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?!

Ok, I think the humour got lost in the subsequent gunfight

But yes I agree it is incredibly hard for people to pay no tax, but discontent definitely encourages both avoidance and evasion I think.

Sorry meant to add, yes people will always moan about how taxes are spent, but I do think the current system as it works for families is a bit of a shambles/ totally fucked and completely unfair.

Perhaps though I should lower my expectations from people rejoicing in the social good that springs from their tax contributions and aim for 'a bit less angry'.

Ok, I think the humour got lost in the subsequent gunfight

Perhaps though I should lower my expectations from people rejoicing in the social good that springs from their tax contributions and aim for 'a bit less angry'.

It might be more realistic.

How about if one parent is a post graduate student (there's no current support for childcare for postgrads) and the other parent is working (and hence child is in childcare)?

daisy if the tax system should stay based on the individual like you say, how will it recognise that you and your partner both work? Surely my dp will also be entitled to a childcare tax break then even though I don't work because they are a WOHP?

But how would he claim it? No one is going to send out cheques. Discounts will be on childcare bills. And you don't have them.

LittlePea That's been the experience in the town I grew up in and live in now too ( older children of full-time working parents getting themselves into trouble afterschool). The thing is, it's not necessarily bad for them - it's as though they've got it all out of their system by their mid-twenties and they are often far more mature. The cossetted ones seem to fall apart a bit at the seams when M or D aren't there to organize everything for them...

I think giving sole income earners with dependents a tax break would a good thing. I also think giving dual income earners a tax break on their childcare costs would be a good thing. Both should be means-tested (with a fairly cutoff rate though).

There is good parenting and bad parenting and that's a far greater indicator of whether young people are getting into trouble or not.

Anyway, this is rather going off piste because I doubt it's the under fives who are 'hanging around the town centre being a nuisance'... Presumably this point was made by someone who thinks that unless a parent (well, lets be honest, the mothet!) is collecting the teenager from school daily, then the kids will all go to the bad! It's a totally ridiculous, clutching at straws point anyway but there you go...

The actual OP is about whether free childcare should be given to SAHP. Personally I am in favour of free hours while a parent attends a job interview but not free care just to give parents a break.

I think morethan is just on the wind up -it usually occurs about this time in a thread
So
I would love to know how these teenagers are in trouble -with the police?
for drinking?drugs?antisocial behaviour?theft?and yet the parents are unaware .
They are not aware,the school is unaware and no outside agencies are involved .
Oh and the DC havent been doing their homework and the parents arent aware and the school arent even bothering to inform them at parents evening.
Best of allmorethan is aware of all the above ,even when she is looking after her own angelic teens.
Do you live in St Mary Mead morethan?
You must be Miss Marple

Ilovenicesoap

Where I live, all the teenagers hanging around causing trouble have parents who are unemployed. My impeccably behaved 14 year old DS1 is usually just finishing his two hours of homework when I get in from work at 5.30pm. Make of that what you will.
And potato, if you're serious, how do you think you should rectify the problem. Mothers should stay at home until eldest child is 16 and pick them up from school everyday?

You're right, isitmylibrarybook, that social structures have changed hugely over the last few decades. It's a really complex and interested issue though, and I'm always wary when people hark back to the 'good old days' when it was 'normal' for one parent- well, the mother to stay at home. You can't separate the fact that it was like that from all the other aspects of life that went hand in hand with it... ie lack of access to higher education and careers for women, lack of regulated Childcare... And perhaps more subtle but equally important, the differing expectations around male/ female roles. I suspect many families in the 60s/70s were like mine: mum stayed at home and never had a career (just part time low status work once we were teenagers) and dad as the breadwinner. Hand in hand with that was the expectation that dad was the disciplinarian, mum was the 'carer'. Very demarcated roles. Personally I think things have moved forward in that many couples are better suited to more balanced roles. It always struck me as sad that my mum (who was naturally as bright and capable as my dad) never fulfilled her potential career wise. I value the fact that my own children don't really see any demarcation like that... When they were little it was just as likely to be dad collecting from nursery, cooking dinner etc and just as likely to be me off on a business meeting

Anyway, I digress... Interesting topic though

I had my middle child in the 90s -it wasnt the norm to have a longterm SAHP then by any means.
The longterm SAHP were either very well off or not.
Certainly amongst my peers there was a tendency to take full ML and WOH part time-most in professional positions-this was pre credit crunch and house prices were peanuts compared to now so it was much easier.

