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?

Why thank you shitsinger

Thank you for answering, wannabe - but assuming you feel the same as other SAHPs, why, if you don't want anything, are there complaints about this policy being unfairly biased against you?

Similarly to theremustbe - thanks for answering. And I can recognise the unfairness of how the government is applying apparently random caps on different benefits/tax breaks and it galls when very high (top 1%) earners appear to be getting help while the rest of us are struggling so much. But then, why complain that this policy is unfair specifically to SAHPs- why not instead complain that is unfairly benefits high earning families at the expense of low-earning families.

shitsinger

Sorry, got your nn wrong

Good post annie

And janey, I agree with singer too

janey love your posts, might not agree 100% on everything but right up there in the 90s!

morethan as you home educate, I think that counts as a job! I did toy with the idea but don think I could get the little beggars to sit down for long enough

Apologies if I have missed something but I don't think SAHP want money I think that (as other posters have said) they want some continuity with government policy.....not going to happen!

Just to make it clear I don't give a shiny shit either way, being a parent is hard enough without feeling that you are being judged for how you decided to do it!

annie agree completely with your last paragraph

annie I don't think it is biased against sahm I think it's a good idea my only worry is women will feel they have to go back to work and will feel like being a sahm isn't an option to them.

I think the major opposition is Hrt payers feel its unfair they don't get cb but couples earning more get this break. IMO the amount of tax your paying if your earning £150,000 you deserve a bit of relief

But annie I agree with you on some things.

but you started the post with title that the new childcare reforms discriminate against a sahm So thats the discusson/debate we been having,then you say to must be we shouldent be focussed or hung up on this point?

think both sides made their veiws felt hate their being side and some of us have tried to put each others shoes and still disagree and the whole value and how much tax people pay been trotted out again.

No sahm are saying they want payment.

They are saying this policy is crao it wont help more into work.
it may help 2people already in work
will disadvantage part time workers predominantly women.

or we get 1 is a lifestyle choice other is not.
we all live diffrent ends of country where job opportunities and childcare vary as oes living costs and wages.

Also many dont live near family like they used to.
people move where the jobs are.

Is mumsnet getting involved in this consulation?
i know they have bounty campaign just think regardless of working or sahm parent we should contest this until its fairer and more sensible.

Yes Annie totally agree with that.

Rufus

It doesn't count as a job as there is no payment, and of course I am not paying into the pot. I wouldn't expect to be paid neither. I consider myself a sahm and I help my dh in his business, so always something going on. I don't expect to be paid as a sahm neither, but believe in a fair system for all. I can see why many sahms feel they need validation for their role though. Headlines and gov speeches all revolve around boosting the ego of workers and unless you work you are a scrounger, or lazy etc. Its all we hear these days and sad to think that women have come so far to gain equality and are falling for the worst conquer and divide spin ever.
What good are childcare vouchers to sahps, its not about the child care imo, too.

morethan nope, appreciate it isn't a job and is therefore not paid but by not using the school system you must be saving the tax payer money

wanna but is that not the gripe that some SAHP have that if you are paying a boat load of tax (on the stated figure of 150k) that you should get some relief?

Its just some of comments its not perfect but its step in right direction.

I find it hard to find any positives in this flawed policy as will leave many low income families worse off as part time emploment or employment under 10k does not count.

Being a student still a huge issue
think hes said somethng about carers

but what about a mother whos in ill health and has lots hospital appoitments and treatments.

Threes so many different scenarios where a sahm is not just a sahm mum.

Its far too restrctive a policy.

Agree with more than all these speeches and no mention of people who scarfice their careers and income to look after their kids, and tone like we the next group of people to look down on.

Tbh I think the issue of validation is over egged anyway. I get a salary for my work- not numerous pats on the back and everyone telling me well done when I walk into the office.
Sure, there is appraisal, but that cuts both ways.. If I meet my targets, great, but if I don't then there are consequences. At the end of the day, you might not get the upsides of a good appraisal as a SAHM but then you also don't risk the downside of a poor appraisal.

And actually while many people with careers and professions will get the fulfilment and validation of knowing they are an expert in a particular field or making a difference to people's lives , there are an awful lot of people out there in menial jobs who don't get encouragement from their line manager and may feel undervalued .

So I think it's a bit of a myth that everyone out there in paid employment is being constantly told well done.

I'd like to see the same childcare 'benefits' for everyone regardless of income.

Everyone should have the same chance of working without being held back by having extraordinary costs. It is up to the individual whether they want to stack shelves or be a stockbroker. Or stay at home if they are able to afford it.

If you need childcare to be able to work it should be available to all at a low cost a bit like the 15 hrs free but from an earlier age and for normal working hours if you require it.

But I am not exactly a politically minded individual.

Some of the childcare near us is akin to taking out another mortgage, albeit it does involve yoga and such for 2 years olds which is slightly unnecessary. I wouldn't expect Cameron to pay for tiddles to do yoga! But that is another issue...

BettyandDon, who do you suggest picks up the bill for all this "free" childcare?

rufus I can understand why sahm married to Hrt payers find if unfair but realistically how many people earn £150,000 and how many people earning that amount are really going to fill out loads of forms to claim it.

I think this policy is really another example of the governments divide and conquer plan

I think it would be interesting if the government raised the minimum wage and helped small businesses and business start ups more instead.

More people would then be able to afford child care, if they wanted it -straight off. It would mean there would be less government incentivising as to how families decide who earns the money.

Think you are probably right wanna but a lot of people on that sort of wage wouldn't turn down " free" cash for the sake of a few forms.

Not that I have a problem with that per se

I don't support childcare benefits regardless of income. Because it will be a drop in the ocean to high earners and a lifeline for people who don't earn a lot.

So apparently, what the last few posts are saying is that when you boil away any reference to SAHP and their apparent worth or lack thereof on this thread, we all pretty much agree on what's wrong with this policy and the SAHP argument has been a massive red herring clouding rational debate on the issue.

Which was exactly my point in the first place!

And seems to give weight to the view some people have expressed that "poor neglected SAHP!" angle was deliberately thrown into the press by the government to set us arguing amongst ourselves and distract attention from those very flaws.

Think that pretty much sums it up annie!

janey

you make a very good point there regarding the appraisal, whilst there are some very hands on sahps there are bound to be differences in standard of care. It is parenting amongst other things and all parents are different whether sah or woh. However, if much of society were against the job that you did, if you were discriminated against and your job not recognised as valuable you would be a tad bit pissed off.
Being a sahp needs to be deemed a valid valued choice so that women in particular are still able to make that choice. You have to be strong to go against convention now it is being a sahm, years ago it was being a wohm. I would like to see a time when all choices are valid and encouraged.

Sorry, was typing and missed the summary.
But, yes I agree especially the poor sahp bit.
Although, I think they have added a lot of fuel to the argument as well.

Fair enough but I still think its parenting which needs to be valued. Good parenting. And that can be done by WOHP and SAHP. I think the message the govt and the media need to give is that we need parents to raise happy and well adjusted individuals. If this were validated by govt and media (not sure how though) then surely all good parents would feel better.
But I can't see why the govt should single out SAHP for specific praise when some of them might be doing a first rate role and others might be sticking their kids in front of the telly for 6 hours a day, or not feeding them properly or whatever.