Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think that saying the new childcare proposal discriminates against SAHP is like saying JSA discriminates against the employed?

731 replies

AnnieLobeseder · 06/08/2013 14:46

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?

OP posts:
ihategeorgeosborne · 06/08/2013 18:54

I think people like you solve should definitely get help with childcare. I just don't think that rich dual income families should, when everyone else gets told there is no money left and by that, I mean people who really don't have a pot to piss in, but who won't qualify for this either.

ihategeorgeosborne · 06/08/2013 18:57

janey, we are in the latter category. If most of the couples you are referring to are also in this category, then might I suggest that one of them clearly doesn't NEED to work either. Therefore it is a life style choice, in the same way as being a SAHP.

MrButtercat · 06/08/2013 18:57

Solve have you read the thread?

I don't have a problem with you getting it but I do have a problem with families on 50k losing CB,being deemed wealthy when those on 100k and above not only keep CB but get childcare help too.

Turniptwirl · 06/08/2013 18:58

Yanbu

MrButtercat · 06/08/2013 19:00

Yep mine is in 45 - 70 k and yes he wouldn't be able to have got where he is without me giving up work for a while and our children would have suffered.

You don't need to earn over 100k to do a demanding jobHmm and we know what is best for our family thanks.Hmm

bearleftmonkeyright · 06/08/2013 19:03

This policy pitches sahm again working mums, and also those who are very reliant on child tax credits or "in work benefits" as they seem now to be known. It is not a coherent policy. As another poster pointed out if you are offered a few weeks on a zero hour contract you are still stuffed. It is only useful to people on a certain income who are not under employed or on low pay. The sahm/wohm mum is a red herring. I still think there should be help for working parents but it ignores a whole section of parents who could really use that help. By keeping them separate, it keeps you reliant on universal credit/tax credit. You can't book a child into nursery if you have no immediate way of payinf the fees because you do not have a firm contract. That does make me bloody angry. It just feels like there is no hope. I say this as a sahm who would like to return to work. Childcare is very patchy for school age children round here.

Loopytiles · 06/08/2013 19:04

Doesn't it make sense for the Government to incentivise both partners to work, dor example to increase skills and the number of people able to work, and improve equality, since it is normally women who SAH. Am thinking of scandinavia.

MrButtercat · 06/08/2013 19:09

Sorry but must couples do end up both working.Most sahp do it by choice for the good of their family(we're not brainless) for a period of time.

It's not 1950 and having 2 wp the entire time during a child's life doesn't suit all kids or all families.

Oh and Scandinavia isn't all it's cracked up to be,concerns are being raised re the impact of long term childcare there.Have friends recently returned who certainly didn't think it was all that.Cost of living hellish so many have no choice anyway.

janey68 · 06/08/2013 19:12

Yes George- they may well be able to choose whether to work or not. But my point is that by making this lifestyle choice, they are contributing to the economy which is what the govt is interested in (particularly as we are trying to come out of a deep recession)

Ultimately the other lifestyle choice (ie if such a family decided to have one parent at home) is not contributing to the govt in the same way. They may be doing a marvellous job of being a SAHP but the govt doesn't need them to be doing that. That's the bottom line. It may not be what people want to hear, but it's a simple case of economics.

As long as there are enough well adjusted, capable children being raised who will pay taxes in the future- that's what the govt is interested in. And tbh, if there were clear irrefutable evidence that children as a whole were more likely to be clever, successful and emotionally low maintenance by having a SAHP then actually I believe the govt would be promoting SAHP. There would be no financial benefit to the govt to have to take on the problems of generations of dysfunctional children who become dysfunctional adults. But as there is no such evidence, then frankly the govt are interested in people contributing directly

Like I keep saying, this isn't a criticism of SAHP. The govt wants good parenting, because ultimately that means well adjusted future adults. But a good parent could be a SAHP or a WOHP.

motownmover · 06/08/2013 19:13

Janey now what you are not getting is it is just that most economic systems don't want to value the work that women do.

unpaid work

Please educate yourself about work and what it means.

"They don't count women's work but they count on women's work."


"Having accepted the notion of marriage as her meal ticket, a women's domestic labour clearly reflected its economic imperative. The wife's primary responsibility was to ensure her husband was able to work in order to earn the wages for her own, as well as his, survival."

