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?!

Why though Curly given having children is a personal choice? We don't have a shortage of workers so there's no need for the government to pay people to reproduce.

It's not impossible to work and have children. Some parents may not like the fact that after childcare it's for little or nil gain but giving up their job is a choice and not forced upon them.

From our point of view, it would be at detriment to the DC though (at that given point in time). It's fine to say plan. Really. It's just not always feasible is it? There are so my variables.

So you made a decision as a parent as to what bests suits your family and that's great, expecting financial recompense for quitting work though is simply daft. Society gains nothing and non parents may fancy their lifestyle choices being paid for.

Most pregnancies can be planned for. Contraception is widely available and methods can be doubled up if you want the extra protection. Most "accidents" are through mis-use. Even then there's nine months to financially prepare or to look for alternative work around the other parent etc to minimise costs.

Childcare is a cost of working to some like uniform, a company vehicle etc is to others. Making it tax deductible encourages the person to continue to work and pay into the pot continuing into the future when help is no longer needed.

But you're talking about perfection in an imperfect world Daisy. Let's not argue the toss - I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. It doesn't make either of us right but I think I'm more right than you

Most pregnancies can be planned for. Contraception is widely available and methods can be doubled up if you want the extra protection. Most "accidents" are through mis-use. Even then there's nine months to financially prepare or to look for alternative work around the other parent etc to minimise costs.

Good heavens. The build up of patronising smugness on this is blocking the thoroughfare. Has nothing unplanned ever happened to you Daisy? Not a sprained wrist? Not the smallest mishap?

Is it really possible that so many of you have perfect (and perfectly planned) lives? And if so, why are you harbouring such resentment and rancid vitriol about other people's lives and choices? Aren't you happy?

So you made a decision as a parent as to what bests suits your family and that's great, expecting financial recompense for quitting work though is simply daft.

The tax and benefits system has, for a long time, provided extra support for families and children because the economy and society needs children.

It is that simple.

The recent departure is to move that support towards working parents.

THAT is what is under dispute.

Should all parents get some help? Or just dual income families?

Some people are making it sound like WOHP are being given some great financial perk. It's not. It's making something which is a HUGE cost into something which is a slightly lesser cost. Everyone knows that. It's the reason some people decide to be a SAHP- because they don't want to fork out most - or all- of one wage on childcare. They stop doing the valuable job they are contributing to society - be it nurse, teacher or shop worker (because all of these things are necessary) - because they would rather tighten the family belt and live on one income, than pay out shed loads. Which is fine.
Other people decide to be a SAHP because they actually prefer it to the idea of working while bringing up a young family. It's not a monetary decision- if you offered them full time free nursery to stay in their job, they'd say no thanks, I'd rather stay at home. Which is fine.
So lets not pretend this is about some massive hand out to working parents- it isn't. Many of us would actually have been financially better off by stopping work because childcare is so costly in the UK, but we stayed in our jobs for the wider values of it.

A few people have said that as a SAHP, they contributed in tax before having children, and they intend to do so again at some point in the future. Fair enough. But the difference is a WOHP has also done that, is currently doing it and is highly likely to continue in the future, probably at a higher rate because it's well documented that if you remain in your career you're likely to progress, whereas many women start again lower down the ladder if they've had some years out.

I think it's totally fine what each individual family decides to do btw. I am just outlining why it makes financial sense for childcare for WOHP to be subsidised.

"Should all parents get some help? Or just dual income families?"

I don't think anybody should be given state money for having a child as I've already said. Not a popular opinion as most seem to think that the state should pay for their choices.

The new scheme is not solely aimed at dual income families. Where the parent is single and working they will still qualify so it has nothing to do with dual incomes.

Where there are two parents in the same household, both need to be working to claim the tax relief. It's not beneficial to pay for a babysitter where the parent is home anyway and not working.

Plenty of benefits far outweigh this one but lots would argue they should exist. Single parents can choose not to work for five years whereas working mums get nine months SMP. Many dual parent families choose to have one not working to enhance their tax credit entitlement or do the magic number of hours needed to gain the most. Yet parents both working (or one if single) and taking nothing from the pot are begrudged being able to deduct some tax because it's not fair on the unemployed mums who want to use childcare for a break (yet it would cause damage if they did so whilst working apparently!).

Daisy you are not engaging with any of the points anyone has made to you.

