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?

She's head of some pro sahm group but she's odious.

I'm just getting questioned a lot on my choice to be a sahm and our family finances I don't know whether its because of my age people presume I'm on benefits.

More than- I am only agreeing with what SAHM have said, that in some ways it's isolating. And it didn't say SAH is boring - I said it has moments of boredom- which I'm sure most SAHM agree with. And let's out this into context : I also said I loved being with my toddlers and found them wonderful company.
Honestly- we've now reached the point where it's ok for a SAHM to say being at home is relentless and can be isolating, but the minute a WOHM agrees, they get pounced on!

put this into context

Paternity leave (unless topped up by the employer) is less than the nmw which is probably why only 1 percent of fathers take it up.

None of the baby /child groups here refer to mothers - at all.

I don't get your post at all SS?

Motown - yes, paternity leave pay isn't great. But it's better than it was. Paternity leave didn't used to exist. It was one day off when the child was actually born. And parents now have exchangeable leave. Plus 52 weeks maternity leave (12 weeks not long ago) . Plus childcare vouchers. Plus free hours at age 3. Plus this new tax break to help.

I think there are 2 options: we can either say great, all this is really good but there is room for improvement.

Or we can moan and complain about it.

I am doing the former- even though I had my babies under the considerably worse conditions of the former situation. No value in resenting the fact that conditions have improved for parents now.

But all of this is a totally separate issue from the SAHM who seem to want payment for doing what we all do - bringing up our children and running a home

motown she was responding to me.

Maybe we're just unlucky in Surrey then!

It usually refers to the child Rino
Little insert patronising term for small children here

Janey68 - I really disagree. Having 1% of fathers take up pat leave is not fantastic progress. That under 10% of fathers are SAHPs is not fantastic progress in terms of gender inequality.

That women unemployment is as high as it was in 1988 is not progress.

When I was on mat leave the tax payer pays me for the SMP for "doing what we do - bringing up our children and running a home". Do you think the tax payer should not have paid me as I was in the same situation as SAHPs?

I really think it is totally ridiculous that SAHM and WOHM who also do unpaid work are disregarded when policy is developed.

If you don't measure it you can't value it.

As Waring says "They don't count women's work but they count on women's work."


No-one has answered my question. What do the SAHPs want for themselves as an equivalent to this tax break?

No-one is saying you're lazy, no-one is saying you don't deserve a break. That's why pre-schoolers get 15 hours free childcare and then after that, your children are at school 6 hours a day.

Some might be, but I'm certainly not saying that you serve no worthwhile role in society - if you're helping out at school/toddler group etc, that's important unpaid work that needs doing.

And everyone on this thread has agreed that there are myriad flaws in this new policy such as students, carers and part-time workers being excluded, and no provision for that difficult first month of upfront nursery fees.

But what, as people who happen not to pay tax, and who don't use paid childcare, do you feel you're missing out on and would like to get with regards this policy which is specifically aimed at people who pay tax and for childcare? How does it discriminate against you any more than uniform, equipment or bike-to-work tax rebates?

shitsinger

Well, maybe if you'd had children in the days of 12 week maternity leave and no paternity leave, you'd think it was progress.
And if you'd lived in the days when women had to give up their jobs on marriage and children and maternity rights were non existent, you'd think it was pretty fantastic

Anyway, as I say, the arguments for making working easier for parents are a totally different one to that of the SAHM who seem to want paying to be at home.

theremustbeanotherway i think scenario the government have in mind is WOHP who find themselves stuck in the trap of struggling to justify carrying on working when it's barely worth their while with childcare costs so quit.
Women losing their places on the career ladder when they have kids is a huge issue. Economically and cuturally. 60% of female graduates will never repay their student loan because they stop work and return to low paid roles that don't require them to pay.

WOHP rarely work for the fun of it, they work to keep their financial independence, or to keep skills up to date or because they worked too hard at their career pre kids to lose it.

I can completely understand from a public policy point of view why it makes more sense to support parents who need help to not drop out of the workforce, with the inherent risk they may never return at the same level. The wasted talent and public investment is enormous.

That's not to say the talent isn't employed as a sahp but it definitely makes less contribution (and pays more tax) as a sahp than say a lawyer.

Not many people happen not to pay tax Annie it is kind of really bull shit to assume that - for example people on mat leave and claim smp do get that reimbursed fully from the govt.

Many people may be paying PAYE for many years and then take a few years out when the children are little.

As I have said - lot's of unpaid work is not valued and counted.

That needs to happen first.

Oh and don't assume it is a difficult first month - some nurseries only take babies and children in certain months - so twice a year which means you may need to pay many months while looking for a job.

Laura perrins was that barrister woman who accosted clegg on his radio show. Her reasons were both ideological an she could afford to no not a great example and i guess if high powers professional woman drops her career then they considered mad.

Many of us have jobs not careers.

