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?!

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.

But many many SAHMs dont want or need childcare. They want to be treated fairly. The early years are expensive for everyone, regardless.

Daisy weren't you tempted to go for a less happy name?

You don't sound very daisy chainish.

No problem peapod

No I am saying having children is a choice, been a SAHP is a choice and been a WOH is a choice. But I think the WOH is the only one that should qualify for additional childcare support unless the SAHP has exceptional circumstances because they start paying back into the system. Anyone that goes back (depending on earning bands) should get support.

If you choose to stay at home without exceptional circumstances then, no, you shouldn't get additional childcare support.

Arsenic, are you not allowed cheerful names then . Must have missed the memo.

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.

That was a very self-selecting group, I imagine.

I certainly wasn't on that thread and don't personally know anyone like that.

Attempting to imply that SAHMs and aspiring high-net-worth yummy-mummys are much the same group is a bit much, quite honestly.

You just sound so down, so un-daisy.

but many many SAHMs dont want or need childcare. They want to be treated fairly. The early years are expensive for everyone, regardless.

Why aren't they treated fairly? They are at home looking after their children and they knowingly choose to sacrifice financially. Their choice! Working go back and knowingly is out on that time with their kids but they gain finanially. The difference is the WOH are paying back into the system and therefore they should get support.

LittlePea

I agree entirely with your last post. I wouldn't have needed any childcare at all and certainly don't think I should have qualified for help, but as I and you have just agreed there are circumstances where a sahp would need perhaps a temporary free or subsidised place.
I think if it was deemed to be essential for the child then it should be allowed.

Excuse typos.. Didn't read that properly!

Ahh, so because I don't agree I must be "down". Of course

Moaning that you can't take advantage of a tax deduction as you won't work is just madness. I don't wear a uniform so can't claim tax back for my clothes but it doesn't mean I'm rushing out to change jobs or spitting my dummy out as I am not getting it.

If you don't work you don't need childcare. If you want to do something without your children you book a sitter or ask a friend. No different than a working parent that wants to go out or take an evening class. What benefit would society get from paying for childcare for an unemployed person?

My dp pays shitloads of tax "into the system". Can they get a childcare tax break for the childcare I provide? It costs our family in terms of my lost salary.

Little plenty of wp aren't paying into the system.Plenty of families with a sahp are paying more into the system.If we're going to start judging the deserving of help by basing it on contribution an awful lot of families with 2x wp would lose out.

Your name suits you though Arse
Boom tish ! Bows

peapod because often one wage is roughly equal to one set of commuting cost plus childcare.

And the work of caring for under fives FT is equal to working in a paid job FT.

So why is one choice more deserving of help than the other?

2x £30k have two tax thresholds,pay a lower rate of tax,get CB,help with childcare...... have I missed anything out?

1x £60 has 1 tax allowance,pays a higher rate of tax,gets no CB and no help with childcare.Fair I think not.

he difference is the WOH are paying back into the system and therefore they should get support

Paying into the system with what.... money? Dedicated sahms are paying in with time are they not? In terms of value I would take most mothers with their own children than a 17 year old nursery worker texting her boyfriend.

Value, and worth?

Ahh, so because I don't agree I must be "down".

No, I mean really down on SAHMs to mention gold-diggers at that point.

That kind of thing. Relentlessly negative.

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

No I didn't say working parents = miserable children I said the UK has some of the worse child happiness stats.

Children and whats best for children is a very low priority in this country.

Sometimes I feel we are sliding into communist north korea state where everything is sacrificed for so called good of the country.

yet the country is bloody miserable.

If you don't work you don't need childcare. If you want to do something without your children you book a sitter or ask a friend. No different than a working parent that wants to go out or take an evening class. What benefit would society get from paying for childcare for an unemployed person?

More rudeness and negativity

Have you even RTT?

This isn't about childcare for SAHPs.

It is about tax policy.

It's a shame. There was quite an interesting discussion upthead

www.unicef.org.uk/UNICEFs-Work/What-we-do/Issues-we-work-on/Child-well-being/

What we found has serious implications for how we move forward as a society and how we tackle the impact that materialism and inequality have on children’s well-being

Dedicated sahms are paying in with time are they not. What time with their own children, in their homes? I am sorry but that doesnt count in my book.

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/11059274/Body-image-drags-English-girls-down-world-happiness-league.html

Despite having some of the highest living standards in the world, British children are less satisfied with life than their counterparts in developing countries such as Algeria, Brazil and South Africa, according to the global “well-being” chart published by the Children’s Society

I only mentioned it as everyone on MN seems to think every SAHP gave up a huge salary and career yet the reality is a few may have but many just had normal jones or never worked.

Seagulls the CB is unfair, it should have been scrapped for all. No help for childcare where one parent doesn't work is fair though as it's not needed. We can't afford to give people babysitters for the sake of it. The tax system works in tiers and is independent and should remain that way. If you earn a higher salary it comes with a higher deduction. Every couple can use two allowances if they both work, down to the person if they use theirs.

This new report lifts the lid on the fact that we’re lagging behind so many other countries, including developing nations.

“This research can't be dismissed as being about ‘grumpy kids’. Children with low well-being are more likely to experience serious issues, such as poor outcomes related to school, family and their health.