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?

ThereMustBeAmoter, have you got a link to this information?

Now surely you realise that you don't have to be in the top 40% of earners to put in more than you "get out" what bullshit.

In this accounting system women are 'non-producers' and as such they cannot expect to gain from the distribution of benefits that flow from production.

So there goes issues such as nuclear warfare, environmental conservation, and poverty. All are therefore excluded from value in traditional ways of measuring economics.

Men still hold 80% of the most powerful positions (see the UN gender equality report).

Not read the whole thread so appologis if this point has been made butthe reason for it applying to up to 150k threshold is that this is a tax bracket. They have a choice - implement complicated means testing to make it apply only to a reasonable salary (what this is is debatable) or align with a tax bracket. If they means test it would cost enormous amounts to implement. Align with a tax bracket and job done, much lower implementation cost. Of course you get some high income households benefiting as a result but so do all of the families in that hinter land just above the 50k band but not earning anywhere near 150k. I was also really confused about why this is meant to discriminate against sahp - they don't need help with childcare. Agree that this is really just to subsidise employers so they don't have to pay wages to fully meet costs of working.

£ 1200 is really not a lot to incenticise somebody to go out to work chtrist only knows what it would cost for childcare /month for my 6yr old and 3 yr old we both work and get bugger all help towards childcare we could use the voucher scheme but that would just be a drop in the ocean I,m a staff nurse dh works in a warehouse so I do to 12hr shifts /week and either two earlies [8hrs ] when dh is on lates or two ;lates when dh is on earlies[8hrs] my two long days are on dh ,s days off this is my aim anyway when shifts overlap either my dad steps in or I have to use time owing/flexitime and we muddle along no government has any idea if they think £100 /month is either going to be of any real use or ornament bitch and moan about it as much as you want but I cant really see it helping the vast majority of middle earners who miss out on the child care taxcredit element thing [not that I think I should get it ] I just think the whole thing is a pointless exercise!

Actually I'm as cynical as the next person about the govt

Like I said, I believe if there was evidence that having working parents made children less likely to do well at school, less likely to go on to have good jobs, and more likely to suffer from mental illness or turn to crime, then I think the govt would be chasing mothers straight back into the home!

The thing is , because there is no such evidence, and they know that good parents are good parents, whether working or at home, then they have a vested interest in supporting people who are contributing directly to the economy

Here's a link - centre for policy studies research from last year: www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html

Janey - govts don't do long-term thinking. That's why problems such as pensions, social care for the elderly, airports, etc get kicked into the long grass. Their focus is the next election.

They have no idea of the long-term effects of putting babies and toddlers into nurseries for 5 days a week. It's too recent a phenomenon for anyone to know for sure. Even in 70's/80's it was relatively rare. Has only been gathering momentum since the rise in housing costs.

here is where the net contributor averages seem to come from....

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics....." springs to mind....

Sorry clicky link:
www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html

Pilg well then raise the capping of CB to 150k then.

Don't get me wrong, I know that stats etc can be made to say what you want them to say! I wasn't trying to make a debate about whether working people are net contributors or not.... What I was trying to point out is that there are a lot of people saying that SAHP are 'not contributing' - I was just trying to say, look, it's not that black and white - a family with one earner may well be contributing more than two working parents. That's all!

Thymeout- many of my work colleagues who are older than me have adult children. These children did go to childminders and nurseries- and actually for far longer than nowadays because maternity leave was much shorter. Their children have done well at school, university and are happily settled in careers and relationships. As are the adult children of friends of mine who were SAHM. So lets dispense with the scare mongering.

According to this website, our family are net contributors, even with a SAHM and 3 dc.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

I think there are some valid points on both sides. There do seem to be a few who are throwing their toys out of their pram over losing 'their' child benefit which is skewing their perspective.

Ophelia275- You seem to be labouring under the assumption that if both parents work they must earn enough money for childcare.

my Dp and I both work. For us it is absolutely not a choice. If I don't work we can't afford to pay our bills. Nobody could accuse us of living a lavish lifestyle, we scrape by every month with no money for luxuries like new clothes for us or a night out, if our food bill comes in only £5 above budget then that means a bill wont get paid. luckily we don't have to pay for childcare as we managed to arrange our shifts so that one of us is always at home (he works late shifts most of the week so I work very early and we do long shifts on each others days off)

It is not always a choice for both parents to work, if my dp earned enough that I might not have to go to work then I would get to make a choice weather or not to stay at home. personally I would probably choose to stay at home with dd and not bitch and moan that I don't get help with childcare when I don't need it.

ihategeorge.... we are net contributors on that site also - with a SAHM and 2 kids.

Janey - I am not 'scaremongering'. Merely stating the obvious.

i don't want to derail the thread by opening up this aspect of the debate but couldn't let your assertion of 'no evidence' and govts would not do it if there were pass unchallenged.

Well show us the evidence then.

We are also net contributors but wouldn't have been if one of us didn't work, which is why help with childcare is needed.

You two are obviously very fortunate to afford to stay at home, I don't understand why you are so against making it fractionally easier to help other people become net contributors too?

And please do not bring up the families earning £200-£300k again, most families are not on that kind of money and those who are probably wont even bother to claim this.

I'm a working mum. I work full time and I'm on £23k before deductions. When I was expecting my son 3 1/2 years ago my husband and I sat down and calculated how much it was going to cost in child care for us both to continue working. It was going to cost more than he earned (he was in a low paid job) so we decided he would sop work to stay at home with our son instead. It made no sense for him to be working purely to pay for hold care costs.

We tightened our belts accordingly and it worked well for us for quite a while. But in the last year living costs have gone up considerably and I have not had a pay rise in 5 years with none in sight. We tightened our belts further until tere was nothing left to tighten.

We discussed my husband trying to find a job. But here's the rub - you have to pay for childcare in advance. We don't have that sort of money lying around. Our son uses his 15 hours a week free, but the days and hours he goes are fixed, we have to give a terms notice if we want to change. There are no jobs for 15 hours a week that we could fit his childcare around (even changing the days/hours). He can't apply for full time work because we can't afford the upfront cost to put our son in childcare full time to enable him to take up the job.

It was te right decision for us 3/4 years ago. Now it's not, but we are trapped. This proposal won't help us.

To get the job you need the childcare in place.
To get the childcare in place you need the income/this funding from the job.

It's a catch 22.

Rinoachicjen, I am in exactly the same position as your husband and we have a similar income. You have summed up this dilemma well. It is a trap. It will help parents that are currently working who have secure employment, it won't help parents back into work which is ridiculous.

Riona, I'm sorry to hear about the situation your in.

If your DH gets a job, do you think you can request flexible working (15 hours) for a couple of months until you can pay for childcare?

I'm a SAHM and I think the policy stinks, although my DC are too old for us to need childcare anyway.

People who earn £300k do not need money towards childcare. My DH earns just over a tenth of that a year and we manage fine, we receive nothing from the Government other than CB. If people who have a single income of £50k are too well off to need their CB, then a family with an income of £300k, oh how I wish, should not receive any help towards childcare IMO, especially when those on the very lowest salaries and working the lowest amount of hours, as well as student parents won't qualify.

I think SAHP's are valuable to society and that value should be recognised. Why can't the working person in the household have a tax break to ease the load on their budget? And what if tomorrow all the SAHP'S decide to go back to work? Where are all the jobs going to come from and the nursery places?

This is just another way of Tory Dave trying to buy votes!

They don't call you littlemisswise for nothing . You've got it in a nutshell and very well put too I might add.