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?!

So in your pre children days, Seagull, were you campaigning for you and your partner to be taxed as single unit? Or were you quite happy to be taxed as individuals when it worked to your advantage?

You see, I'd find the whole issue easier to stomach if it weren't being driven by a minority of women who want and choose to be a SAHM, often in the privileged position of having a HRT paying hubby, who just seem to have this underlying resentment that couples who work get this perceived massive perk!

(And to make it clear, my DH and I are HRT payers, I could stop work tomorrow and we could live on his income or he on mine, so no personal axe to grind here.)

...but household are taxed as a unit for the purposes of CB.....

Those of us with a HTR dp can just about scrape by(well before we were clobbered with CB reductions)perhaps some of us would like more parents enabled to gave what we had.

I don't understand what 'give what we had' means.

What matters is happy families who achieve their potential. There are lots of ways that can happen: there isn't some blueprint.

have what we had

Yes there is no blueprint hence all should be helped equally regardless of who they choose to look after their dc.

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 I think that's why some people get so upset about this. They have sacrificed their careers in order to SAH and they want the state to validate their choices. It's perfectly understandable.

Personally, I would like to see much more support for parents of children with disabilities/chronic conditions to stay at home, as I think it is difficult for families in these situations to have two working parents.

For other families, I think it is primarily a lifestyle choice, and the children would probably do equally well with or without a sahp. As such, it doesn't make sense for society to actively encourage this choice - the benefit is to the individual family, rather than society as a whole.

I don't use paid childcare, so this policy makes no difference to me. However, I can see social benefits to providing subsidised childcare for working parents which I don't think apply to SAHPs. I would also like to see much better support and respite care for SAHPs with caring responsibilities for children with complex needs

Well I'd like to buy a house for three times our joint earnings and not have to pay a shedload of stamp duty. But it ain't going to happen. The world has changed.

The economic argument has been spelt out again and again seagull. You don't like it, but that's what the govt is interested in. If it were more beneficial economically to encourage parents to stop working (if for example, WOHP led to more expenditure on mopping up the problems of emotionally damaged children) then believe me, the govt would probably give tax incentives for people not to work.
But that's not the case. The govt wants happy, well adjusted and productive young people and adults. It's less expensive for society. So to put it simply, the govt would like people to be good parents, whether they are WOH or SAH. The working issue is essentially separate to that. If you are working you are contributing economically, ergo you are entitled to certain tax breaks which a someone who isn't working, isn't.

Ha ha since well have the Condems ever talked sense.They want a lot of things,not going to base it on my views as to what is fair or best for families thanks.

Oh and don't patronise me you've had an alternative view spelt out again and again.

There isn't a blueprint for people but there is a blueprint for taxation

I think Snapes has it-couldnt agree more.

No, they aren't going to base policy on what suits your particular family. Or mine. Get over it.

And yes, snapes talks a lot of sense. Help the WOHP and the SAHP who need it... Those with children with complex needs which effectively prevent one parent working. Not those SAHP with high earning partners, who just resent WOHP getting this so called massive perk

Seagull, you may have to accept that statistically, your situation isn't standard and therefore it's unlikely (and would be both unfair in a broader sense as well as economically illiterate) that policy is likely to be made with your specific setup in mind.

You've actually not said what you think the problem with the govt wanting to encourage economic activity is. The fewer people in paid work, the less economic output there is - less good for everyone.

Snapes has it right.

Have you read any of the thread or just lectured with your views.

Get over it.But wp are always complaining re childcare costs so hardly getting over it.Aren't sahp allowed to voice their views re their costs?

Wow didn't know it was a dictatorship.

The fact is regardless of what Seagull wants - to be taxed together and to be allowed to use her 10k untaxed allowance towards her partner's salary -ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN SO TOUGH LUCK!

The 10k allowance is the amount of money that people can EARN before paying tax. If you arent working there is nothing to tax or not tax!

Seagull - what are your costs with regard to childcare - I am sorry I just dont understand what your point is? Are you saying you would like the 20% given to you forgetting that the working parent needs to 'top' up the childcare bill by their own 80%?

You wouldnt have that 80% to pay because you dont need childcare.

Certainly never said I expected £10k so you can quit with the bullying shouting.Any gesture would be a step in the right direction.

People can disagree with you you know.

Well the government pays the NI contributions of SAHM. There's your gesture.

Yes and they can also disagree with you without it being labelled bullying

The poor OP never came back did she

Nearly 700 posts later I still agree with her

Also even if your personal allowance was fully transferable it would save your DH £2,000 at most.

Was that aimed at me? Yes, I've read the thread, though I've not memorised it. What's your issue with the validity of the economic argument? Or do you think the economic argument is valid but that economic policy is less important than gesture (your word) politics?

Governments govern for the many.

Seagull says she pays her own NI. I am not sure of the ins and outs of NI when you arent working so wont comment.

If it is true that if you are a SAHP you get your NI paid for you - well I agree with Little Bear.

If you claim CB as a SAHP (and you don't actually have to take the money so no repayments in the tax return of your HR partner) then your NI credits are paid by the government. This helps to ensure SAHM have sufficient NI credits to qualify for the state pension. It's paid up to when DC are 12 I believe.