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?

Erm I have and would have voted Tory,same re my parents,inlaws,sisters,friends.......Not a chance now.

HTP traditionally vote Tory.Silly,silly Dave shafting your own voters.

Oh, and whoever says that with their salary of 50k they are funding the lifestyle choices of a family on 300k - get a bloody grip. That family is chucking about 150k in the tax pot every year - funding plenty of people's lifestyles choices.

That's where you're wrong Period. I did USED to vote conservative. I didn't in 2010, because I couldn't stand David Cameron (and with good reason). Bloody glad I didn't now too. I've certainly learnt my lesson with tories. My dh feels the same, so that is two permanent ex-conservative voters.

I am also mystified as to why it is a ' slap in the face for SAHP's! ' They don't work, therefore pay n tax, therefore don't get a tax break! They also don't need childcare vouchers, or tax free childcare! Acept the point re: students etc, but not the ones re: higher rate taxpayers losing their child benefit and the vouchers. If you are married to someone on over £65,000 you probably are making a lifestyle choice. You can afford childcare if you went out to work, but choose not to. That's fine. I wish it was a choice I could make, but I can't. Also, how many couples both work in jobs that pay £150,000 each, plus have children? I agree the limit is far too high, but the vast majority of families affected, I suspect will be families like mine, with one person on a fairly average wage and one working part time, who actually do need to work to pay the bills and could do with a tax break. It does seem to me that some SAHP's make snide comments about how they up their own children but then want the taxpayer to fund childcare for them- why? If it is so terrible that you can't go back to work and put your kids in it do you want childcare vouchers?

So, why then period do people say that lower earners are funding CB for HRT payers? That line seems to get trotted out constantly.

Haven't noticed any such snide comments on here dana

Childcare is very expensive. DH earns 14k and I earn 18k. We couldnt live on 18k so we need the extra cash coming in purely to meet our low living costs. We arrange our shifts so that we need as minimal childcare as possible but due to the high costs of such childcare we are forced to pay, we have no money spare at the end of the month. It isnt the fault of working parents that the cost of childcare is so high - the Government have the jurisdiction to make it more affordable and this is one way of doing it.

Maybe they should make this a universal thing to stop the Daily Mail complaining, I doubt many SAHP's will spend £6k a year on childcare just so that they can get their £1200 from the gov anyway.

Like it or not, WOHP's generates an income for the government, not only do I pay tax on my earnings, I also help generate income for the company I work for which is far more than I earn. This boosts the economy and will help us out of the recession.

Don't get me wrong, I value what SAHP's do highly, however they are not directly contributing to the financial well being of the country. And this is why they need to incentivise working.

Helping parents with childcare is a net gain.

And bringing up the families on £300k in this discussion is crazy, I doubt here are many families in this country where both parents earn £150k!

Can I ask all the SAHP's how they manage medical and other appointments if they have 2 children.

I presume you must get help elsewhere such as partner or family?

As someone on mat leave I have had to arrange and pay for cc to ensure I could go to appointments.

Some SAHM can't afford to work because of childcare costs. Some WOHM can't afford NOT to work because they need two incomes. Neither are making 'lifestyle choices'.

But some WOHM could stay at home, if they were prepared to lower their standard of living. They are making a choice. And some SAHM are making a considerable financial sacrifice in opting to look after their children themselves in the early years. They are losing the mother's salary now and perhaps diminishing her prospects of earning a higher salary later. They don't need money for childcare, just to provide a decent standard of living.

The govt are effectively taking sides in the SAHM/WOHM debate by choosing to distribute limited resources to one group instead of the other.

I think the jury's still out on whether it's a good thing for babies and young children to spend long hours in a nursery from an early age. But this decision is about the economy, not what is best for the next generation.

Snide comments,have you actually read the thread?

If you had you'd also see why many think it's unfair.

Don't worry that last post is a hijack - but this govt is utter bs.

By cutting ccv and restricting cc to under 5's then who the hell is going to take a career backstep when they stuff up work because of the school holidays - yep that's right women or make it work by paying for more childcare.

I mean most parents who work FT still need wrap around cc.

This govt really really really sucks!

That woman from Mothers at home matters or whatever they are called is always saying it, and lots of threads arguments about it on MN always have people saying it. Maybe I'm a bit sensitive because I do work, and DO bring up my own children! Part of that involves me going out to work, so that we can pay to put a roof over their head and feed the buggers! I resent being made to feel as if I am failing my children by doing this.

mot, I have 3 dc and I take them to every apoointment. My dh works away (which is why I'm a SAHM). My mother is dead, my dad is ill and Dh's parents live at the other end of the country. It's a 10 hour drive away in fact. I'm totally on my own, no support what so ever. It's why I'm a SAHM. I took my 2 year old boy to a smear test at the doctors once!!

