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?

[Shitsinger]

I don't think it has even been mentioned sovery
Why would WOHP be outraged that another persons child got the CCV ???
If like me your first child started preschool the very day your second was born you aren't going to get "THE BREAK" whether you SAH or WOH ( was on mat leave).

[AnnieLobeseder]

There I go again doing what exactly? Replying to comments on the thread?

Both retropear and BettyandDon have referred to going to work as "taking a break". Well, from children, yes, but not a break from, you know, working!

And you yourself have brought up WOHPs getting annual leave, as if we get to spend it child-free, sunning ourselves on a tropical beach. I wish!!!

[Shitsinger]

Actually Annie I have let WOHM everywhere down today
I did spend today lying on a sunlounger in my garden reading because DH took the Dcs out .
Don't hate me ,Im sorry < whips self>

[MusieB]

It is a lovely idea that all parents should receive free childcare just to give them a break (rather than to help their children educationally) but it would be very expensive and the country can't afford it.
In answer to Motown I did not receive SMP after I had my child as I am technically self-employed. But I don't for one moment begrudge paying tax so that others may have it.
SMP is based on an assumption you'll be going back to work, so is another way of supporting mothers for a relatively brief period before they go back to work - like this tax break its about encouraging WOHP...

[motownmover]

Oh come on as if some mnetters with children who are WOHM or SAHM don't spend there time sunning themselves in overseas locations?

MusieB I do hope you got to claim mat allowance!

And what I don't get is that the new scheme is worse that CCV in so many ways. I don't get why whether you are a WOHM or a SAHM you don't get it.

[motownmover]

And what I don't get is just how unfair this is for part time workers and WOHPs and SAHPs and women on mat leave. Currently women on mat leave can claim ccvouchers while on mat leave.

If 2 of you worked you could both claim 243 a month so cumulative total of 5,813.

No but now it is going to be 1,200?

And if you are a student or work say under 16 hours you won't qualify?

[Shitsinger]

Im sure lots of people are sunning themselves overseas -lucky them
What on earth are you on about motown??

[motownmover]

And I'm sure lots of people holiday with their children - funny that?

I don't buy the I'm so hard done by as a WOHP, I never get a break and why should someone else get a break.

[solveproblem]

Motown you don't get £243 per month, this is the amount of your income you don't pay tax on.

[motownmover]

I do understand that. The amount I quoted is what can be claimed in CCV.

What you do not pay tax on.

[motownmover]

So if you claim £2,916 you can save £886.

So two WOHP's will be worse off.

Oh and by excluding children over 5 it will remove people from accessing help.

[motownmover]

Oh and don't forget you could claim the whole lot of CCV at once in one point in the tax year - very handy for women who might be at risk of redundancy and needed to pay for childcare while looking for a new role?

[Shitsinger]

Eh ?
Whether you SAH or WOH most people take holidays with their DC - why is that funny
Who is saying WOHP are hard done by ?- if you want a break then pay for it - WOHP or SAHM .

[motownmover]

Upthread there were some comments like -

"You (SAHM's) are always saying they're happy to make sacrifices to raise their children so they'll be happy with their choice... and saying if they are so envious of others they could always get a job so they are not missing out"

There were lots of snide comments actually.

And begrudging of women who had the free childcare hours .. saying it was gym time.

[Shitsinger]

Why are you are over reacting to some silly comments?
The thread had moved on - its a good idea to stop being reactive and make valid intelligent points rather than silly tit for tat point scoring.

Im both SAHP/WOHP - the new system wont benefit me at all but I really don't begrudge WOHP a tiny bit of help at all.

[Beastofburden]

Soverylucky... I would say, the proposed tax breaks make it clear that a similar, but ot identical, system is needed to support SAHPs. Paid for childcare is mainly relevant to WOHPs. Transferable personal allowances OTOH would be mainly relevant to SAHPs.

Rather than bite one another in the ankles, it would be intesting to discuss how MN might campaign for this.

[motownmover]

Good that you don't begrudge WOHP but they will get LESS help.

And when I give you some examples about where WOHP were outraged by SAHP receiving CCVs I'm suddenly overacting.

Anyway back to the OP yes SAHM are disadvantaged by this change - how could anyone possibly think they are not?????

[Shitsinger]

How would that pan out for those of us who do both roles ?
I WOH fulltime but don't use childcare as we both work flexibly- am confused as to how it would work.

[motownmover]

You will be worse off if 2 SAHM work flexibly.

If you work less that 15 hours a week or earn less than 350 a week you won't get this.

The new scheme will disadvantage a lot of people especially those who critically depend on CCV to get in and stay in work.

Once again this govt will hit those who are too busy working or raising children or both to lobby them effectively.

Outrageous top income earners don't need the help single families and families where both parents work or one parent works and one stays at home need better help that this bs proposal.

[motownmover]

oh and Shitsinger - you probably already know this but you could use CCV for a range of child activities as long as it was undertaken by a registered childminder.

This will mean a lot of small business people are impacted - music teachers, sports, other educational activities.

Oh and don't forget no one will know what to do when they have a 6 year old as no doubt they'll try screw people further.

[solveproblem]

Surely the new scheme will be for any registered childcare setting as well? Why wouldn't it be?

[AnnieLobeseder]