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?!

word

I totally agree, my dc have friends whose mums would love to work but can't afford to because of childcare costs, they wouldn't financially benefit at all.
these are the people who need the subsidy, not the ones who can survive on one income and use the other for handbags etc.
There are also sahps whose children would benefit because they need socialisation as sahp can't manage to take child out, people who can't cope etc. The people who really need some support.
As I said before I don't argue for fairness for myself, I haven't used childcare, it doesn't stop me from supporting fairness to others.

Oh and by the way the country ticks over purely in monetary terms first and foremost

Any of the lovely pastoral stuff like play dates and soft play etc, they don't count

Oh but seagull if any parent just buggered off the state would have to pick up the tab.

That doesn't make you a special case. Nor is it something that the government should make policy for. It can't pay parents not to bugger off.

Honestly, you seem adamant that you want to be recompensed for not working, even though you wanted not to work, and that those that work should not be recompensed, even if they need to work because they should have planned better.

Seriously odd, muddled and rather bitter take on things...my mind boggles.

You seem to only be able to see the world through the prism of yourself and your family.

Arghhh gahhh

You are absolutely bonkers

Yes some of us have more than one child in childcare and have to pay for it, shock horror

Even more shocking is it leaves is with no time/excess income

You wouldn't know you already had it good if it smacked you right between the eyes because you are deluded into thinking the world wouldn't just carry on without you

Perhaps that's it, you want to be indispensable, you do know your kids will fly the nest one day

A nanny for 3 children doesn't cost three times that of a nanny for one child. Maybe if he had childcare costs to pay he would work even harder and become CEO.

morethan I see what you're saying.

But I think there are two points here. Almost no one works purely for handbags. Not even me .

Most people work because they have to. Their partner simply doesn't earn enough to make ends meet. So they work, but because they work there is also enough for handbags.

But whilst it's very easy to disparage the buying of handbags, let's remember that it's economic activity that makes the wheels turn; it brings in tax that funds TCs, NHS, schools etc.

So a few years of help with childcare to encourage someone to work and buy a few handbags should more than pay for itself. Whereas we know from all the research that when women leave the economy, or return on low level jobs, the tax take decreases.

Seagull - I thought you were a teacher 10 plus years ago. How come you are now self employed. And you arent paying NI yourself. Your not working. Your DP is paying these for you.

Sorry but I dont see you conttributing towards his income at all! My DH is a high earner, he doesnt need me to stay at home to enable him to carry out his role.

Ah yes Morethan because those of us who work for reasons other than pure finances need only ever buy handbags with our ill gotten gains.

I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong seagull) that seagull does want to be recompensed for staying at home.

She just wants parents that do stay at home full time to be recognised as equally deserving as those who don't. As I understand it her points are about the value of sahp, not saying they are any more or less valuable than wohp.

Nope Theword I don't want recompensenting my time as a sahp is nearly over.We provided it all ourselves.

You seem to have forgotten I'm job hunting and will be enjoying help with my childcare on my tax free salary sooner rather than later I hope.I simply would like others to be able to make the choice to have as a sahp as their childcare choice if they so wish and fairness dished out in order to facilitate that choice.

Had it good- you mean planned and saved?

Oh and you can quit with the personal attacks or I'll be reporting.

iam

If it leaves you with no income, then you made the decision to work for other reasons, you can survive on one income, look after your own dc and not need any subsidy.
There are people who would love to work to pay for necessities but can't afford childcare with a restricted pot I think the subsidy should go to them.
In fact the fairest way would be to award any subsidy on a purely needs basis.
Pastoral stuff doesn't count I'm glad for my dc sake that I didn't think like this.

And her point is right with regards to our family. We are contributing far more as a family to the economy as a one earner family than a 2 (one under and one very slightly over the higher rate threshold) earner family. Sorry if you can't see it but we are a team in terms of income/tax paying.

Hand that is you,your dh,his job and your kids.Nothing to do with mine.We all differ as do jobs.

Perhaps I pay my NI out of my savings!

I was self employed after teaching and now I'm not. Now after a different salaried part time job- if that's ok with you.

Do you dissect everybody's life or just sahps?

Seagulls, back to your post at 9.30 - I've been busy. Some won't pay tax. Some will. They will be bringing money into the household that will be spent elsewhere, including on childcare, meaning other people get paid. If they are working in the private sector, they are generating economic activity in other ways. Economic activity is not just about income tax.

The impact assessment for the policy might be a useful read.

Britain has some of the highest childcare costs in Europe. The people who most need help with childcare are families with two working parents, and families who wish to have two working parents but are prevented from doing so by the prohibitive costs of childcare. From a perspective of not having limitless funds, this is clearly the right group to prioritise.

That's not just from an economic standpoint. At a family level, rather than the economic: 20% of (less than) the annual costs of four or five-day-a-week childcare has a much bigger impact for that family than 20% of the cost of occasional childcare. For some, it may enable them to get back to work.

Report me all you like seagulls

Not you The word

Mutley, that's great. Yours probably isn't the average family, statistically. Public policy can't cover all individual circumstances, it has to go with macro benefits based on demographic and economic analysis.

Jassy both groups can be prioritised.

1 x wp and a sahp
2x wp

Both contribute to the economy.If we can help with the childcare for families on £300k whilst handing out free food to those who don't need it and CB to those on joint incomes of £80k then clearly we could think of measures to help families have a sahp if they so wish.Same amount in childcare help could be equalled in a transferable tax allowance for a start.

Ok then Mutley if your DH doesn't pay his tax and legs it to Anguilla. I expect you to pay up for him.

Oh not me .

I've never been reported before I don't think. What happens? I was vaguely excited there for a second.

I think the thing is seagulls that if all you're saying is that there should be some tax break for SAHPS, perhaps a transferable allowance, or whatever, then that's an argument to be had.

But you do seem to be mixing it up with your dislike of childcare, your absurd defensiveness over your value to your DH, and some horrible right wing views on 'planning well' which seem to utterly ignore all the myriad of reasons why people find themselves unable to afford childcare.

Who's getting free food? Infant and some primary school children? Are you going to object to their school milk too.

Please tell me the free food snipe didn't refer to food banks.

You can also report me because your last post was pretty low in itself

Free food, what for the minions and paupers

Pure snobbery

School meals TheWord

(will that do?)

Nope just highlighting the rather narrow view of the other side,playing devil's advocate I guess in some cases.

If we as a society really don't put any value in parents caring for their own children I really do think some of these politicians need to stand up,be honest and voice that opinion.Funnily enough they don't seem to do that so really parents caring for their own children should be supported just the same as those who wish and need to outsource that care.