To think this misses the point about costs of childcare?

[adsy]

"Critics have complained that homes where one parent stays at home to look after children will not benefit."

This is in response to the new scheme where parents will get 20% of childcare costs paid for by the government.
I'm a CM and all for subsidies of any sort to help out parents, but other than the odd day when you might need to go for an interview etc. I can't see why a stay at home parent needs to get childcare subsidies or am I missing a major point here?!

Not really feasible for every SAHP to go back to work either (where are these jobs?) but that's a straw man argument anyway as I never suggested they should.

The maj of mothers are either part time workers or Sahp,2/3 in fact,being a sahp is a temporary thing and most have working partners so no worries re women actually having a choice and the entire parenting workforce up sticking and leaving.

If every person with a child instantly left the workplace, the country would fall to its knees. Not really feasible.

It would never happen, you'd never get all the adults making that choice.

The studies say that some children do badly in childcare to the extent that they are harmed by it while some do just fine.

I suspect the gregarious, outgoing children who need busy, super stimulating environments often have similar parents. So it makes sense that they be in workplace and nursery.

Meanwhile the quieter, more peace and calm loving toddlers can be at home enjoying parental care with PT preschool added later.

Horses for courses. People are not the same. I don't see the problem.

Emerald

Nobody has suggested that every person with a child left the workplace.

I suggested that somebody who intended to be a sahp would give notice surely, as they intended not to go back to work.

A sahp however, wouldn't necessarily be on ml at al, I never have been because as a sahp I don't work in the first place.

The difference is merely intent.

but that's a straw man argument anyway

Ha. So it is. Too late.

SAHPs don't need subsidised childcare. If they decide to return to work in the future they then qualify for the assistance. It's a lifestyle choice which sometimes comes with a loss of a salary but not always as some didn't work previously.

Childcare is a cost of working so making some of it tax deductible makes sense. Those that wear uniform can claim a deduction etc so no differently really and nobody seems to moan about that.

It makes sense to support workers, we need taxpayers both now and in the future. It makes no sense to pay for childcare for somebody that doesn't work. The child will get the free preschool hours so still gets the early years education.

Sorry not Emerald SweatPea

Can I have a straw man please Arse have always wanted to say that as you called me mrs potato

If they decide to return to work in the future they then qualify for the assistance.

Really? What assistance would a SAHM qualify for?

I suspect the gregarious, outgoing children who need busy, super stimulating environments often have similar parents. So it makes sense that they be in workplace and nursery.Meanwhile the quieter, more peace and calm loving toddlers can be at home enjoying parental care with PT preschool added later

That's just not the case at all. You can't compartmentalise people and children like that. I can't even begin to count the faults in that statement.

Daisy

sahp or wohp its a lifestyle choice for both
Very few people have no choice over what they decide to do, but we are constantly told that wohps have no choice, its rubbish.
Read some threads of people who have chosen freely and then those that don't have a choice are few and far between.

I don't understand the question arsenic. If you're being deliberately obtuse, it's way over my head.

Err what faults?

(Oh sorry Potato, it is very affectionate honest. I can't call you Morethan because I hate those insurance ads & I adore Mr & Mrs Potato in Toy Story . Everyone else calls me Arse anyway. I'm used to it )

Which question Emerald?

The assistance question was in response to Daisy's assertion (which I quoted).

I totally agree with you seagulls over the nursery hand wringing and moaning, why didn't they plan?

It makes sense to support workers, we need taxpayers both now and in the future

how many tax payers does this country need, one of the richest and most densely populated in the world?

with one of the highest rates of miserable children,

this society needs family focus and more respect given to mothers who chose to make many monetary sacrifices to bring up their own children.

Tarka those choosing to go back are paying back into the system and they should get support as soon as they start paying back into the system.

Arsenic I don't think the government should remain neutral. I agree with the position that if you choose not to return to work and there are no exceptional circumstances then make sure you are in a position to pay for your own childcare if you want it. I am sure there are lots of studies to argue the opposite but I won't buy into that.

What assistance would a SAHM qualify for? Nothing in terms of childcare unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Emerald the country is already on its knees. It would be more a belly crawl!

Oh fuck off with your 'bring up their own children' beyond.

What assistance would a SAHM qualify for? Nothing in terms of childcare unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Read the thread!

Daisy just came in and told us SAHMs 'qualify' for help when they go back to work. I was querying whether she meant the subsidy under discussion or something else. I can't make it any clearer than quoting what I'm responding to.

Childcare is a cost of having children. Either you have to stop work and do it yourself or you have to pay someone else to do it whilst you work. Why should the government subsidise one and not the other? Unless they think it is "better" to have children in nursery and both parents working.

They will get the same childcare options as workers ie the new scheme. It's only for workers, you can't save on tax when not paying any.

Love to see the stats behind miserable children. So having a WOHP makes a child miserable now. All those pesky parents supporting their children, how very dare they

The only person that should respect the SAHP is the child and the partner if they have agreed to the decision. It benefits nobody else. Whilst some give up a salary not all do. Many have no desire to work so aren't really giving anything up. An astounding amount of women on MN admitted on another thread that they chose their partner for his earnings so that they didn't need to work. Think it was in chat so likely gone now. It was depressing reading.

Arsenic I take that one back. Clearly misunderstood.

Daisy kids,families,jobs,circumstances and personalities differ- a lot. Believe me plenty of children don't thrive in childcare.I've worked in just about every childcare sector and believe me all children don't thrive in childcare.It doesn't suit all children.

littlepea are you assuming that WOH is the default option and SAH is a choice. You could equally change your sentence to:
"If you choose to work then make sure you are in the position to pay your own childcare".
WOH and SAH when your children are young are both choices. Someone has to look after the children.

But hey we can pretend all kids are identical clones if it makes you and DC happy.