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?!

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.

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure what it's all about.

The 'early years' are expensive.

There is a thread in money matters at the moment which is eerily close to the hypothetical I almost posted here yesterday; A woman wanting to TTC and comparing their potential position if they both work with their position if one of them SAHPs. There isn't much in it. The first four years are expensive either way. So why not provide for all families with preschoolers and give people options? Then people might make more creative decisions.

We are not talking about large sums anyway and (usually) not long periods of time.

seagull what questions have I ignored? I will assume this mornings post it was just a pointless rant.

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.

You are being deliberately obtuse now peapod.

You have been told several times that most SAHP DON'T want childcare. They want to look after their own DC.

Really -SAHP should get a subsidy for looking after their own DC ?
So would DH and I have got one as well as we did both roles?

I spent the time i was at home with my DC partially at my DP home -on the beach most days or at home,visiting frinds,drinking coffee,playing with my DC,at various groups. avoiding housework
It was bliss -I really dont think I should have been paid to do it!

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

That's the point iam. Subsidised childcare is about as much use to most SAHPs as a chocolate teapot.

That is why they 'don't benefit'.

So why would they want childcare subsidise if it wasn't to get someone else to look after there kids?

Really -SAHP should get a subsidy for looking after their own DC ?

Do you have a source for that soap?

Who asked for that?

I doubt its in the same league as those working even low income taking into account their wage etc.

And getting back to the elephant in the room which many frankly don't give a shiny shit over.Looking at and providing what is best for those involved ie tiny babies,toddlers and children should be the priority.For many that will be a sahp regardless of whether DC or certain posters like that.

Oh and as to "get on with some parenting" - big insulting for wp isn't it.

And getting back to the elephant in the room which many frankly don't give a shiny shit over.Looking at and providing what is best for those involved ie tiny babies,toddlers and children should be the priority.

That is the reason many SAHPs privately give (not all, or even necessarily most) for taking a minimum of two years out. There is an evidence base there.

I notice a lot of sensitivity around not yelling about it on threads such as this though (despite the, sofa, bottom, lobotomy, scrounger brickbats).

Infinty. Yes. I was just saying as an individual a SAHP doesn't move the same amount of money through the system as a low income earner.

Its up to individuals to decide whats best for their DC given their own individual circumstances.
With current ML policy there are few "tiny babies" in Cc
I have yet to meet a single parent who didnt give a "shiny shit" about their children,although Im sure there are some out there.
Yes having a parent at home was my preferred option but other people make equally sound decisions for their children.
Its not up to you or me to decide whats best for others peoples children.

One other issue why exactly should those on two x high incomes get help with childcare?The ceiling is £300k joint. Why should our taxes on a lot less fund this?

Frankly I'd rather help was capped at £50k joint(the level deemed to be wealthy by the Tories in order to justify CB cuts). If they cut CB to those on £50 joint alongside single and help with childcare to the same level there would be oodles of cash left over to support families under in choosing either a sahp or childcare whichever was best for their dc.

Anyway,I am off to put DD to bed for a nap before putting my feet up with a nice cup of Lemon & Ginger tea and watching Sky News or maybe Location Location Location. Possibly look through some ther MN threads! We have a busy afternoon, Jo Jingles, Play & Stay etc. really hard work.

I was just saying as an individual a SAHP doesn't move the same amount of money through the system as a low income earner.

A SAHP is likely to most of the household accounting, make most of the spending decisions and do most of the physical shopping. So that assertion strikes me as a bit desperate, with the best will in the world.

Consider a couple on £10k each with further top ups totalling maybe £7k. £27k to spend annually. Most of it not discretionary, almost no income tax.

OTOH a single wage household with an income of £120k, will have a net income of about £70k (someone correct me, I think I'm close), pay £50k (!) in income tax and NI (again feel free to correct me but it's a big number) and still have plenty of scope for discretionary spending.

Its up to individuals to decide whats best for their DC given their own individual circumstances.

EXACTLY soap, exactly.

Individuals. David Cameron's judgemental meddling is a bit galling.

Anyway,I am off to put DD to bed for a nap before putting my feet up with a nice cup of Lemon & Ginger tea and watching Sky News or maybe Location Location Location. Possibly look through some ther MN threads! We have a busy afternoon, Jo Jingles, Play & Stay etc. really hard work.

I love the supportive ethos here.

I have to say I agree with thatseagulls50k joint sounds fair but I doubt there would be oodles leftover and I would prefer it to go to those who really need it such as disabled people,surestart schemes etc.

I have yet to meet a single parent who didnt give a "shiny shit" about their children,although Im sure there are some out there.

This x 1000

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

I don't want the exchequer to pay someone else to look after my kids. I want my DP to do it because that's what he left his job to do. I just want him/us to get some assistance to allow him to do this. I want a level playing field for all.

We have lost around £20k a year for reasons stated above. However, if DP goes back to work (shift work would be guaranteed work 6am to 2pm and 2pm to 10pm), and we put DS (4 months old) into nursery and DD (8) into out of school clubs, then we will be able to claim from your (and my) hard earned taxes (it still won't cover all the costs) - and won't that be great! I would have to drop DS off at 8.30am, then take DD to school - she would then have to go to out of school club until 5.30pm and then we'd go to pick up DS at around 6.

So, the quality of our lives will be pretty shit with us hardly seeing each other, but at least DP will be contributing to the economy (regardless of the fact that he's already paid in for years and years, in which case I'll also explain to him that he better not have a heart attack or get seriously ill at the moment because he really shouldn't expect the NHS to treat him now he's not working or contributing).

What a load of bollocks.

I think a lot of people lack empathy on this board. We're not all just one homogeneous mass of people are we?

Unless DC is chucking 30k at individuals I think a bit of tax relief is hardly judgemental meddling.
You go out to work,you get paid has been around since people paid each other in goats .

Still not a Con-dem fan though -hopefully not too long now!

My goodness this has moved on - basically if you can afford to give up work and rely on someone else to give you your lifestyle (whatever that is) good for you.

But Seagull and others are indicating that they are living this (as someone said upthread) Enid Blyton type life.

Working out of the home isnt only for the money

1. It gives you independence
2. it doesnt alllow you to have a rely on anyone for your lifestyle (and money)
3. It shows your DC that women arent tied to the home
4. It gives you money for other things, whether that be a bigger house, private schools, etc
5. An average of 50% of people on this thread will break up. Surely you need to ensure that you protect yourself
6. DC dont need you hovering around over them claiming that ONLY you are suitable to look after them. They need to experience life - not be cossetted by you because actually you dont have another role to undertake.