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?

SAHP all day - slept prior to shift when DC had and then slept when they did the next day. I did split shifts so it wasn't too bad and my DC were all good sleepers.

when DC had nap

As I said that is very impressive. But if we as a country can afford to give childcare help to families earning up to £300k then no one should have to do that.

A lot of this talk of hand outs is misleading.
A hand out is something (like CB) which is money given out

A tax break simply means that someone who is already purchasing something necessary (like childcare) gets to pay slightly less. They aren't being given money.

There's a big difference.

ThereMustBe I had a DH who was so ill he couldn't work or SAHP (at that time) and interest rates of 15%.
I had no choice.

I just cant understand why no one gets that janey
If you aren't paying for childcare then how can you claim the £100 back

Theremustbeanexplanation - There might be plenty of reasons a sahp might need childcare, but the same reasons for a wohm who could have the same commitments, multiple children and a full time job. They still dont often have any childcare hours outside their work but how come they all manage to do it all? I think thats a silly reason.

How refreshing to find a thread on which SAHPs and WOHPs are debating in a civilised and (mostly) intelligent way!

I wonder whether it is the case that this proposal is more about enhancing tax revenues than about "helping parents". The government is offering a tax break to encourage more parents to enter/continue work, by allowing them to pay a small part of their childcare costs out of gross rather than taxed income. Perhaps they hope that the tax they will receive from the increase in numbers of WOHP will more than pay for the tax break ie it will be self financing. If this is right then it only serves to emphasise that this has absolutely nothing to do with the removal of CB, other than that both are moves to improve the economic position of the country.

I do wish posters would stop complaining about the fact that couples earning up to £300,000 will receive this tax break. I believe that it was set at this level because it will make the scheme relatively cheap to administer. HMRC will only have to look closely at couples of which at least one is a 45% tax payer to see whether they qualify and the numbers of 45% taxpayers are small. Do people really think that it would be better to set the threshold much lower if the costs of administering that lower threshold would hugely exceed the amount of tax relief given under the present proposal to people earning more than that threshold?

No, but they could save themselves a lot of political fall out if they just explained that they would claw it back from super high earners, by leaving the top rate of tax unchanged for a bit longer. Then we would all feel that it was a lot closer to being fair.

Though I am not sure why they can't use the exact same system as they use to check up on who gives up CB? I mean, what makes that so cheap to administer at 60k that would somehow be different for this?

Actually, forget that, I already know the answer. CB is concerned with the lower limit of the tax band, not the higher. So it's the same system. :(

Beast Yes that's right, it makes tax breaks much easier to administer if they are linked to tax rate thresholds, and no doubt they considered the HR (40%) threshold too low for this.

And it isn't only parents who pay 45% tax so your clawing back suggestion would hit people who weren't going to benefit from this tax break anyway.

The number of couples who earn anything approaching £300,000 whose children are under the age of 5 is very small so I don't think the government should spend a great deal on making sure they don't get this tax break. And in any case it hugely benefits the nation that such people should put their children in childcare, go out to work and pay massive sums in tax, so I don't actually see any reason why there should be any upper limit on it.

I would just like to point out that most SAHMs do not get 'a break' when the 15 hours kicks in. A lot of these people will already have another child by this point.

A child they have chosen to have.

I agree with janey on every single point she's made so far.

That's the kind of calculation that makes perfect sense to the treasury, and i can see the merit of it. Their political advisers will have warned them that the voters will not see it this way at all, and the views on this thread I think are an excellent selection of how it comes across. Lets hope the advisors read mumsnet!

The free 15 hours is not childcare its preschool education. The parents working status is irrelevant.

Yes but most people don't stop at one as it's a bit tiring. I think most families would have another child rather than 1 hour a day to have a sit down and have a hot drink. That's just life

I don't think many SAHMs would go back to work for an hours break a day. It's more that they find working to be more fulfilling personally and perhaps financially. I think it's a personal choice. Let's face it if your income is just covering childcare fees you are working for either a few bills or pocket money. Most SAHMs economise because they want to or WOHM do it as they feel they can't.

My 2 in nursery would cost 150 a day. We are about to use the free 15hr hours but that just means I need a nanny or a one in a mullion childminder to do the pick ups for eldest and look after the baby too so call that £35k all in or thereabouts (cheaper if i found CM that wanted to do that). I just won't do a 50hr high stress job for pocket money and to have a sexy Italian nanny raise my kids.

That's my personal choice. I would have considered working again if I had low cost nursery from age 2 that would have meant I would have kept about 2/3rds of my salary. On principle I don't think it's good not to make a profit on my income whilst missing the children.

But I had savings to cover these years so maybe that is a route for others to think about.

I think it's a middle class issue. From what I gather very low income families get the majority of their costs already paid. And, I do think working or not for the middle classes is a personal choice one way or another. I wonder how behaviour would change if nursery from age 1 was very low cost. I don't think it is as much as people think.

I bet there is someone in the govt reading these threads. Talk about free market research :)

Haha Betty there probably is! And yes, I expect you're right that this is mainly a "middle class" issue, and in a way that's exactly the point. The SAHP who are potentially middle or hgh earners are the ones who the government wants to tempt out into the workplace, to pay a decent amount of tax to improve the dire state of this nations finances. And this tax break is a carrot intended for those SAHP.

Actually I think that the government should be aiming towards a much higher percentage of chilcare costs being tax deductible - and that might make it affordable, and tempting, for people like Betty to go back to work.

Too many people are looking at this from the perspective of their own personal finances rather than what will benefit the country as a whole. As a nation we are still borrowing a terrifying amount every year to fund the gap between taxes collected and government expenditure, and that debt will be a millstone round the necks or our children and probably our granchildren too.

I have 2 in childcare full time and its 13k a year for both which I think is quite a good deal as I dont buy any food in week, dont buy my own nappies, or pay for any excursions. If you did a full time professional job I would still have lots left over, which is my plan in a few years. I think it woukd only be in London that it wouldnt be worth doing.

Why on earth do people keep brining up SAHPs needing childcare to get a break? WOHPs don't get a break - I'm on my feet from 7am to 9pm, either at work or at home dealing with DC/other domestic work. Well, okay, I get 30 mins for lunch.... Government-sponsored breaks for SAHP outside of DC being at pre-school/school is just laughable and likely to rather invalidate any actual valid points being raised.

Beast - but don't we want the government to do what's right for the country rather than what will play best politically??

WOHP's they get holidays don't they, paid sick leave too if they are paye?

Can take a day off sick and still have their childcare in place?

Annie - what is so wrong with SAHP having some childcare?

I find it quite bizarre that you have a problem with it?

Motown the problem with SAHP having more childcare paid for by the taxpayer is that the nation can't afford it!
And yes, it is an advantage to WOHP that they can take a day off sick and still have their childcare in place. If a SAHP is sick, then its an option for their working partner to take a day's leave to look after their child(ren). The flipside to this is that a WOHP has to take a day off as annual leave if their CM/nanny is sick or (if their child is in nursery) when their child is sick. If the child of a SAHP is sick, their working partner doesn't have to take a day off as leave because the SAHP is there to look after the child. So I guess it evens out.

I dont know any wohm who would send their child to childcare if they were off. I have never taken mine in when I have been sick either. I dont know many people getting paid sick day except for statutory.