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?!

Wealthy families don't generally use food banks just fsm,of course not food banks.Free school meals.

Sorry littlebear, you'll have to do better than that. In my team world if my DH p&&s's off to Anguilla we will all be with him. If he p&&s's off with an OW and I am then a lone parent, we will no longer be a team and I will be out for all the lone parent help I can get, my arguments clearly no longer apply.

And yes every single parent is getting free milk plus free school lunches from primary years R to 2 - even if they are the richest people in the world - why waste the money on that rather than subsidise childcare for all up to an appropriate threshold of household income. Although to be fair I don't know if the free school lunches are claimed or available in private schools....

I'm lost with the free food stuff now.
I'm just coming to terms with our discussion on handbags.

word

I can quite see your point now about the handbags, I guess I wasn't looking at it like that, it makes sense when you put it like that
I'm just for fairness and for those in life who need support to be able to access it.

Personally, I don't think any financial support should benefit particular groups in general but those who show a need.
I think if you are a sahp like me for instance who has tc, if I wanted cc I should have to pay because we could afford a few hours if needed.
I still profess though that a sahp in another situation may need childcare support.

I think politicians have stood up and said what they think.

Working Families Tax Credits were brought in to help women return to the work place.

This policy on child care is to help parents make work pay.

You may believe that children are better off at home with their mother and thus the mother should be paid for that, but the politicians and society don't agree!

And to be fair, the evidence doesn't seem to support the assertion that it is better for DC to have a SAHP. We have more working parents than ever before, yet the outcomes for DC have not declined.

Indeed, the children who fare worst in the country are the children of the poor, who tend not to work.

Indeed, the children who fare worst in the country are the children of the poor, who tend not to work.

morethan I agree that giving help for childcare to those who earn 300k seems a bit ridiculous.

It seems to me that you should every family gets it, or make the threshold an amount that seems equable (though of course someone will always just lose out).

I suppose it's a way to keep well educated/qualified women in the work place. They tend to drop out. And it's a big drain on the economy and also has an impact on the lack of women in positions that affect us all.

BBC: "Most people classed as being in poverty 'have job'" Dec 2013, Source: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Yes but the outcomes for children of the working poor are still better than for those in workless homes.

The point I'm making is simply that being a working parent has not shown to have any detrimental effect upon a child's outcome (this is on a macro level of course).

So if a government takes that concern out of the equation then economics must drive it. And economically it is better for a country to have as many working and paying tax and spending as possible.

Word - have you not heard of the phrase 'working poor'?

Ah - I see you have. Sorry.

children in workless families are around three times more likely to be in poverty than those in working families.

Seagulls, I understand the £150k threshold was set exactly because they'd learned the lessons of child benefit threshold mess ups and the cost of setting a threshold not linked to tax bands was greater than they'd be paying out in rebates for the very low numbers of people on very high incomes (let alone those with two parents on very high incomes).

If two priorities are conflicting, you can't have them both. You can't prioritise two things at the same time if there isn't enough money for both.

I get that you don't agree with the way the prioritisation has been done, and would prefer your husband to get the tax break to pay for 20% of your childcare costs instead.

How much do you, or would you use childcare? What's the impact on you of not getting 20% of it back?

Looking at a couple of posts. Giving any sort of allowance to 'couples' to share will be a minefield. Who is a couple?

1. Someone who is married?
2. Someone who has lived with someone for x yrs
3. Your latest boyfriend that you met a few months ago?
4. What about couples without kids? Is it fair that only people who have kids are allowed to pool their allowances?

There would be so many changes and people claiming they have split up with so and so and now Mr X is going to share his tax allowance - it just wouldnt work.

And actually why should tax allowances be shared just because you have children. What about gay couples where one chooses not to work or a couple who wants one of them to stay at home with no kids to consider

Isitmy, I think the word 'valuable' is too laden with meaning and emotion to be anything but unhelpful when talking about this sort of thing. The idea of worth is an important and complex one.

In justifying policies that have, at least in part, a rationale of improving the economy, then talking about overall impact on economic activity is entirely relevant and, I'd argue, a better basis on which to discuss the merits of the policy.

Just an observation: some posters have bemoaned the fact that the govt seems to care more about money than the happiness and mental well being of families, and that it's intent on forcing parents to abandon their children to childcare so they can get back to work.

