
letting corporations pay no tax.
ensuring all state schools and even change holidays so they more working parent freindly as many are not.

I suffed huge discrimntaion when I went back to work place in hindsight I should of gone to trubunual as they made it clear that they would not budge an inch.

help unemployed get real jobs they qualifed for

put restructions on zero hours.

We broke we need radical rethink or yes interest rates will rise eventually and everything fall apart.

if everything else was more affordbale childcare wouldent seem such finacial burden.

Childcare workers are paid peanuts they not profiteering over high costs.

worked with preschool last year cleaner gets pai more than qualified.
I know how much their income and expenditure is and spent many a sleepless night worrying over numbers as any not starting until they get grant funding term after 3rd birthday.

The changing ratios wont lower costs for sure.

Janey 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.

Yes you can suggest being a SAHM can be equivalent to paid employment.

If you use a childminder or nanny surely you pay them and it is their job isn't it?

Why would a SAHM not have a job?

It is down to how things are valued in a flawed patriarchal system that you don't value SAHM.

If people don't really see that the economy works due to unpaid and very low paid work they really are quite strange and I think entitled and yes living in a bubble.

By the way why don't SAHP need some sort of childcare?

I'm really interested but should they not be deserving of a break ever? God forbid!

Motown; I agree with you, they should make this universal and let anyone who spends £6000 on childcare get £1200 back. At least then some people won't feel discriminated against.

People have explained as infinitum why caring for your own children is not the same as being a paid childcarer. A paid childcarer is performing a job which an external party needs doing. They need to meet external standards - not just ofsted, but also parental expectations. If a childcarer is rubbish, parents will vote with their feet. And a nursery, nanny or childminder pays tax when they earn above the threshold. The other factor is that anyone working in these roles (and indeed in any other role) is that they do it as well as bringing up their own family.

A SAHP is indeed performing many of the tasks that a childcarer might (and also often the tasks a gardener or housekeeper might!) but they are not performing it for an external party. They are doing it for themself. Which is fine. I just don't see why they expect to be paid for (or who they expect to pay them)

To follow this line of thought, it's rather like me as a WOHM wanting to send a bill in for the hours I spend looking after my kids before dropping them at the childminder, or for after picking them up. Oh and how about a bill for being a chauffeur when I drop them at a friends. And hang on -I pay my cleaner, but I also sometimes get the Hoover out myself. I should put in a bill for that too.
Just not sure who I should be billing for looking after my own children and home...

I think the medias not helped they either portray sahm

as sponging off benefits and expecting tax payer to pick up lifestyle.

They seem to think we sit in coffee shops a lot which i dont costly and dont go hairdresses, have nails done or even afford gym membership.

we not all card carrying nct members , dong bake sales im crap at cakes and clogging up wth roads with our mummobiles.

Or we some sort of sexist acrchaic 1950s housewife things really have moved on when hubbys not working he pulls his weight housework is split.

When hes sees kids he tried to spend quality time with them.

I have family planner and organising where all 5 of us are at specfic dates, times can be stressful occasionally we have some clashes and I can only be in 1 place at once.

Its a juggling act. I dont have cleaner to elaget to.
Or a little woman to do my ironing.

only respite i have is preschool and nursery.

dd2 does 1 whole day at nursery and shes just missed starting this september so another year of paying them, yes she gets 15hours but 38weeks a year nursery rubs for 51 and grant does not cover it .

2year olds dome 2terms at preschool just 2.5hours a week as hv said it be good for his speech development and socialise.
2,5 or 3hiur preschool sessions sure go fast its normally when i frantically clean followed by 2hour walk on pm school run,

hubbys home at 9 again tonight doen 7-8 shift today.
im very tired and have 3kids
house looks like bombs hit it.

its not all gravy being at home.

Actually I agree with solve problem, I would be more than happy for anyone who is spending the £6000 to get £1200 back. I bet that's suddenly not looking like quite such an attractive offer to the SAHM who just fancy a break is it ?

Yes the UK has the highest rate of childcare in Europe.

I think it is awful that a SAHM who looks after small children won't be able to use vouchers. I think it will show in increased mental health issues. In Germany mothers can actually take a break where they get a chance to relax with their children, go to a resort and not have to cook and clean.

I find it interesting how the participation of women in the paid workforce is so much higher in countries where there is greater gender equality and better childcare. In Germany if you are a SAHM you get at least 150 euros per month.

Basically CB didn't go very far for women anyway but it was something.

I also can not believe people who do not class a SAHM as someone who does work! I really wonder if some of these people have every totally cared and looked after someone else on a full time 24-7 basis!

I also can't believe people are so gullible with this govt. They have an age limit to the tax break - ridiculous.

The school year does not work for a couple who work FT - it is sickening that they won't get help past the age of 5.

Also women who work part time will not be able to claim a large part of their income in ccvouchers - so that will disproportionately affect them and it is hard enough to get well paid part time work.

Mam I think that childcarers are paid poorly for what they do - and this is another form of gender inequality, despite childcare being very expensive in the UK.

Janey please do tell me about these SAHM's who just fancy a break?

You are very condescending to SAHM.

Janey sorry you don't get it all do you.

If unpaid work by WOHM and SAHM is not valued and allowed for in policy making then the policy excludes women unfairly on a gender basis.

Just like this govt has done with CB and is going to do with this new system of cc "help".

You seem really keen to let the status quo keep going - is it because you got your wonderful 3 day a week job and had a fab time and just don't get or understand how others have it?