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?!

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

There are lots of working mothers in this situation (I will be one of them if I decide to go back). DH works long hours, travels abroad with work a lot and has a highly stressful job. Lets not even start on my job!

WOHP need childcare so they can go out to work not so they have time for a little break from their children. If SAHP want a break from their kids then they should pay for that privilege themselves.

Wow just caught up on the thread. Some really defensive people on here.

Why do some people feel the need to justify themselves and seem to want so much validation from others outside their family for choices they made for their family? No one but our own families give two flying hoots how we choose to live as a family.

Lets get back to the Ops point which was should SAHP get subsidised childcare! No SAHP shouldn't get childcare. If you want a break then pay for the childcare yourself.

Yep I think the point you make snapespotions is absolutely spot on - my DD goes into childcare one day a week to safeguard my mental health. This is vital for all 3 of my DC. I obviously use many other strategies none of which require any subsidy (exercise, some time out at weekends etc). This is why I think it would be fair that my childcare is subsidised.

I am only talking about the years until she is 3 and eligible for the 15 hours per week - I would never expect (or want to have) more than 15 hours per week if I were a SAHP.

I have been a P/T WOHP following both maternity leaves of my older 2DC but at the moment it simply isn't feasible (partly due to the demands of my DH's job!) - and I absolutely would love to be a WOHP to regain some more of my sense of self but I can't at the moment. Therefore I don't see it as a SAHP/WOHP debate - just if it is fair to subsidise childcare for some, why not for all?

And yes my DH pays far more into the tax pot now than we did as a couple when he had a much less well paid (less stressful) job and I also had a P/T low paid job. So that argument doesn't stand up either as the childcare isn't for "me" - it's for our family and the incomings/outgoings as relating to the tax pot should be considered accordingly.

I disagree at te concept that been a SAHP is working. It's not, its a life choice people make for their families. I am at home with DD currently and it certainly isn't the same as working and if I decide to stay home Long term I won't be considering it a job. It's not. It may be hard work at times but its not a job.

And I would never expect to be paid for the pleasure of looking after my own DD!

Little then wp shouldn't expect help for their childcare either.

The state doesn't play for cleaners when wp outsource why should it be held responsible for it's childcare?

Oh and re defensiveness these threads seem a little one sided. Sahp have every negative and risk thrown at their choices.They have their choices belittled and are continuously told what they should be doing.They are told that they are lazy,don't contribute,their kids are weak and tied to mummy's apron strings and have every risk rubbed in their faces.

The minute they try and explain their choices or even god forbid suggest that there are risks and negatives with having 2x wp the nastiness and accusations start by the same people who always crop up on these threads.

there are negatives and risks with having 2x wp, sahp don't seem fit to rub these in posters faces as we're well aware many with 2x wp don't have much choice.It would be nice if the same courtesy could go both ways particularly as some don't like it when the boot is on the other foot.

If my reasons for not having 2 x stressful jobs are unpalatable to you don't goad or run down my choices ie don't give out what you can't take back.That is all.

Oh and re defensiveness these threads seem a little one sided. Sahp have every negative and risk thrown at their choices.They have their choices belittled and are continuously told what they should be doing.They are told that they are lazy,don't contribute,their kids are weak and tied to mummy's apron strings and have every risk rubbed in their faces.

I haven't seen this! Please could you point me to a post where SAHP have been accused of been lazy for example? Are you suggesting because I don't think SAHP should get childcare I am suggesting the above? Who suggested there are no negatives or risks for both WOHP or SAHP? I just don't think they should get childcare that's it!

And comparing having a cleaning and needing childcare so you an go to work is a stretch IMO. It really is. Working parents need additional support in terms of childcare because they leave their children to go and work. SAHP don't! It's as simple as that! WHOP need it and SAHP don't need it because they are at home.

And at what point have I goaded you? . I simply disagree with you and most people I know in RL would too.

I don't want money / equivalent for child care when I do it myself. That is crazy. I was happy to accept the 15 hours funded at 3. But I've made a choice to stay at home (At the moment) and I am lucky.
However I do think removing child benefit from households where one person earns 50k and continuing to give to two people who earn £98k between them is very wrong. Especially given the reasons why Child Benefit was introduced.

Why not take it off every household at 50k/ 60k/ 70k?

Working parents need additional support in terms of childcare because they leave their children to go and work. SAHP don't! It's as simple as that! WHOP need it and SAHP don't need it because they are at home.

Yes! That's the reason they won't benefit from the policy! Hence the accusation of unfairness.

If a couple are on £27k each (average earnings), then, after tax, season ticket, childcare, etc the choice between them both working through the preschool years, one of them taking a career break for the prechool years, or them taking it in turns to SAHP for the preschool years is pretty neytral financially because childcare and the cost of working eats one wage.

In that situation why shouldn't it be individual choice which solution the family pick for their DC for a few short years?

Why are the g#ovt favouring one arrangement over another?

Why will you not engage with that point PeaPod? It has been put to you sveral times.

Lots of things in govt policy aren't fair, though. Why are people who commute to work by road subsidised by the government (free provision of roads) while those who
commute by train having subsidies withdrawn, for example?

Arsenic - the simple answer is that the state benefits directly from both parents being in work via tax, and the economy benefits through increased economic activity and spending. The state wishes to encourage this activity by enabling more situations where two parents work if they want to. There is plenty of evidence that people were put off returning to work because of the huge costs of childcare.

It's an economic judgement by the state, just like tax rates for individuals and businesses, and decisions about what may and may not be deducted from tax if you are working. I don't buy is as not valuing stay at home parents - the rhetoric from the Tory govt is what it's always been on that one - rather enabling economic activity among those wishing to be economically active.

