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?!

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

I beg your pardon?

Are you serious?

The subsidy has decreased over the last 20-30 years, granted.

Why should families who fund their own dc's childcare with sfa help from the state help to fund your lifestyle choices?

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

So that's a good reason to help those people isn't it.

Yes decreased making it totally unaffordable for those kids whose parents don't have choices or silver spoons

Anyway that's a whole other topic

If I was man I would be asking you Arse if it was your time of the month because boy oh boy are you prickly

There is a third solution to the Cc issues and its what we did-work flexibly and share care.

Great idea but not available to or viable for everyone.

It seems to me that it is about wanting "recompense" for giving up a career

If that is your understanding of the objection, no wonder you are irate.

The consequence of a career break is inevitably a damaged career, SAHPs accept that, I think. It is the long-term picture.

The issue here is about the short-term.

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.

What a very vicious misrepresentation of the argument soap.

The alternative to the pending policy is to support all parents through the expensive early years in some way.

It is NOTHING to do with compensating anyone for giving up work.

Well then, if you don't earn enough to pay 100% of your own childcare, you shouldn't be having/have had children because I don't want my taxes to subsidise you for the choice you've made.

Or something

Because they are supporting the economy more by having two people working! And its not families supporting WOHP. It's the individual that is working and paying tax. The one not working isnt supporting anyone but there own family!

Er no weasel perhaps I wasn't clear, I purchase as does my DH, the maximum in childcare vouchers from our employers from our salary before tax, ie a tax break much the same as the one proposed, this equates to roughly 20% of out costs

At the end of the day we still work for it

Gawds sake, you SAHMs really are not getting this are you, sooo defensive, so chip chip chippy

Not prickly, iam; Baffled. I'm not disputing that HE is expensive ('ordinary' people have to work themselves bandy to afford it) but it would be a whole lot more expensive if it wasn't subsidised (ordinary people wouldn't be able to access it at all) .

Huge and important difference.

I'm actually in favour of free education for all, and would happily pay more taxes for this as opposed to CB,subsidised child stretch etc, but there you go

Post above was in response to Seagull

Arse - I think that's my fault (re "compensation for giving up work"). I didn't express myself too well I don't think. I do think I mean recompense, not compensate. Semantics.

The reason for helping working parents is economic. They go out to work, they pay tax, they generate GDP for the country. They have money which they spend on commuting (be it public transport or car), lunches etc. They increase the amount of economic activity in the country. The benefits are tangible and measurable. The benefits of having a SAHM aren't as tangible and certainly less measurable.

DH pays a lot of tax working very long hours. But so do I. My not working wouldn't suddenly increase the amount of tax he pays. Because his job and salary wouldn't increase. Granted he might stay in the office even longer and wouldn't work from home on the one night he picks up our daughter from nursery. If I didn't work I certainly wouldn't consider the tax he paid my contribution.

Little are you continuously ignoring the fact that many wp don't pay taxes,have their salaries propped up with TC and the maj take out more than they put in even before they get help with childcare just to be obtuse or do you genuinely not understand?

Seagulls - I think that's plain for anyone to understand

If you aren't paying tax bit are working you are in a meagre salary, you are not taxed because you need to survive and on 10k a year that hard

I don't suppose you would know this though as your DH clearly earns enough to give you the choice

Yes but the are moving money through the economy at a larger rate than those who don't! Cash Flw!

Have never paid a penny in Cc. Not one.
That is not realistic for everyone though and we wanted and were able to do it.
I agree with it though because I want the teachers,Gps,Nurses,shopworkers,binmen/women,hairdressers etc that serve us all to continue to do their jobs -if they want to

Oh and Seagull I am still awaiting a response to my questions earlier this morning.

I'm not a SAHM iam and I disagree with you entirely.

Your analysis just don't sound very nuanced or as though you are engaging with the big picture. You just sound self-interested and emotional.

If you got your subsidy and SAHP families got an equivalent amount to maintain pension provision, for example, or to pay for CPD, or 6 hours childcare per week, or just to top up income whilst they are managing on one wage, what's the problem?

You wouldn't be missing out, so why would you mind?

Iam but you suggest those that put in more should get more back ie wp are more deserving as they give more back-except many don't.Live by your convictions.

Oh and tax credits are paid to families on a lot more than 10k btw

Well Little you can carry on waiting.You like to ignore questions put to you by others so I'll do the same thanks.

You get 15 hours of early years provision, that's plenty, if you want a real from sahming before that kicks in, you pay for it

I'm definitely not emotional about it, I have empathy for those with real needs, but not those who make choices but then want provision

Cake and eating it

Would you want low earning WP to be on the breadline,for their DC to suffer ?
Well I bloody well dont !

Yes I know they are seagulls, and they get them because employers in this country are taking the mick and not paying enough

You however chose to stay home, so as far as I am concerned and most of my colleagues you really should get on with some parenting, especially if you want paying for it

I guess why you dont get why moving money through the ecconomy is so important.

You wouldn't be missing out, so why would you mind?

Personally I would rather that money was used on other more necessary needs (disability, low income pensioners, NHS etc.). Not people that choose to stop working and are at home but still expect the exchequer to pay for someone else to look after their kids.