Those who are saying that SAHMs do a hard job and need a break - well, I get that, but children from 3-school-age still get their 15 hours free childcare, and after that their DC are at school 6 hours a day.

I also understand why it's galling that the threshold for this benefit is £150k, and up to £300k with both parents working. I was deliberately not paying attention to that n case it made me too stabby! But I can certainly agree that the threshold should be lower. And based on joint income. As should child benefit. FFS, they calculate all other tax credits on joint income!

Yes but danery you must make sure that you work more than an average of 16hrs a week across the year for the part time person to qualify, whereas say a consultant working 2 days a week earning 60K would qualify. Anyone working less than 16hrs wont - not always due to choice - eg zero hours contracts etc

Solve err if 50k is deemed wealthy enough to lose CB,sorry but families on a joint income of 100k shouldn't be getting help re childcare,let alone those on 300k.

The thing is butter, I've been round the block on this one so many times. You won't get anywhere. It is unfair, whatever anyone says, and I don't mean about SAHPs not having childcare, I mean the different thresholds for this and CB and the joint vs. single income thing. The only thing we can do is vote the buggers out.

Don't get me wrong, I value what SAHP's do highly, however they are not directly contributing to the financial well being of the country. And this is why they need to incentivise working.

solve - I dispute this - My hubby would not have risen to the pay band he is in and be paying higher rate tax without someone taking on all the "stuff" at home - childcare/house/garden/finances/etc etc etc... His pay has more than doubled since I gave up "work" - the work that some people are paid to do doesn't seem to count as "work" when you do it for nowt....

Agree StarDust, my dh would never be earning what he does if I wasn't here doing all the childcare. He is often away from home and when he is here, he's gone by 6am and not home until gone 8pm. He couldn't pay all the tax he pays without me doing ALL the other jobs.

I'm a SAHM who dropped a good salary to look after ds. We made a lifestyle choice. Many families where both parents work also do so out of lifestyle choice eg want 2 holidays a year, private schooling, big house.

I don't really get why the childcare scheme is a slap in the face for SAHP but the rest of the system is. To have one parent stay at home the other, especially in the south East needs to earn a lot.

Over £100k you lose your personal tax allowance - because I don't work so we lose 2 personal allowances.

The child benefit has been withdrawn and whilst we don't 'need' it it does annoy me that for cb purposes we are looked at as a couple but for tax purposes we are individuals and I can't transfer my tax allowance to dh.

I don't want benefits for being a SAHM but certainly don't want to be unfairly penalised for making that lifestyle choice.

Will people with a combined income of £300k really be bothered about claiming this? And even if they do, the amount of tax they pay must be astronomical!

Am I right in thinking that the cut off for this is a certain tax band, to make it easier to administer - rather than needing to be means tested? The alternative would be to have it at the HRT level which would be too low.

I'm sticking with the old system as long as I can though- I wouldn't actually be eligible under the new system as I don't do 16 hours. That's far more ridiculous imo.

Anyway, if they want to get all these SAHMs out to work, where are all these jobs. I thought there were millions unemployed. I'm not sure it's ethical giving subsidies to high earning dual income families when there are many families desperate for one job, who won't get any such subsidy.

George ad StarDust: if you've lost your CB it means that your DH earns more than me and my DH's joint income but out of our income we have to pay £14k in childcare per year. We do this to be able to feed our kids and put a roof over their heads.

We do not get tax credits. Do you really think its unfair that we get £1200 a year for childcare, bringing it down to £12.8k, because you lost your CB?

Surely you can see that you're the winners here?

An most people taking up this benefit will be people in my situation, there's not that many people on £300k out there that will take benefit from this.

For all those who say their husband has only been able to rise to the heights he has in his career because Of the sacrifice made by having a SAH wife- I'm interested in this:
Exactly what are the dizzy heights to which your husband has risen? Is he in the really high earning league? Are we talking £100k upwards? Because frankly, it comes across as ridiculous to be complaining if he is.
Or is he (as is more likely) in the HR tax bracket but earning more of a 45-70k salary? Because if that's the case, there are hundreds of couples in that bracket who both work.
And this isnt a criticism of SAHP because if that's what you believe is best for your family, that's fine. But there are other couples out there who both do what your husband is doing and without family support too. Just among my circle I can think of several couples where both have senior positions, often needing to work late, travel etc -and often the childcare can be even more expensive in such situations because you need really flexible arrangment such as a nanny