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?

YANBU. If one parent isn't working, then they don't need childcare. The argument about really low earners is irrelevant because they already get a large proportion of childcare costs paid for

Having been a working mum back when there were no tax credits and no childcare subsidies, I know just what an expensive thing childcare is.. Often the biggest outgoing , bigger that mortgage or rent. I don't begrudge working families the help at all, even though I didn't benefit from it, so it's ludicrous that SAHP can feel justified in griping

For the last time, SAHPs don't want a child care subsidy. They want some fairness and continuity in government policy. If 300k a year is good enough to receive a childcare subsidy, then 300k should be good enough to receive CB. Equally, if 50k is good enough to lose CB, then 50k should be good enough not to get a childcare subsidy. We just want continuity and fairness, not that I expect that from this incompetent, out of touch, bunch of tossers.

I would agree with transferable personal allowances to support SAHP.

I don't agree that we should all have state funding for childcare and then decide that if we are SAHPs we can spend it on something else, as an earlier poster suggested. That's like spending CB on ballet lessons. A sole earner family on 50k with a SAHP has no childcare costs (except for student parents and people trying to get back to work, where we ought to have some flexibility). Two people earning 50k between them spend most of it on childcare.

But the 300k limit is a shocker. IMO it ought to be the same limit as the CB limit. Unless there is some interaction with benefits that I dont understand, this seems like a massive own goal.

Yes, they do read the thread, They just don't necessarily agree with you!

Cross posted Butter . I've had enough now. People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. Simon and Garfunkel had a point.

YANBU.

I say that as a SAHM.

You do know that they will try mean test any free childcare.

Being a SAHM is not a walk in the park and why should they not have some access to childcare. I work FT but am currently on mat leave and do not blame anyone for using the free childcare if they are a SAHM.

The new scheme isn't so great when you consider women are more likely to be made redundant than men.

There is pressure for nurseries to turn away parents who may not earn a great deal but do not claim benefits - to make way for more 2 year old places. This is going to make the cost of childcare more expensive.

Taxation as an individual is a really important principle. If people are allowed to start transferring tax allowances then what's to stop working couples doing the same, to minimise the tax they'd pay?

Government subsidies always make things more expensive in any case. You watch, child care will miraculously increase by £1200 a year as soon as this policy comes in. Families won't save anything. Nurseries will do well from government hand outs though.

Same old sahp bashers appear on every thread.

Thank goodness RL has a demographic more inline with reality.I don't know anybody who thinks this is fair.

Tbh I think this sort of thing is starting to bring those of us shat on together.Totally changed my stance recently on the bedroom tax and a few other blatantly unfair policies.

LittleBearPad but they won't! How can you get out to work if you get no help with childcare in order to jobhunt, or retrain, or start a business? Pretty bloody difficult for a lot of families living right on the edge as it is.

Yes, I know, it doesn't take them long to make an appearance does it Butter? I agree with everything you say BTW.

Re transferable tax allowance.

Over 50% of families aren't married(we're one of them) so married couples allowance would do buggar all to help 50% of sahp families(as the gov well knows).

The government will find out exactly who thinks what in 2015. I'm not so sure I'll be in the minority then.

Agree Butter, £150 - whoopee bloody doo!! To think they think that £150 is an acceptable tradeoff for 2.5k CB. What planet are they on???

Oh fgs it's now SAHP bashing to hold a different opinion?!
If that's genuinely what people think, maybe they need to look at themselves to see why they consider being a SAHP 'the bottom of the heap'

A SAHP who actually wants to work but can't afford to will be HELPED by this. A SAHP who doesn't want to work is not affected by it. It's clearly sour grapes that someone else is getting something which you're not entitled to but don't need anyway. And yes, I am sure there are many families with a SAHP who live on tight budgets but for heavens sake, you're always telling us you're happy to make the sacrifices so you can 'raise your own children ' and not 'hand them over to strangers' etc etc so presumably you're happy with your choice. If you're so envious of other people getting a bit of help with childcare you could always get a job so you're not missing out

Don't think you are at the moment.

This kind of blatant fairness causes unease as people know they could be next and if fairness is thrown out the window who knows what other favours the Tories will bring in for their rich friends come next election t the expense of more ordinary folk.

They've sooo had their day.

Can't wait until we no longer have to look at shiny Dave,smug George or listen to patronising,lying Nick.

ihategeorgeosborne - so true. Private nurseries are rubbing their hands with glee - it is going to get very expensive to send a child to nursery.

I really really really hate George - what a plonker!

Buttercat, agree- I think they would have to allow transfers of personal allowances between more than just married people. There are lots of ways to make sure people nominate their partner and not some random person, there is no need to make it about marriage.

I HATE Tory policy on tax breaks specifically for marriage. Stable couples, yes. Marriage, not so much. (Am married myself, 23 years, btw) .

I think I've had numerous conversations with you about this over the year or so janey. I'm tired of it now. I'm off

Fine by me George. A discussion forum is for discussion. If you can't handle people with a different opinion then don't feel obliged to join in.

I just wonder if the conservatives have posters that come on mn to promote their unfair and bizarre policies.

I'd far rather they cut the top rate of tax than constantly looking for ways to give our taxes away.

It will appeal to Tory-leaning voters though and why shouldn't a Tory govt do that? Those of you bitching about them are never going to vote for them and they know that. Exactly the same way Labour pushed immigration and benefits - it gets them votes.

I don't think it discriminates against SAHPs at all. And I am one. I don't need childcare. Same way I don't get twisted out of shape at the thought of losing child benefit. I don't need it - most people don't.

And for the record I've never 'bashed' SAHP- I have nothing but admiration for families where one parent supports the other financially so that they can be home full time if they feel that's right for their family (and can accept that other people do it differently)
But I'm getting pretty tired of hearing them complaining about feeling downtrodden and unappreciated. It's not the WOHP who are making you feel like this.
At the end of the day, to be able to afford a parent at home by choice (ie not because of childcare costs being prohibitive) is a privilege, it's not something that can automatically be assumed and it really doesn't come across well to be griping about families who have the pressure and expense of both working as well as raising their children