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?

Yes thinkaboutit I do think it's good govt policy to incentivise work (providing there are jobs available but that's a whole other issue). However why should families with one SAHP not be able to access this tax break? As sinister pointed out above there are lots of good reasons why a SAHP might need childcare. No one seems to have come out with a good reason why a SAHP/ WOHP family shouldn't be able to access this help, other than saying 'its unfair that SAHP get a break'!'

Please can we stop the SAHM v WOHM debate now. It is pointless. Everyone does the best they can do in their own personal circumstances.

The main issue is the high cost of childcare. I would like to see state run nurseries which charge to cover wages/expenses only. Nurseries ran as a private business are obviously going to charge as much as they can. The tax break is not enough really, and prices will probably increase by 2015 anyway.

I have viewe a nursery where the owner had 5 flash cars in the driveway. It made me because I couldn't afford a place there. Can't we run state nurseries at sure start centres? That would be a vote winner for me.

Well, it's been said countless times before... You cannot compare a working couple (working twice as many hours) with a single worker.

I speak as someone who is losing CB . It hurts. But I would rather when cuts have to be made, that its the relatively well off people who lose rather than the poorer. And anyone who is a HR tax payer is relatively well off, however much people want to deny it

Anyway- if a SAHP is so outraged to be losing CB when some 2 WOHP get to keep it, there's always the option of getting your partner to find a less well paid job, and both of you working and earning, say 30k each. Funny how you don't see people queuing up to do that though... Probably because after childcare costs ( even with tax breaks) plus 2 x commute etc they know they may not be as well off...

No janey, that's not living in the real world is it? How easy would it be realistically (especially at the moment) to suddenly get a job on maybe 2/3 of what you were previously earning - most people wouldn't even interview you for being too expensive and overqualified compared to other candidates. It's way too simplistic to just say 'get another job' - most people are hanging on to theirs for dear life at the moment and trying to make the best of their own situations. It's not right to say one way is 'better' than the other.

Also - at the moment, WOHP/ SAHP families can claim childcare vouchers if the WOHP's employer is in the scheme. So yes this new policy does discriminate against SAHM.

Ok that last point was slightly facetious!
But I stand by what I said: when cuts have to be made, it's only right and proper that they come from the better off ( and I speak as a HR tax pager.)
In the wider scheme of things, a family with a HR tax payer are relatively well off. They are earning a lot more than average.
If my husband gave up work tomorrow, and become a SAHP, we still wouldn't get CB. Like I said, it hurts to lose something which you previously had, but at the end of the day it's not an entitlement, it was always a benefit.

Yes I 100% agree. I think most SAHP affected by all this stuff would also agree. As I said before, what most people want is fairness. If the govt decide that a couple earning £50k are well off enough to not need help then fine, cuts have to be made, apply it across the board. What is galling is to be told that cuts have to be made, you as a family are well off so suck it up, however a family earning double are somehow exempt, then a few months later oh we're giving money to families earning 6x as much!

.. I guess for anyone losing CB, it smacks of being envious of someone on a lower income, to be resentful of people keeping it, which doesn't sit comfortably with me

Hmmmm but sorry many on a lot less as a family are losing it when very wealthy families re keeping it and getting help re childcare.

2 x £30k (with CB,extra tax allowance,lower tax rate and now childcare help)are a whole lot better off than 1 £60k and that is unfair.

Theremustbe- I think this will just go round in circles though, because there is a clear divide between people who compare dual earner families with single earner ones, as if they have exactly the same pressures, outgoings etc.
And those who are comparing people as individuals .
I belong to the latter group. Having seen the reality of being a 2 x working couple, there are enormous expenses, particularly in the early years, and for most people , any 'gain' through CB or a tax break is a drop in the ocean compared to what they pay out.

Retro- it's NOT unfair because 2 people working are doing twice the work! (I know not all jobs are exactly a set number of hours but you know what I mean.)

There's never going to be agreement on this, that's for sure

However, I do find it sits very uncomfortably that any SAHP with a partner earning 60k could genuinely feel resentful of a couple both working and earning 30k each . It really does.
And actually I don't believe they really would want to trade places... I think it's just resentment that someone else is getting something that they don't want anyway.

Exactly retro. And it's got nothing to do with being 'envious' of people on lower salaries (how bizarre) - its saying pick a level at which families will no longer qualify for help and apply it to everything!

