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?

*both BORN in the UK

peteypiranha - did I misinterpret your comment of 07:42:38? Because it sounded to me like you think SAHPs do less than WOHP and are lazy if they need a break.

I mean ones that say I need a break with government funded childcare then yes that is being lazy imo. If its because they want their children to socialise, learn etc thats fine but just for a break then that is being quite lazy.

retro the reality in Germany is that there is very little choice for mothers.

They are actively discouraged by the state and society from working. Unless you are a very highly paid woman ion Germany, it will be utterly pointless. And you will have to face societal judgement too!

And it's not just for the early years. Most mothers in Germany don't work for the first three to five years. At all. Then when they do try to re enter the workplace it is generally at much lower status/pay. Many don't ever work again.

And what they do with their free time is very rigid. Society does not encourage them to enjoy it or make free and creative choices.

I think it's a bit unfair to say lazy, because I think a lot depends on circumstances. If you are a SAHM to three pre school children with a newborn with colic and are rushed off your feet, I can quite see why you'd need a break. On the other hand if you have one child who still naps during the day then you get a break anyway.

While on the subject of breaks its equally important for SAHM to recognise that WOHP often don't get breaks either. Like I said, my working days were nursery drop at 7.45, straight to work, often didn't get a lunch break and then came straight home to full on child care, dinner, tidying...

... Although like I said earlier, there are free hours for all 3 yr olds so as a SAHP you do get a break then

I would say I was being lazy if I had my children in nursery every week whilst I wasnt doing anything and wasnt at worl even though I work more hours than full time. I would say it was lazy both ways round so Im not knocking sahms.

Um, petey, did you not say (referring to SAHP wanting childcare)

I do think though that the less you do the harder it gets as you aren't used to doing so much so get tired easier.

Surely this suggests that SAHP do 'less' than WOHP and 'get tired easier'?

Its the same for wohm or sahms the ones with the most breaks get the most tired imo. I know quite a few wohms who have their children in childcare when they are not in work and they are always moaning that they are tired. The less people do the less they can cope with imo.

Word who says we have to have the same attitude,we're not German(or Scandinavian)?

Financially it is obviously viable to give families the choice.

Shoehorning families into having 2x working parents,kids in childcare etc when they don't want it is wrong.It is possible to support families in making a choice.

I liked the German ethic of the needs of children ( school hours,outdoors,sahp if wanted)being deemed as important.

We have lost that,it is never a part of these conversations.

Exactly sinister - it's not black and white, why people try to suggest it is baffles me. Some WOHP don't need childcare as GPs etc do it for them. Some SAHP do need childcare for any of the reasons you listed and more. Why can't we just say if people do need childcare for whatever reason then let them access it? A lot of people on this thread have called SAHP 'jealous' of WOHP getting access to childcare help, but it works both ways - why are WOHP against SAHP getting help if they need it? Why can't all families take up this tax benefit if they so choose?

Its an interesting discussion. I think it's a little naive to think we can simply adopt the aspects of a country we like while being able to avoid all the bits we don't like. I think public perceptions are shaped by policy and vice versa.. It's a complex thing. I mean, we've already seen here that the moment the govt start to make it easier for parents to work, through tax breaks, there's an immediate outcry that women are being 'forced back to work'. They aren't; this latest policy doesn't affect SAHP at all, but the public perception is that as soon as you make life a little easier for one group of people, you are by definition making life harder for another. Which of course isn't true. They just perceive it that way.

On the topic of dual incomes, even if housing were to be more affordable, (and I would love more housing to be built and for a return to housing as a home rather than an asset) you are still going to get families who choose to both work and will therefore have higher incomes and be able to afford more things. There will always be that disparity between one and two earner households, and why shouldn't there be, after all there are two people working, not one. I'm not suggesting for a moment that its dual income families who push up house prices (though that ridiculous statement was made yesterday) but just pointing out that you cannot avoid people making choices. I do think there are a small number of extremists (and I am not meaning most SAHM on here) who seem to expect the same standard of living as if they were working which is bizarre.

The reason for that Janey is they have just made it harder for another group- sahp by removing CB and doing nothing to help families have one.The gov have also been disparaging against sahp inferring they don't want to get on.

But retro you were citing Germany as a model to admire!

You seem to be saying that the relatively low cost of housing over there results in more women choosing to SAH. But that's not the case.

Women don't choose to SAH. School hours, lack of affordable child care, the tax system and societal pressure, male domintaed workforce all force women to remain at home.

Yes, it is workable financially, but that doesn't make it a real choice.

In many countries where housing is (relatively) low, women do not necessarily choose to stay at home.

retro- the CB issue is not linked directly to SAHP. It's removed for any parent who earns in the HR tax band. You don't lose it because you are a SAHP (or a WOHP)

Exactly janey.

You can't say 'oh our government should adopt that system' without realising what the knock effect would be. Things don't happen in isolation!

Well, you could say that, but it's pretty daft!

The reality is that in the UK, women have been requesting, demanding begging for affordable child care. For years. It's the single biggest factor why women say they don't/can't work!

So I really can't see why those of us who won't benefot from it, be that because our DC are too old, or we don't work, or we're too rich, or whatever, can't just for once embrace somehting on someone else's behalf.

theremustbeanother
ThinkAboutIt yes exactly, most WOHP don't do it for the fun of it! Or for the good of society. ...... I do understand what you're saying about incentivising people to work from a govt perspective

But the knock on effect of WOH has more impact on society - it just does, the Outside the Home element of the descriptor means it is pretty much self defining.

And yes, this is a government poliy we are talking about. By recognising that the government would want to incentivise work you are basically recognizing that it is a good policy.

Plenty with 2 incomes earning more are keeping it.We were told it was necessary,the gov then waste money on childcare help for many who don't need it.

I have experience of the German system and know more women who were depressed and miserable as the result of it than happy, believe you me.
Its soul destroying that once you become a mother you are at the bottom of the heap, openly criticised and any career you once worked hard for is gone.
The little holiday you get is rather nice though - my friend spent hers in a psychiatric hospital because she was so depressed.

But as far as the state is concerned, a working citizen is somehting to be encouraged.

Basic economics tells us this, no?

Say a mother is a nurse and wishes to return to nursing. The government has every reason to support her.

First, she is trained at the state expense. We don't want to lost that investment.

Second, we don't want to spend more money trianing someone else if we can help it.

Third, we like need her skills when we're ill or injured.

Fourth, she pays taxes.

Fifth, the money she earns she will spend in the economy.

I can't of one single reason why it wouldn't be in the state's interest to help her go back to work!!!!!

Unless we're going down the very slippery route of saying that by working she is now a Bad Mother. That her children will turn out to be poor citizens...

janey yes the CB policy does affect SAHP disproportionately - it incentivises 2 x WOHP to earn up to £100k and still keep full CB, get 2 x tax allowances and now get childcare help too. That's great for the families who want to work this way. However the families who would prefer to have one parent SAH (often because it makes financial sense to do so, ie it would cost them to work) are discriminated against because they start to lose CB on anything over £50k, get only one tax allowance and don't get any extra help. Surely you can see that all these policies together are blatantly unfair?

And it is the needs of families(and the state) to ensure well being and happiness.

Clearly going by the German model it is economically viable particularly when you can consider that in our country an awful lot more would return earlier.