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?!

Paying NI when you have no taxable income is completely unnecessary if you have children under 12.

They have sacrificed their careers in order to SAH and they want the state to validate their choices. It's perfectly understandable.

Nobody in their right mind wants the state to validate anybody's choices.

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.

What many parents of disabled children want is not be made to feel so constantly different and outside of the mainstream. Goodness alone knows what effect 'welfare reform' is having on some on lower incomes.

OMG is this still going round in circles?

Iamusually. I still agree with the Op too

Seagulls have you had a lunch break from MN today? . I can see why you want a job. Good luck and I hope you get one quickly

I think the bottom line is, you can't expect policies to change just to suit your set or circumstances at a particular moment in time.

Like I said earlier, I bet the SAHP who want tax policy to change and treat them and their partner as a single unit, were more than happy to be taxed as individuals pre children when they were a dual income family.

Some of us will benefit from certain things at particular times in our life. Or not ... Childless people don't benefit directly from their taxes paying for schools etc
When you are in employment, you benefit from particular things. While you're not in employment, you don't.

seagulls please don't blame the con dems for this policy.

The fact is that all three major parties wish to support working parents. Labour instigated many tax credit ploicies that were aimed entirely at helping women, in particular single mothers, back to work.

They also support help with child care costs.

None of the three main parties support transferable tax allowances or any other enhancements to SAHPs.

Why is this?

First, it represents the will of society in the main.
Second, having people in work is the way for an economy to thrive.

You may find other countries that support your suggestion? I don't know which? Anyone?

Yes it promotes paid work by parents, and economic activity but I don't think it's government's sole role to promote as much economic activity and collect as much tax as possible is it?

This government has said economic recovery and growth is its top priority. So this shouldn't be a surprise.

Again, important not to conflate tax take with economic activity which has much broader impacts than sometimes returning money to the
Exchequer.

At no point in this thread has seagull said she wants childcare rebates

There have been a lot of snide remarks aimed in her direction and she has been very restrained in return

I honestly don't get why some people are being so rude, we are all entitled to our opinion (even if wrong and no that's not directed to anyone in particular)

Economic growth isn't just about tax take. It creates jobs, allows pay rises, fuels increases in manufacturing and exports. Greater economic activity will reduce the deficit.

Ireland is much friendlier policy-wise to SAHP. Higher level of non-means tested CB.
Not so good for WOHP with no childcare subsidies at all (except universal free preschool year).

Value to society and economic value are not the same thing though. I think providing high quality childcare (either to own or others children) is of value to society even when unpaid. See also volunteer work.

Germany's tax system is very benign/encouraging towards SAHPs TheWord

Spot on, Tarka. A number of people have made that point in this thread. Which is why I think talking about 'value' is fraught.

I think providing high quality childcare (either to own or others children) is of value to society even when unpaid. See also volunteer work.

Chillingly, Tarka, a fair few people seem to disagree.

You also have to pay to visit a Dr in the republic of Ireland and wait 5 years to divorce. Not really that nice.

Who disagrees Arsenic. I don't think the government should pay parents to look after their children day to day. This doesn't mean that I don't value good childcare be it parent or third party provided.

Dont hold Germany up as a perfect example Arsenic
Women and especially mothers are treated appallingly.

Dont hold Germany up as a perfect example Arsenic

I didn't.

I was just answering TheWord's question. I thought she was going somewhere with it. Either that or doubting the existence of such regimes.

I don't think a country that springs to mind for actively prefering one family format over any other is one we should be emulating at all. I was just pointing out that they do exist. I've been arguing all along for state agnosticism on family choice.

Who disagrees Arsenic.

RTT, you'll find out.

I have read it. I still don't think you're right

WRT: NI for SAHP, the government doesn't pay your NI if you are a SAHP claiming CB; it reduces the number of years NI you need to qualify for a state pension by the number of years you claim CB.

Otherwise SAHP would have very little or no pension provision come retirement, and I believe it was originally to recognise the role of SAH parent/carer as being just as deserving of a pension as paid work.

Yep - it misses the point OP so YANBU.

But it's always those who don't use childcare that attack it

I would never place my children with "sub optimal" people, it's highly insulting to those working in a regulated profession, people who are often not well paid or rewarded, but people who in my experience give their heart and soul, work tirelessly and truly care for their charges

Nothing to do with feminism

Economic activity though is not an end in itself - the ultimate aim of government is the welfare of citizens.

Well, it rather depends on the government elected by the majority of the people. There is no standard 'these are the aims of government' handbook.