ThereMustBe - everyone has agreed to the CB issue being unfair. However, it is completely irrelevant here. No-one is "giving money to families earning 6x as much". It's not a universal benefit paid to families with 2x WOHP. It's a rebate that allows people who pay, at a conservative estimate, £1000/month on childcare to claim £100 back.

As has already been said though, if you want to pay out £1000 a month as a SAHP in order to claim £100 back, be my guest.

I see no reason why, at the end of the day, this policy should be limited to families where both parents work. Instead limit it to families who are spending a set amount on childcare. The government would probably still get more back on the taxes paid by nursery than they are paying out.

It really isn't janey. As I said earlier, a lot of people in the SAHP/ WOHP couple are not there through choice. For many, it costs to go to work. Unless you have spare money sitting around then this isn't an option. It is not as simple as 'poor WOHP, lucky SAHP'. There are benefits and disadvantages to both. I doubt we'll see many WOHP complaining when in 10 years' time they have good careers and salaries. Likewise, I doubt we'll see many SAHP complaining that they didn't see as much as they would like of their kids. Both ways have good and bad sides and its bizarre to act as if one is harder/ easier/ better/ worse than the other.

Yes Annie that is all I'm saying! Why not allow all parents to access childcare help if they need it, for whatever reason?

Janey errrr sahp parents are working(my dp used to go to work for a rest).

And there in lies the problem folks.

Sahp are not valued and the interests of all families and children are not valued.

You talk about WOHP going to work for a rest... Well, therein lies the problem

Actually I would be perfectly happy for all parents to have access to the tax breaks which allows for a tiny bit of money back from the amount spent on childcare. No problem with that at all.

One thing... We keep hearing about how it costs to go to work, and that the reason many women are held back.. But then suddenly a 2 x working couple on 30k each are soooo much better off than a SAHP with a 60k earner partner. Talk about trying to have it both ways

ok just look what hubby earns net

40k gross
30k net.

we get paid 2300 child benefit.
save on childcare vouchers £40 a a month which is £480 a year for 1 day nursery 51weeks a year.

so 2800 we get back.
so pay £7200 income tax and ni per year.

we dont get tax credits or housing benefit

private rent is nearly 9k a year.
£130 a month council tax
road tax for 2 vehicles as in inherited 1 and worked out cheaper due to long commute and petrol costs.

we pay duty on petrol, booze ect
we pay vat on most good and services

how is my husband 1 earner contributing less than 2 lower paid earners?

for such a small amount seems odd

with current vouchers 1 parent has to be in work and sacrafice their salary.

its capped for basic and higher rate so only right that basic rate tax payers get better savings I agreed with that change,its capped max £243 per parent. you can only claim waht you use its not cash to do as we wish so cannot be abused.

new scheme recjon cost them more
and not target the people who need it.

was reading really sad article other day about how cancer suffers have huge financial difficulties and little support and when think how common cancer is these days.

If a mum needed treatment
hubby still had to work keep roo over head and pay the bills/
they had no family they would need childcare,

I see how many members of my dads sie family stepped up caring for nan as she needs 24hour watching now.

I dont think we being greedy and entitles just want some fairness
we worse of on 1 income havent been abroad in years.
but we be no better off due to childcare costs so catch 22.
hubbys the higher earner if was reverse he be at home.

Most people crunch the numbers and if the numbers dont add up andyou work for pittance or at loss and cause extra stress to family then im not sure if working is a good thing,

I think everyone has right to chose and people should stop being so judgemental life is not black and white.

Why does it have to be one or the other? both are hard work, neither are an easy option or a rest. Both can work for different families. Why not treat families equally and let them decide?

Errr how so?

When an uber stressful,demanding job with long hours and a long commute is found to be less exhausting than the lot of a sahp with demanding pre schoolers and as a society we look down on the latter doing it as lazy ,worthless and of no value it's sad and rather foolish tbf.

But retro why should society value what you do? By which I assume you mean pay you in some way?

You are raising a family. Nothing more, nothing less. It's what we all do.

No janey no one said that. I certainly didn't! What I did say was why does a family earning almost double with two WOHP (ie 2 x £49k earners if you like) need help in the form of CB and childcare help yet the single earning family on 50k needs no help?

Retro- that's a totally subjective opinion though. FWIW when I worked part time, my days at home with toddlers were far easier than the days I had to get them to childcare before 8am, dash off to do a full days demanding work and then come home to dirty dishes and the whole tea and bed routine.
But what does that prove? Only that people are all different.
You could always trade places with your husband if you believe he has it so easy

So Retropear - you DO want to be paid for staying at home?!

Or how else do you mean 'valued'?