Actually thinking about it most of the SAHM (no sahd) I knew worked with first DC and gave up with second due to childcare issues(cost)

Going back further -to my childhood SAHM was more the norm but if you pick it apart most of those women did paid work in some capacity -ironing,sewing,evening work,cleaning, all juggled around their child caring.
It just wasnt recognised as being of any importance compared to the important work that men did

Interestingly I was born in the 60s.My mother gave up her career(which she wanted to do) and worked off and on(long stretches as a sahp with periods of part time work)during my childhood in lesser roles(which she wanted).She returned full time I think 20 years ago retiring last year blissfully happy in her 70s. She had her children cared for exactly how she wanted,got exactly what she wanted career wise and enjoyed a life balance.She made it work for her and her family.I am doing exactly the same.

I think the gov meddling in family choice discourages families to make choices based on what is best for their family and their children.You either help both sides or neither. A few uber rich privately educated men steering families in the direction they see fit(having never lived in the real world) is not good imvho.

I think partially the until school age vs after mat leavemight be due to the increase in ML Is
30 years ago it was 6 weeks and has gradually increased to a year ML plus AL. I doubt many women were keen to leave a 6 week old.

I was very lucky to get a year plus AL in the 90s not everyone had that.
3 x14 months in quick succession and noone batted an eyelid - I cant imagine that would go down well now!

Seagulls the government uses tax policy in all sorts of ways to encourage people to act in certain ways.

Why is this such a problem when childcare vouchers weren't?

Seagulls the government uses tax policy in all sorts of ways to encourage people to act in certain ways.

Why is this such a problem when childcare vouchers weren't?

It's come quite hard on the heels of the child benefit cut at a time of rocketing prices, hasn't it LittleBear? And, in the end, it is anti-choice.

You're right, isitmylibrarybook, that social structures have changed hugely over the last few decades. It's a really complex and interested issue though, and I'm always wary when people hark back to the 'good old days' when it was 'normal' for one parent- well, the mother to stay at home.

Yes Lines

I think what I find so personally irritating is that we have moved from one social homogeneity to (increasingly) another.

The former state of affairs was damaging for many and so is this.

It seems to me though that women are still at the sharp at end and rich white men are still (by and large) calling the tune.

So if child benefit hadn't been changed then there wouldn't be a problem Arsenic?

Because regardless of CB, two earner families would still have benefited from this and households with a SAHP wouldn't?

Well, no, but the cumulative effect certainly isn't sending a message that all family set-ups are equally supported.

I can quite see why current SAHMs are annoyed.

The policy landscape is undoubtedly shifting.

This wouldn't have been politically viable 10, 15, 20 years ago.

Putting one of my other hats on for a moment, someone upthread mentioned 'exceptional circumstances' or similar.

Exceptional circs can be very hard to define, let alone prove. The reason I freelance now is because my DC have SEN. I have made a virtue of it but it wasn't voluntary. It was also the reason I was a SAHM for more years than I planned.

Yet despite having a child who was non-verbal for a long time and had many very obvious problems (such as screaming whenever I left the room), that child was well into school age before we got a definitive diagnosis and then, finally, I was officially a 'carer' for a year or so before we got special education sorted I created a career for myself again. If a government bod had come along in the limbo years and wanted me to prove exceptional circumstances would the interim medical reports and appointment letters been good enough?

That isn't at all unsual. Not at all.

The rhetoric about sofas and lazy behinds makes people in tough circumstances feel like shit. And there are lots of tough circumstances beyond SEN. Bad things can happen to anyone.

MH problems, bereavement, adoption trauma, DV survival, caring for elderly relatives or disabled spouse, homelessness, addiction etc etc.

There will be lurkers on this thread feeling like shit right now because of the smug 'everyone should work' guff being spouted.

The short-sightedness of some posters is a bit bewildering.

The rhetoric about sofas and lazy behinds makes people in tough circumstances feel like shit

it shouldnt it just makes the person making those pronoucnments look utterly blinkered and stupid