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?

reluctant that's a really rough situation, hope things get better for you all soon

What Little said.

My sister saved hard for childcare pre dc and was able to afford a nanny on a charity workers wage with zero help.Many people do the same.Childcare is only expensive before they start school too.

Have to say I didn't agree with Justine when she said there should be help until they are 14- err just why?Childcare is massively cheaper once they are of school age,the fact people think they should pay next to nothing for people to care for their children smacks of entitlement tbf.

Yanbu.
Just to clarify when it comes to students, would the new proposal overwrite the current ccg (child care grant) available to students? Effectively it covers all child care costs for undergraduate students. Will it be taken away?! I'll be screwed if that's the case.

Sorry but if you are on two salaries CB and 2 x tax allowance will cover that.Also clubs and secondary bus journey will reduce costs.

Aside from that just how much do you expect to pay for your children- nothing?

*Mr Buttercat- entitled ?
Do you have children in school, use public transport, shops, the postal service, internet, hospitals ?
WOHP contribute through their provision of these services ( as do childless people) and you still think a tiny amount towards their childcare bill is ...entitled ?

Thank you ihategeorge and rinoa DH and I are more fortunate than many in our position and have great support from both our families thank goodness but this government enrages me. The bastards! It seems like they are cutting jobs, benefits, rights etc from the poorest in society whilst lining the pockets of their mates and the better off in society. I feel so sorry for everybody suffering under them.

Mr Buttercat

Before and after school care for 2 kids here is 150 pounds a week. In holidays childcare is 300-400 a week for 2 children.

If you think that is cheap then you earn rather a lot.

DH is a WOHP. He contributes to all the services you stated, Shitsinger, as did I before I had DC , I have done since I had them, but am now unable to work. When they were pre-schoolers I did the childcare, like all the other SAHP'S do. I honestly don't see why there can not be some sort of tax break to ease the burden on families where one parent stays at home.

Whatever anyone says there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be in employment, there aren't enough nursery places for all children to be in childcare.

Earlier in the thread Mr Buttercup said:

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

Some other posters have also said the same

I don't get this? My understanding was that households with an earner over £60k lost CB, with a sliding scale for earners between £50-60k. So how do 2 income families on over 100k keep it and a single income household on £50k not get it?

It is so sad that people have to fight amongst each other like this. There is no easy solution.

sorry that was Mr Buttercat*

Not all children are in childcare littlemiss mine never have been despite 2 WOHP .
The point is SAHP benefit their families vs WOHP who benefit their families and provide employment to childcarers( sometimes) and benefit society as a whole via their job role.

WOHP benefit society more and a tiny amount of their childcare bill is hardly a huge entitlement.

I give up, I really do!

Oh, and thanks Shitsinger, for telling all us SAHP's we don't contribute to society as a whole. You must be a Tory PR person's dream!

Spice addict: Any family that has at least one person earning over £60k will lose their CB. And any family where no one earns more than £50k will et to keep their CB.

The CB issue has not got anything two do with whether both parents work or not.

However, hypothetically there might be an unlikely case where both parents earn £49k each and will get to keep their CB. This is the hypothetically scenario that is winding people up.

It isn't a hypothetical situation though solve. It is very real. I have friends where one earns 40k and the other earns 45k. They have 3 BTL properties and will keep all of their CB. We have one earner in the high fifties and a SAHM. We rent as we can't afford to buy a house. I would say the former is way better off than us and they get an extra £130 a month more then us. Now they will get this tax break too.

I also have friends where the dh runs his own business. She has told me that they will get round this with clever accounting . They also have 3 properties.

Nope never voted Tory .
SAHP benefit their own families - Im not denying its an important role - within that family as is the role of the WOH parent within that family.
Many WOHP juggle WOH and childcare effectively and give to society via their job roles- they should be helped with childcare.

Many SAHPs give to society too. Plenty of SAHMs I know are the chairman, treasurer, secretary of the PTA and playgroup, listening to the children read, going on school trips, etc. In fact, most of the stuff that goes on in our village wouldn't happen if it wasn't for the SAHPs (and the pensioners of course). I'm not saying WOHP don't do this too, but I know plenty more SAHPs who do. Where would David Cameron be without his big society. Perhaps he'll find out soon enough

I love the notion that sahm don't benefit society. Especially all those mums who volunteer at playgroups, go on school trips and hearing other peoples children read for free. .

This is all part of the tory big plan. Get all SAHMs out to work, crank up the price of houses so that you have to have two incomes just to stand still. Then we can all be debt slaves till we die and serve our masters for ever. It's all part of the plan. I'm not buying into it. They can get stuffed quite frankly.

I did school reading, swimming, school trips and helped with PTA as did DH - not the sole preserve of SAHP.
I was referring to the notion that WOHP don't deserve a small amount of assistance with childcare - when their WOH occupation directly serves society.

No one has answered - as a SAHP do you use shops ,schools, teachers, doctors, public transport, OTs ,Physios ??
They are often WOHP - do you still begrudge them a tiny proportion of their childcare bill ?

No one is saying SAHP aren't playing a valuable role. But essentially they are doing it because they believe its best for their own family. A good family with a SAHP will raise successful and well adjusted children. So will a good family with WOHP. And as for putting into the community, volunteering- well, so do lots of WOHP.
There seems to be an agenda here to make out that SAHP are contributing something which WOHP aren't. It's really strange. By all means be a SAHP if that's what suits your family but its a bit of a specious argument to try to make out that they are contributing all sorts of things which other parents don't.
Just be honest- you do it because you want to and you feel it suits your family, and you can afford it

Obviously for reluctant SAHP who can't afford childcare, it's a totally different scenario and this help with childcare may enable them to have more choice

No, Janey I didn't become a SAHM when my DC were little because we could afford it, it was because we couldn't afford for me to work. My wages would not have covered the childcare costs. DH was often away for months on end so I couldn't get an evening or weekend job, and we lived too far away from family for them to help out.

When DS2 went to school I got a part time job which suited me really well. Unfortunately due to the nature of DH's job I had to leave it after 7 months because we had to move 250 miles away. I got another job, in childcare actually. I did the qualifications and really enjoyed my job. I had to leave it after a few years when we had to move again.

Unfortunately my health has deteriorated and I can not work now. Everything is not always as clear cut as it seems. This scheme is very ill thought out, as most of the policies are. When they are cutting benefits for disabled people, people are having to rely on food banks, benefits are being capped it is wrong to give people earning £300k help towards childcare.