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

Really? That's honestly grasping at straws.

You know I don't get why some SAHP feel the need for some sort of validation other than from their own families. You give up work for your family not the exchequer so the exchequer should not pick up your childcare. Pretty simple IMO!

Daisy is right, already SAHP are claiming WTC and now want more for childcare costs!

Hey hand stop lumping all SAHMs together. Or are you trying to sound a bit silly?

Not all SAHPs claim tax credits. What a strange thing to say. All sorts of people claim TC.

I wouldn't have wanted childcare subsidy of any sort when I was a SAHM. I don't know many SAHMs that do, and those that do want it very PT. It is only a 20% subsidy anyway, so it would be proportionate to childcare used.

The fact they don't have any of those costs seems to be lost on a few of them.

Nice

Little - I agree. I work for a company that gives a perk to middle managers. It isn't available to everyone. I also get a nice Blackberry but that's so you can be contacted by desperate clients who have an issue (they are not meant to!)

I have to be senior enough to get the Blackberry and work for this company to get the perk. It's not available to EVERYONE. If someone wants the stress and hassle of my role - fine but you cannot have the perceived benefits without some pay back

Some don't even do it for that reason, lots simply just don't want to work.

I've seen the quotes re husbands paying their tax for them as they can't work without them. Quite amazing how many helpless men there seem to be who need another adult just so they can do their job. Quite how the thousands of families where both adults manage to work I don't know Oh wait they likely ensure that one of the jobs has hours that fit in with childcare if the others doesn't.

Handcream, I work for pretty much the same reasons. Whilst neither of us are high rate tax payers we could survive on one wage if need be but I want DS to have opportunities whilst having some protection myself. I also can buy what I like without thinking somebody else had to go to work for that money. Sets a good example to DS too in that men and women can work and parent hand in hand.

It's very simple really, of you want tax deductions for childcare then go back to work. If you don't want to work and simply want a break, then pay for childcare as it's a luxury in those circumstances not a necessity.

Not with the unemployment levels as they are Chunder

It's very simple really, of you want tax deductions for childcare then go back to work. If you don't want to work and simply want a break, then pay for childcare as it's a luxury in those circumstances not a necessity.

Daisy I'll keep it simple.

Where is your evidence that significant numbers of SAHPs want a childcare subsidy or have asked for a childcare subsidy?

Or are you just making it up?

Sorry, there are jobs around.

My DS got one over the summer, he started with another young lad who walked out at the end of the first day saying he couldn't get his head around it! It's insisting on all sorts of caveats before you take a role that is stopping a lot of people from moving forward, ie insisting on staying in an area of higher unemployment because it would mean leaving their family.

Enough suitable jobs handcream for all the SAHPs to rush back en masse? That's what your DS getting a summer job proves? Really?

ie insisting on staying in an area of higher unemployment because it would mean leaving their family.

So you want married couples to separate rather than have a SAHP?

It isn't easy with two demanding roles, I am not going to pretend it is, we used to sit down every weekend with our diaries out checking who could do what. We had a fab CM. DH was keener on having kids than I was, he said he would help and if he hadn't we would just have had the one....

Don't think she meant what you think she meant Arsenic I believe she is talking about staying in a specific specialism (job role etc.) not actually moving to a different area to live. I may e wrong though.

Actually its me that miss read that one!

It proves that there are roles around! Of course if you have a large list of specific requirements before you accept a role then no you won't find something.

Daisy

You have stated that you don't need the money and are working out of choice, wheres the difference between you and a sahp who may need childcare.

Daisy you have no experience of every job.There are stacks of jobs which are detrimental to some kids without the support of a sahp. Just because 2x wp suits your family doesn't mean you get to speak for all.My childhood would have been shite without a sahp and my dc's wouldn't have been that great either.

Some families don't choose 2x wp just because,they sit down and decide what is better for their kids/ families and act accordingly.

Of course if you have a large list of specific requirements before you accept a role then no you won't find something.

It's more a question of whether they will have you. It is hard to secure work outside of your specific area of qualification and experience. It is very hard to get taken on for non-graduate roles if you are a graduate etc.

There is also a split wherby cities are awash with low skill labour and some regions of the UK have very few jobs at all.

handcream's suggestion that if one partner has a job, but they are in a high unemployment region, the other partner should leave the family to find work is barbaric, quite honestly.

Morethan, well I'm not a SAHP and neither will I be claiming for childcare so the new tax scheme doesn't affect me in any way. Well, other than if my taxes have to go towards choices then childcare for workers is a sensible one. It costs the state nothing to have me working and contributing yet it costs the state in top up benefits due to your choice of staying home. Yet you begrudge those that will be helped by this scheme.

Seagulls, I disagree that children need a SAHP to have a great childhood. Pre school age they will have very few, if any memories, so as long as good quality childcare is used children will be happy. At school age they are out of the house for the bulk of the day and I doubt an hour or so in after school care impacts severely on a child. Plenty already do lots of extra curricular activities anyway.

That's not the same as it actually being possible for the majority of work-capable adults to earn enough income to pay income tax- ie 10k now, or 10.5k as of next April.

Chunder is right. Someone working FT @ NMW will pay almost no income tax. And those are hard on-your-feet jobs, not to be sneezed at.

Seagulls

Our family is the same, I knew what dh did and was going to do for the rest of his life when I met him. It's who I fell in love with.
We made the choice for me to be a sahm after considering the options and did what worked best for our family.

I am quite anti childcare for my dc and make no secret of this so I wouldn't be accepting any subsidy for childcare.

However, when our dc were little I know how tough it could be on your own, dh working away or very long hours, with no family nearby and can understand how another sahp may need a bit of a break sometime for both them and their dc sake. That is just one example and I'm sure there are many more.

I actually don't mean that, I mean that the whole family moves to where there is work, allows the non working parent to perhaps have more choice. I don't like the word barbaric - barbaric is the beheading of the two journalists, not what you are describing.