Oh and while the soap box is out, I really wish the focus was on good/ bad parenting rather than this artificial divide of SAHP/ WOHP.
It is raising well adjusted young people who will make a positive impact on society which matters. And that is done (or not done) by both SAHP and WOHP

If you genuinely believe that your own children will be damaged by having working parents (and at least one poster seems to believe all the youths hanging on street corners are a product of having working parents) then fine, be a SAHP. Just don't extrapolate from your own situation, that other people's children are suffering from having parents who work.

Likewise, if you were personally bored shitless being a SAHP, don't extrapolate from your situation that all other SAHP feel the same.

Just to clarify my own position: I returned to work after a 12 week ML with dc1, had a period of time at home 3 years later with dc2, then did a series of short contracts after dc3 (even though I earned nothing after childcare!) I loved being a SAHP. Opportunities for work came along after dc3. I loved it even more.
Enjoying one set up does NOT mean you have to hate the opposite

Lines
Many of us would actually have been financially better off by stopping work because childcare is so costly in the UK, but we stayed in our jobs for the wider values of it

You made a choice the same as a sahp makes a choice, why should you be more entitled to help than a sahp.

In addition apart from giving the benefit of my experience with a few of my ds's friends you suggest I said that all wohp children were hanging around creating a nuisance, which I never said at all.
I do have working friends as well as sah friends and as far as I know their dc aren't all suffering.

You made a choice the same as a sahp makes a choice, why should you be more entitled to help than a sahp.

Because she is paying and contributing to the ecconomy!

I explained the reasons above why it makes economic sense morethanpotatoprints. A WOHP is currently contributing tax (as well as what they've previously contributed)

And btw it's not all about you it was another poster Who said all the children who hang around the town centre and get into trouble do so because their parents work!

No it was Potato who said it.

Oops I thought it was another poster. It was such a bizarre thing to suggest, that all the trouble makers in a particular area have working parents!

^Lines* I thought it was a light hearted facetious slightly sarcasticjoke to lighten the thread up... It turns out I was wrong too!

There are some really odd views on this thread. Someone saying that most working mothers don't need the money, they just don't want to look after their own kids - really????

All this talk about being supported is really IMHO another way of saying they want money!

People who are saying they are paying their fair share of tax, well as a SAHP you aren't. I have also seen threads like this from SAHP claiming that their partners pay their taxes for them....

To Ssashh who asked why my DH had not paid into a pension, because he earns a pittance and we need to eat today not in 2050

As I said I am the higher earner on the higher tax rate but that doesn't make us über rich!!

I have been away for a while dealing with my delinquents, oh I mean, children

It all depends on what one considers a basic std of living. A friend of mine was a Benefits Debt advisor and she only lasted 6 months. Her role was to advise on people that had got into real debt, pay day loans, etc

She would ask the family to list out their expenditure and when she spotted something like I phone, Blackberrys, Sky TV! Etc she would suggest these were not affordable. Two formal complaints were made about her mentioning these sorts of items and the team she worked in agreed. She was not to 'pick' on people like this, if they felt they were entitled to buy this she wasn't to disagree.

Not sure what the council expected her role to be tbh

Infinity, that makes no sense. There are lots of adults who don't claim CB but it doesn't mean their spouse pays their tax. Being ineligible for a benefit doesn't equate to paying more tax.

Given some of the SAHPs begrudging working parents help with childcare yet claim WTC and CTC from those very workers. I doubt they would give it up and swap it for the tax deductible childcare they seem to believe they are missing out on.

I have also seen threads like this from SAHP claiming that their partners pay their taxes for them....

I think usually it is posters with DPs earning extremely well by dint of working ludicrous hours, travelling etc, who say that they found working as well impossible and feel that the tax paid on one very high income equals the tax that both of them would pay if the DP had to downshift to a more conventional job in the same industry to accommodate them both having careers.

Having never had a partner with such a very high income, I can't authoritatively comment, but it doesn't sound outlandish does it?

£120k job, say, old fashioned role design, only made possble by partner covering all DC sickness, pick up, drop off, workmen visits, parcel deliveries, overseeing all domestic everything?

A couple might conceivably choose to do that instead of two lower paid jobs where they split the child related and domestic tasks. The contribution to the exchequer could easily come out identically....

Daisy is right, already SAHP are claiming WTC and now want more for childcare costs! The fact they don't have any of those costs seems to be lost on a few of them.

My DH is a high earner, I earn less and we share what we can around the house. I work to give us some of the things I want for the family. It also allows me to not be dependant on another person. The divorce rate is 50%. You only have to read the lone parents thread to know that there are some very selfish men around and some very naive women.

We both pay 40% tax but the childcare was very very expensive! a few years ago it equated to 1600 a month!

A cost a SAHP doesn't have...