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?

[AliceLongbottom]

YANBU. This coming from a SAHM. I don't understand the moaning either. I'm a SAHM. I don't need any childcare costs, as I'm here!

[ihategeorgeosborne]

When CB was removed from single income families earning 50k a year, we were told it was fair and that we have a huge deficit to pay down and those with the broadest shoulders, blah, blah, blah. Not forgetting that low income families should not be subsidising high income families, blah, blah,blah. He also announced that this would save 1b, despite the fact that it is to continue to be paid to families earning nearly double that of the single earner family. Now we hear that this new scheme will be of benefit to families earning up to 300k and will cost 1b. Basically, he has taken money away from one set of people and given it back to another set of people who earn loads. I would consider two parents working earning 300k between them is most certainly a lifestyle choice and if on 50k, I can afford to lose CB, then a family earning up to 300k a year can pay their own nursery fees. That is why single earner families are pissed off, not because we need a subsidy for child care.

[NotYoMomma]

I seen this woman on the news saying it wasnt fair as it 'isn't a lifestyle choice'

surely it is?!

[ihategeorgeosborne]

It's a lifestyle choice to have two high earning parents too.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Also, people are being forced to pay for an extra room in their house when they have nowhere to downsize. Yet money is made available for families on huge incomes to maintain their lavish lifestyles. It's all so wrong.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Its not about the childcare. A sahp doesn't need this. It is the general consensus that sahp is the bottom of the barrel and that it is only acceptable to be a 2 parent working family.
Supporting working parents does undermine the worthwhile job a sahp does.
All families should get the same support and it should be income related and means tested. If we all received money for childcare then we could decide what to do with the money.

[ExitPursuedByABear]

YANBU. But I think the threshold is far too high at £300K and there should perhaps be tax breaks for SAHM such as transferring your tax allowance.

The whole thing makes my head explode.

[TheCrackFox]

I think it is utterly farcical that it will help couples earning £300k but not help the low paid or someone working 15hrs a week.

I work but my children are too old for this to be any use to our family.

[LittleBearPad]

But a SAHP doesn't need child care in the same way as WOHP does. Why would the get the same?

[HurricaneWyn]

But Little why should a SAHP lose their Child Benefit to finance Childcare for a couple earning £300k?

[LittleBearPad]

Also PotatoPrints what is the worthwhile job SAHP do that WOHP don't - both raise their children.

[LittleBearPad]

People have not lost child benefit to finance this. They are not an either or choice. The child benefit changes were announced over a year ago.

Conflating the two is misleading.

[impecuniousmarmoset]

LittleBearPad - I say this as someone who works. What a SAHP does that a WOHP doesn't do is do the grinding work of looking after and entertaining small children between 9 and 6, 5 days a week, while the WOHP is at work! Isn't that kind of obvious?!

[MrButtercat]

Yabu

Jesus does it need pointing out again!

1 income families on 50k lose CB(even though 2 income families on over 100k keep it and have double the tax allowance).

The saving from from this was deemed necessary and those on 50k wealthy.

The saving from the above has now been put towards childcare for families on a lot more than 50k- as much as 300k.

Sahp are consistently being criticised and put down by this gov and yes discriminated against.They do nothing to help more families have one even for a short period of time.

Fine chuck away money on uber rich families on 300k but how about raising the ceiling for CB for families on one income the same.

Oh and many sahp want to go back to work and may need to retrain.They get no help re childcare in order to do this.

[3birthdaybunnies]

LittleBearPad they do all the childcare during the day - or are you saying that nursery workers/ child minder/ nanny doesn't do a worthwhile job?

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Little, the point is that when they announced that single income families earning 50k a year were going to lose CB, it was because there is a huge deficit and those with the broadest shoulders should pay the most and it is not fair that low income families should have to subsidise the CB of higher income families. This child care policy flies in the face of all that rhetoric. I thought we didn't have 1b to spend for higher rate tax payers to get CB, based on what Osborne said. Now, it turns out that we have exactly that sum of money to spend on the child care of families earning 300k. My husband is therefore funding families on nearly 6 times our income their lifestyle choice to go out to work. However, I was told that my lifestyle choice to be a SAHM didn't warrant CB

[LittleBearPad]

impecuniousmarmoset but many SAHP's choose to do that. Those who don't may be helped by this scheme to get jobs out of the home if they wish to as their child are will be somewhat cheaper.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

These people have to go in 2015 or I will completely lose the will to live

[oldham70]

I agree most sahp parents don't need this child care support. However, this govt does treat sahp like shit. As a sahp with a hrt tax paying partner we get no help. I have no incentive to work as childcare more than I could earn. My tax allowance is not transferable to dh yet I receive no child benefit becausse of his income.
However the real losers are part time workers and those on low incomes who need childcare but will not qualify. Yet those earning 100k qualify.
Another crap policy.

[DigestivesAndPhiladelphia]

OP - I totally agree with you. I was discussing this with my mum earlier and when I said I didn't think the scheme discrimates against stay at home parents, she screeched at me: "You've turned into a Tory!"

I am a SAHM. When I see headlines saying that this is controversial because stay at home parents can't claim this, I am totally confused. Working parents need childcare so they they can work.

My 2 year old does go to to nursery 2 mornings a week so that I can focus on the younger ones, but I don't expect government assistance to pay for that - it's my choice. Working parents (two working or one single parent) don't have a choice, childcare is a necessity.

[DigestivesAndPhiladelphia]

Also, I think that working parents whose earnings are below the threshold (on a low income) can still claim 70 or 80% of the childcare cost through the tax credits system.

[oldham70]

O and they say we can't possibly get rid of non means tested benefits for pensioners yet as usual working aged people are fair game. Think wfa v child benefit and bedroom tax.