So I suppose it comes down to government deciding to subsidise one choice because they think it is preferable to having an sahp.

Yes because its better for the economy and I agree with that.

You can't compare been a SAHP and been a Nanny. Nannies are going out to work. Their occupation may be in childcare but its other people's children and they may well be leaving their own children so they can go to work. SAHP are not working they are choosing a lifestyle that suits their families. Nothing wrong with that and as I said above it can be hard but its not working.

Arsenic. Yes! That's the reason they won't benefit from the policy! Hence the accusation of unfairness.

But I agree its not unfair.. It's the right thing to do. I have engaged with your point Arsenic. I think only those parents that are working (single, married, living together or whatever) should be the only people that get childcare. If you choose to stop working, take a career break or whatever that is your choice and you know you are sacrificing financially. If you choose to stop because you feel its negligible because of what's left at the end of the month, well that's still a choice to stop working. No parent that is not working and is at home with their kids (unless there are exceptional circumstances) should get support with childcare. I would like to see an increase in support for those working parents on low wages though. If you are not working, you don't get it, if you are working you do get it. That's very clear and covers off most hypothetical scenarios!

They think removing child benefit from those earning over 50k will save money

Well, they could very well be wrong because what I and a number of my colleagues have found is that now we have to self assess it turns out that we might not be entitled to all our child benefit, but this year self assessing has turned up 1.5k that the taxman owes me

I wouldn't have even known about this, had I not self assessed, so rather than DC and his clan penalising me for earning over 50k - they owe me in other ways, and I'm not alone in this

Woa!

In my stupidity as a SAHM (no family DH long hours set up) I actually thought childcare providers had something to offer my child that I cannot. I think we need to keep in mind the many benefits of a child attending a setting outside the home with carers other than the primary carer and family.

Now my child has reached 2.5 she is benefiting form attending nursery three days a week. She is beginning to plat along side and form bonds with other carers than just me. She is participating in group activities, learning conventions such as turn taking, ques, waiting...I cant do that at home.

We do not get any benefits, child benefit and at the minute get tax relief on £150 worth of childcare vouchers from until April 2015.

I accept I need to pay for her but it does seem unfair that access based on the benefit to the child is unfair. I think all children should have some access from aged 2 when they develop socially. But I think working parents should have better support via higher tiered subsidy (have been there in the past with first DC) and have access to flexible hours/reduced hours.

Jazzy many wp don't pay tax,have their salaries propped up by tax credits and are costing help in childcare.Meanwhile the children they may well prefer to be with are shoehorned into the lowest quality childcare as it often those on the lowest incomes who are lumbered with the shittiest childcare NC and a DC wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

The provision for quality childcare is so bad they've had to delay some measures as there isn't enough good to go round.

Arsenic - the simple answer is that the state benefits directly from both parents being in work via tax, and the economy benefits through increased economic activity and spending. The state wishes to encourage this activity by enabling more situations where two parents work if they want to. There is plenty of evidence that people were put off returning to work because of the huge costs of childcare.

That's the bit I find objectionable (personally) - the overall trend towards placing monetary considerations above all else. It is what one expects from DC and GO, of course, but I see no reason to smile and nod.

After all, the period between the end of ML and the start of school can be as little as three years. That is the life-stage a lot of SAHPing lasts for. It is not a yawning chasm of time.

In my stupidity as a SAHM (no family DH long hours set up) I actually thought childcare providers had something to offer my child that I cannot. I think we need to keep in mind the many benefits of a child attending a setting outside the home with carers other than the primary carer and family.

The lines between early education and childcare do seem to be getting blurred, don't they?

There is a third solution to the Cc issues and its what we did-work flexibly and share care.
Its obviously not feasible for everyone but it worked really well for us and my DC liked having their dad at the schoolgate as well as me.
Did i feel that I should be subsidised for caring for my own DC -NO!
Should sahp get a subsidy?
No - maybe they should be offered Cc if they want it -on another thread this was met with howls of derision as being inferior and not wanted.

It seems to me that it is about wanting "recompense" for giving up a career,likewise the "my DC are ecstatic to see me,enid blyton idealistic childhood " comments by a poster upthread are to convince her on this thread and many others that its been worth it .(have been here a while!)
My DC had lots of days like that and so do most children.There were also days when they were grumpy and tired.

There are good days and bad days whether you SAH/WOH .
There are days when it all goes right,the sun shines and its great and there are days when it rains and one of them treads in dogpoo,the baby vomits and you all come down with it one by one!
There are days when work is really enjoyable and days when its crap.

Take responsibility for your choices if you give up paid work -noone else is going to step in and compensate you for giving up your job,to think otherwise is unrealistic and needy.

Oh and life isnt always fair -get over it !

God that feels better !

There is plenty of evidence that people were put off returning to work because of the huge costs of childcare.

And there is plenty of evidence that people are having to leave their jobs because of the huge costs of childcare.

Yeah life isn't fair.

Childcare costs money however you provide it,get over it and stop expecting the state to fund your lifestyle choice.

Lack of empathy can go both ways.

Stop press

Having children isn't a job!!!

You don't get paid/subsidised to be born

You don't even get paid/subsidised to have a further/higher education anymore unless you really are entitled

You don't get paid/subsidised to get married

You don't get/paid subsidised to die

So why the hell should someone who is working and has to pay for well over 80% of their own childcare, also pay taxes to support your choices, choices they can't even make for themselves

If you want to stay at home, good for you, but it's not a job

Oh and life isnt always fair -get over it !

Ideas about 'fairness' are the emotional respose.

The equivalent (entirely legitimate) political/policy question is why subsidise one choice and not the alternative?

'Get over it' isn't a very substantive answer.