The post above sorry if did not make clear

i was my working life with 1 child in nursery.
we worked opposite shifts

so i still got tears at drop off at nursery

came home late

normally hubby do tea or we could afford a takeaway.

The going out wth work collegues not all time but good way to motvate my team.

I did take ny lunch hour not feel guyilty for shopping or getting coffee as I had small amount dispoble income then.

still had to do som washing when got in at night and housework on days off and holidays.

Byt that was with 1 child and 1 baby.
admit its harder with more than 1 and when they older and they delight in making mess.

I worked hard at my job but it felt like I had breaks
I had contact
I wasent looked down upon.

I have noticed locally a clkique of women who all work part time and seem to look down on people who dont work and rave on their fb about how great and hardworking working mums areor things like i love my kids but its nice to go to work for a break.

I notice this with hubby sometimes

he comes home maybe does an early says ohh you bit snappy with kids as thats bacause had them all day and they dont listen.

then half way through or end of his day off hes equally snappy and i tease him and say what were you saying to me last night about being calm.

I also perhaps im making sweeping observations here but this is how it looks round here quite a affluent cuty suburb.

lots of grandparents at school pickups.
most of the working mums have very well paid professional husbands get impression some do it as extra pin money as looking at ther cars, their hosues fact they out all time and pta used to arrange really expensive nights out .

Most are nurses, health visitors, even met part tme vet, loads of part tme teachers who admit trhemselves if they dident have term time job would get very tricky.
My 80 something year old neghbour looks after 2 grabdkids and 1 great gradkid she takes them preschool, on bus , does school pickups 2-3days a week when i ask why she just says uk expensive and her givig free childcare allows them better quality of life. I see their house and their car so they must do ok have know idea what her daughterinlaw works as.

But being in area with so many working mums and lots of mums in antentatal were in their 30,s and early 40s they had careers, they maybe brought a house pre kids ect so feel in much better position these days.

Some say they work to keep their hand in and feel as if they should.

I had my 1st child at 25 so hadent full established my career.
I worked lots of overtime was was required but realised i couldent balance family life my marraige suffred all for £300 a ,month after petrol, nursery and tax.

My aim is go back part tme then wehn they seniors go back fulltime if have to.

I know they lot little forver but think school age childcare much harder to juggle and much more fragmented.

ore than potato prints do people not see that home educating is a job?

round here its like 3things define you

where you live
your childs school and what do you your partner do for a living?
you say sahm they quickly move along .

My DP wants to weigh into the debate to pour everyone a glass og .

annie as a sahm I don't want anything

Thank you thinkabout I fancy a glass before I leave.

Shitslinger.

I don't see how the comments made bu janey could be seen as anything else, but I'm sure she is able to speak for herself.

Janey, once again I don't remember anybody saying they wanted to be paid to be a sahp and am still unaware of anybody who does.
However, I must apologise as after reading your post I was out of order in my assumption, you were belittling sahps.

ThinkAboutIt yes exactly, most WOHP don't do it for the fun of it! Or for the good of society. Most people do whatever they do for intrinsically selfish reasons. So why should a 2 x WOHP family get help to do what they want to do (both work, with all the benefits that brings - pension, career progression, job interest/ satisfaction) when a 1 x WOHP/ 1 x SAHP is not offered any help even if their costs/ incomings/ outgoings are exactly the same as the WOHP family (as in my earlier post). I do understand what you're saying about incentivising people to work from a govt perspective but let's be honest the jobs aren't there now for people who want them, let alone if every SAHP went back to work!

And Annie I think what most SAHP want is fairness in government policy. Ie if a couple earning £50k are deemed to be well off enough to not need help then apply this across the board. People get annoyed because they as a family are worse off, whilst hugely better off families are offered more and more help.

its Shitsinger

As a SAHM and a WOHM I find janeys posts well balanced.

mam29 - good post I'm off but hope you get a moment for a

Oh ffs motownmover, you know what I mean - SAHPs don't currently pay income tax, which is, you know, where this rebate is coming from. Of course I don't think they never paid tax.

And while some nurseries may have weird intakes like you describe, lots don't. It's not something I've ever heard of. So use a nursery that doesn't.

But that is besides the point - this debate is about SAHP who are happy to SAH, not job-seeking SAHPs, who we've all agreed should get help with childcare while looking for work.

I recognise that women do tons of unpaid and unappreciated work, mostly in the caring sector, and it's appalling that they are treated so shoddily when the economy would collapse completely if they weren't doing that caring for nothing.

But again, that's besides the point and doesn't answer my question.

Why do SAHP who want to stay at home, who aren't looking for a job and who don't need childcare think that this policy has any relevance to or is a reflection on them and the apparent value of their work? It's pure economics, not a social commentary.

Every single developed nation recognises that childcare needs to be government-sponsored to some level to allow the economy to function properly. I don't agree with the UK's system, but that's besides the point too.