Mary Kinnear


"Society views domestic labour as women's responsibility and assumes that it is a donation they should make to the economy."

Tanya Schechter

solveproblem · 06/08/2013 19:15

The cost of living in Scandinavia is not hellish as incomes are higher.

When we lived there we had far more disposable income than we do now in the UK. This was partly due to higher incomes, and partly due to lower outgoings such as rent and childcare.

MrButtercat · 06/08/2013 19:18

Yes that clearly is the gov's choice- stuff the happiness and wellbeing of families who want a sahp(having 2 wp with no break is shit for a lot of families)- tax breaks for millionaires,universal benefits for rich pensioners and childcare for the rich,are their priority.

Doesn't make it right.

solveproblem · 06/08/2013 19:21

Ok, I think that this is turning into a 'the rich vs the poor' discussion.

SAHP's think that if two parents are working they must have loads of money and don't need any help.

WOHM's think that if you can afford to have a person stay at home then you're comfortable enough to not need any help.

25catsnameSam · 06/08/2013 19:22

Mr buttercup in your opinion your children would have suffered if you had worked. And tbh you husband would probably have risen to whatever be dizzy heights of middle management he now inhabits - I rose there and so has my DH.
I'm bringing up my kids thanks - and holding gown a job as well. I've been a SAHM as well. Sorry to d

bearleftmonkeyright · 06/08/2013 19:24

This phrase "lifestyle choice" really pisses me off. You make decisions, they are not always "choices". And sometimes these decisions are not straightforward, whatever way you do things.

MrButtercat · 06/08/2013 19:25

Errr he wouldn't have,you don't know our circumstances.

And woopy do to you.I'll go back to work too,currently looking soooooooo.........

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation · 06/08/2013 19:25

Arghhhh this makes me so angry! Firstly - not all working parents are 'contributing to the economy' - most people are not net contributors. So saying SAHP shouldn't get help because they don't contribute is ludicrous. Secondly - being a SAHP is not always a lifestyle choice! It would cost me c. £400 a month to go to work, unfortunately we don't have that kind of money lying around spare. Even with the new proposals if we qualified for childcare help we would still be worse off with me working. And yes we lost CB and no we are not in any way well off!

25catsnameSam · 06/08/2013 19:26

Bother meant to say sorry to mr B to single you out but this shouldn't be about SAHM vs wohm it should be about putting support where it is needed. Which is what tax should be for...
So I think the op is NBU.

janey68 · 06/08/2013 19:26

I don't think it's saying stuff the well being of families who want a SAHP- the govt is interested in running a country which is economically viable- not the shambles we've got ourselves into . And tbh if every family suddenly decided they wanted one parent to not work because they were happier that way, then you'd certainly see an overnight deterioration in plenty of services.

Ultimately if you have a SAHP because you believe it's right- and not because you can't afford to go to work, then by definition, you can afford that choice. You may not have every luxury you'd like, but you can afford to live on one wage. And as you believe in having a parent at home then presumably you're happy to make the sacrifices of luxury homes , holidays and handbags anyway

(Sorry that last point is slightly sarcastic but it's what's usually wheeled out as the reason why mums work!!)

solveproblem · 06/08/2013 19:29

Most working parents are not net contributors? Are you kidding me?

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation · 06/08/2013 19:29

janey68 please read my post - some people cannot afford to go to work!

MrButtercat · 06/08/2013 19:30

And my children would have suffered.Kids differ as do parents and circumstances.

We had 3 in 15 months(twins). My dp is in IT with tough release dates ie he has to go in at all hours and do weekends,long hours,commuting 1 hour and 1/2 each way and he was studying. I was a teacher which involves massive hours in the evening and during the weekends.

My dc got very little quality 1 to 1 time as it was.

They needed me,I needed them.

ThereMustBeAnotherExplanation · 06/08/2013 19:31

No I'm not kidding - you have to be in the top 40% of earners (roughly speaking) before you put in more than you 'get out' (in benefits and services).

MrButtercat · 06/08/2013 19:32

You Janey and governments don't dictate what is good or the best for families,we do.

janey68 · 06/08/2013 19:32

Theremustbe- for parents in that situation, this makes childcare more affordable!

Swipe left for the next trending thread