Well, quite- governments do tend to look at things from an economic point of view. So actually, if it were the case that childcare leads to poor outcomes, eg kids with mental health issues, inability to form good relationships and bombing in school exams, with my cynical hat on, I would say governments wouldnt be encouraging parents to work. The financial cost of mopping up all the problems would be a disincentive.

But it isn't the case that there are poor outcomes. Regulated childcare has been around a good while now...my eldest dc is mid 20s, happy, in a solid relationship with a wonderful guy, went to university etc She went to a childminder from 12 weeks. And I have colleagues with older adult children who have the same experiences.

If there were clear evidence that having two working parents had detrimental outcomes, believe me, governments would be chasing women back into the home to prevent their poor children growing up damaged.

That said, I totally accept what some posters have said, that their children cant flourish in childcare. Therefore, they have stopped work to avoid using childcare. But I suspect most SAHM do it because either the thought of paying out all or most of their income on childcare is a disincentive, or they simply prefer to be at home. Which is fine. Many mums I know who gave up work were honest enough to admit that it was because they loved being a SAHM and that even if they were offered totally free high quality childcare to keep working, they would choose to have some years out of work completely than combine working with bringing up young children. So, it's not always a case of the children being happier with mum at home- sometimes it's that mum is happier. Again, I must emphasise that there is nothing wrong with that choice if your partner is willing to take on the role of sole earner. Nothing wrong at all.

It just seems odd that there is a minority of strident women who have chosen to be SAHM yet seem so resentful of a perceived 'perk' which they don't want and don't need.

Just think it's bonkers that I'll get the help when I need it less ie earning £10k untaxed.When I really needed it,I got nothing.

Why will you need it less then, Seagulls? Sorry if I've missed it. And how much would you have needed that you would have received a 20% rebate on?

It's sour grapes at the end of the day. Lots are quite content to tax the WTC and CTC to stay home but then believe it's highly unfair that there's a tax deduction for childcare expenses simply because they can't claim it. Will they be demanding the end to those top ups in favour of being able to claim the tax deduction. Of course they won't. Will they give them up as being a SAHP is a lifestyle choice, of course not.

The argument that they should get it as some parents work whilst not needing to is ludicrous. It doesn't matter if the parent has to work or chooses to work, the point is the person DOES work and therefore benefits society. Many don't want to stay home and claim benefits as believe they should support the child/children they choose to bring into the world. If the money is extra after bills then the economy is boosted.

What happened to having a child because you wanted one. It's not childcare to parent your own child neither is it a job. It's not certainly something the government should recompense your wage for if you decide it's better for your family to quit working as somebody suggested.

But all workers earn 10k untaxed

You weren't earning when you say you needed it so you can't magic something from nothing

Screwed logic

I'll be more than capable of funding a few days wrap around with £10k coming in to add to the family coffers.When we were relying on 1 salary something like a transferable tax allowance would have really helped and made a difference.

No, going out to work and earning 10k tax free would have helped

Transferable tax doesn't exist no matter how much we fantasise about it, we can only count on what does

Mutley I have 3 DC!!! I think you have misunderstood .

So the above -
Thats the lot of all parents unless they have just one child or a fulltime Nanny prepared to work evenings while they are at the assemblies etc
I would go the afternoon performance with wriggly toddler and DH the evening or vice versa.
I couldnt just walk out of work to go to the Dentist alone -we always went together .
It wasnt a big deal, you just get on with it and get used to juggling.

It wouldn't have worked then. It will work now.

I have scoured the thread and I cannot find anywhere, where a SAHP has said that they wanted to claim the 20% tax relief on their childcare bill - nowhere.

As I understand it - the point is, children are expensive - full stop, all parents take a financial hit when they have children, why subsidise one group of parents and not the other? Clearly, SAHP's do not want this subsidy, what they do want, is, for any tax relief paid to families to be fair. Oh, I don't know, like a universal payment to all families who have children, now there's an idea, the you spend it on whatever you like, be it childcare, school shoes, swimming lessons, or your own therapy ;) They could call it....um, how about......'Child Benefit'...

The government need people to reproduce and bring up well adjusted adults who will be able to fuel the economy in the future, either by running the hospitals or collecting the rubbish, or voluntarily staffing the library, or just by paying taxes. So it makes sense for the government to offer some support for those bringing up children, however they choose to do it.