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?!

If there's one thing I've learned from MN, it's that those high paid demanding jobs which need a partner at home to facilitate them, strangely become so much easier when a couple with children are both working at that level. That's when all the talk of privileged dual incomes comes out, and the resentment that they might get a teeny bit of help towards the cost of childcare. Odd that.

Daisy

I don't begrudge anybody subsidised childcare, maybe I didn't make myself clear.

If a wohp doesn't need to work (financially) they have made a choice just the same as a sahp has.

Yet people are talking about not subsidising a sahp because it is a choice.
I really don't see the difference. If choice is to be considered then surely the two should equate in terms of subsidy.

Is it because some children with a SAHP still go to nursery, and it's not always possible to get a free nursery place, non-council/private nurseries charge for wrap around care, meals, nappies etc?

Is the new system only going to be available to families where both parents work?

What I think is crap under the current system is that if you happen to work for a bigger organisation or one that cares enough to operate a childcare voucher scheme, you save money. I'm self employed, so no saving for me.

Infinity - you run your lives like this because it suits you, however what happens if god forbid you split up, all this someone else pays my tax is nonsense. You should be paying your own tax for it to count. I heard a young couple a few months ago claiming that their parents had paid their tax and that's why they had 4 kids, never worked and then boasted about it. Surely as women in the 21 st century we pay our own way, not allow others to do it for us....

If all the jobs that don't PAY enough to merit much income tax, disappeared tomorrow we'd all be sunk.

Ther would be no;

Refuse collectors
Care workers
Hospital cleaners
School dinner ladies
Street cleaners
Teaching assistants
Nursing auxillaries
Hospital porters

Nevermind private sector roles like waitresses, hair salon juniors, shop assistants, bar staff, cleaners etc etc

This mealy-mouthed virtue-making of tax-paying is obscene.

Nobody is a net contributor to the UK economy until they earn approx £60k+ anyway. So why all the superiority?

If all the jobs that don't PAY enough to merit much income tax

And this is about what people are PAID, not what they earn, or what their labour is actually worth....

Blimey, is it really 60k, I thought it was much less.

"Daisy

I don't begrudge anybody subsidised childcare, maybe I didn't make myself clear.
If a wohp doesn't need to work (financially) they have made a choice just the same as a sahp has.
Yet people are talking about not subsidising a sahp because it is a choice.
I really don't see the difference. If choice is to be considered then surely the two should equate in terms of subsidy."

They aren't equal in the slightest. One is contributing to the pot and one isn't. The one paying in deserves a tax rebate. Some second wages may not be required but they are likely being spent on luxuries so boosting the economy at the same time.

If you want things to be equal, that would suggest you'd give up the WTC & CTC in exchange for the scrapping of the new tax deduction. Neither benefits from simply having children then.

Daisy I totally disagree.

Today my kids ran out from school ecstatic to see me,we went home together go eat the cake I made.They went off on their scooters in the sun to play with their friends outside,running in and out and then my ds's did some 11+ studying alongside piano practise.Dp will rock home late.By then we've read,eaten a home cooked meal,washed and are ready for bed and reading in a leisurely fashion with zero stress.

It may not be much to you but it is priceless to us.We are who we are and I know my children best.They've had several years of this and I wouldn't have traded it for the world,neither would they.Educationally,socially and emotionally they have benefitted.

I'll double check in the morning.

Of course, then what everyone does is nitpick through the list saying 'well we're never ill and we have bupa anyway and I've never reported a crime in my life...'

Which isn't what they say later when they have a cardiac arrest on the pavement or a riot breaks out in their city

The one paying in deserves a tax rebate.

Says who?

Oh and dp is a net contributor so you can't even throw not contributing at us.

Daisy

I am spending and boosting the economy on a daily basis whilst wohp sits in office
There are so many wohp who don't pay tax and have tax credits.
There are so many wohp who work because they want to and don't need the money nor subsidised childcare as they can afford their own.

I like your vision of marriage Infinity

What's wrong with dividing things up the way you see fit?

It seems a strange thing for the g'ovt to want to contradict.

Daisy, forgot

There are many sahp who wouldn't require subsidised childcare, there are a lot who can afford their own, there are some who aren't boosting the economy.

If you need childcare and you can't afford it, you should be able to apply for subsidy whatever your position.

Infinity - I sincerely hope you don't break up. You only have to look at the lone parent board to see a very different side of people.

I don't think there are many threads there saying they dont regret their lives, lying scum bag is often used but tbh I don't see very many stating they chose unwisely or ignored the red flags. Its all about the crap absent parent.

(Scratches head and wonders how playing on scooters, piano practice and homework are relevant, as my 3 did all those things with WOHP...)

seagulls

That sounds lovely, we did similar today except for the school bit.
We did fun activities all day, whilst dd managed to learn lots.

Infinity - I agree about the marriage bit but what about partners, it's a word thrown about which seems to cover someone you met last week to someone you have been with for yrs.

I have my tin hat ready but I think marriage is one of the keys to living together and it becoming permanent. You don't marry someone after knowing them a couple of weeks generally but partners cover all sorts..

Children who have parents who haven't been married are more likely to see their parents split.

Well they wouldn't be if I had an equally stressful job as dp. Now they're older and when I get a part time job(which will pay no tax but move me up into the heady echelons of being a wp)they will do some of it.

There is no way on earth dp would do his job if I had an equal job in my field.No way,end of.

The stress x2 would be utter shite for all involved,we'd never see each other(I'd be working all weekend,him all week,both until late),we'd be at each other, not being able to afford private there would be an impact on my dc's education from long wrap around hours and no time for the extra tutoring I do,their friendships would suffer.Not happening.My kids come first.End of.

I agree Potato

The post about the Aus scheme was interesting. I hadn't thought about the range of scenarios too much before but subsidised childcare if you volunteer, study etc sounds very attractive.

I had to perform timetable gymnastics to do postgrad study pretty much within voucher hours for a while, partly because of the expense. I just accepted it, but we should be encouraging everyone to upskill shouldn't we?

Labour did announce a policy to extend free hours to all 2 year olds and from 15 to 25 hours per week. I wonder if they scrapped it?

I'm more ambivalent about under 2s, though.