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?!

Actually Seagulls its not ok and I have never done it so not sure why you are bringing it up and pointing it at me.

I would be belittling myself and my DH as we have both combined sahp/wohp at one time or another.
If families are on low incomes then TC are there to help them whether SAH or WOH.

Seagulls, I don't think anyone on this thread is belittling or running down SAHPs.

Staying at home to look a fete your own children while they are little is a very valid choice, and as long as people can afford to have children and then SAH to look after them, then it has no effect on society or anyone else.

I can see plenty of benefits of having a SAHP, but those benefits are to the individual family, and that's absolutely fine.

But SAHPs are not being penalised because they don't receive government assistance with childcare costs when they don't have any childcare costs.

I had 3 children in a year,I didn't expect society to fund my choices I became a sahp and took the huge financial hit having planned ahead for it.

presumably you ate right? So either you have a partner earning good money are you were subsidised by the state.

It's still a personal choice that many people don't have the luxury of being able to make. And you are agreeing that the benefits of having a SAHP are there for you and your children, which is great, but it's of no more benefit to society than having two working parents.

Quite right Woo. Same can be said both ways though (SAHMs and WOHMs). In fact, lots of parents are forced into various supposed 'choices' re work post-children (PT, local, term time) and it is STILL disproportionately women who take the hit.

The point is staying at home to look after your own DCs rather than farming them out to another woman (who however good) doesn't love them, isn't considered a valid lifestyle choice by the government!

I have no fancy well payed career to go back to. What on earth is the fucking point in the government subsidising childcare for me to go and earn the minimum wage and pay tax credits to a childcare work on substance wages too. It's just madness.

Infinity8 we are in a similar situation I'm not a SAHM but I don't use my tax allowance for various dull reasons. We know a few people would have a similar household income to use, but pay less tax because of having two tax free allowances and no higher rate tax, they also get 2 x childcare vouchers and child benefit. The system is flawed due to lack of consistency between when you're a household and when you're an individual.

It pisses me off sometimes, especially when people start moaning about higher-rate tax payers, but I just try and concentrate on thinking about how lucky we are to be able to afford all that we need and put the envy out of my mind.

Carers do get additional allowances though which is meant to compensate for the fact they are effectively forced to stay at home

Yes because the £58 per week carers allowance really comes close to making up for my loss of a £30k salary . Added to the fact that I have to pay for childcare after school for my typical children when I have appointments for my SN child (because I haven't realised how to make a functioning carbon copy of myself yet). So despite using childcare I still can't claim this tax break because I don't work. I'm not sure how I am meant to feel compensated for being effectively forced to stay at home.

If the government really doesn't consider staying at home to look after children a valid lifestyle choice then they will completely scrap child tax credits, turn the disability child tax credits into something else, and they will stop providing income support for SAHPs who have children younger than school age.

They aren't doing that though, are they?

With unemployment so high the govt should be praising sahm who by staying at home free up employment for people in households where no one works. Although not be giving them a tax break like this but maybe a tr of personal allowance would be a fair tax break.

It isn't a waste of money at all; lack of affordable childcare is the singular biggest issue in this country impacting on working parents.

I don't know what it is about the UK, but childcare costs here are crazy. The going rate in here is the luxury rate in America; what most people pay for private care here (forget London) is the bells and whistles fancy nursery rate in America.

If I had to guess, the problem is OFSTED pushing up prices (though the flip side is they push up quality too), various rules about room sizes (flip side is that we avoid crowding) and simply not enough competition. I don't want to start a benefits fight here, but I know of a few women who wanted to do after school care or childminding, but decided childminding is too difficult (no argument from me!) and wasn't worth the effort over collecting benefits.

But yeah. I have spoken to swedes, french, canadians, and americans (all wealthy nationalities of course) and their jaws drop when I tell them how much childcare costs in the UK. This is not a conversation you want to have with people from abroad. it will make your blood boil.

Also, not to sound bitter, but we totally missed the boat on this one. My big childcare costs are in the past. it would have been nice if this came in a few years ago!

Finally, subsidies sound nice, but if people can afford more through subsidies, that will push prices up further. It seems to me that you want to address the supply side, not the demand.

O and with 2 dc under 2 I was effectively forced to stay home as I couldn't afford nursery for 2 and commuting costs. Yet the single parent working alongside me was having 90% of her childcare paid and lived at home with her parents. Obviously this no longer happens but for some working is better and for others it isn't.

If the government really doesn't consider staying at home to look after children a valid lifestyle choice then they will completely scrap child tax credits, turn the disability child tax credits into something else, and they will stop providing income support for SAHPs who have children younger than school age.

There are about three different issues and policy objectives there.

A lot of tax credits are paid to dual earner households on low wages, (in that sense they are a subsidy to business, propping up sub-survival wage rates) so the effect of scrapping them would be fairly serious, and not just in the sense of SAHPs having their parenting choices removed.

Disability policy I'm not even going to get into here. Caring is a different issue.

Income support and similar for parents of very small children is 'interesting'. There is an elephant in the room insofar as there has been a broad consensus on optimal care for under 2s for a long time, but society has overtaken it. Until very recently all the major parties were still taking about vouchers for 'early education' for 3 and 4 year olds for this reason. There has been squeamishness about officially advocating 'childcare' for the youngest age groups. I don't imagine we will ever get to a US style situation where g'ovt policy normalises formal care for 6 or 12 week babies, but I am a bit taken aback that 9 months old is now normal practice for the latest cohort of babies, so who knows? It's a big cultural shift in less than a generation. People seem quite happy.

But didn't government policy normalise formal childcare at that age when maternity leave was set at around 3 months until not that long ago? It's only recently that maternity leave has been increased to a year.

The point is staying at home to look after your own DCs rather than farming them out to another woman (who however good) doesn't love them, isn't considered a valid lifestyle choice by the government!
Farming them out? Charming choice of language and a bit ironic for someone who goes on to claim they're not being validated.

The fact that a group A is getting help with the cost of something that group B does not have is not a comment about the validity of what group B does. It's just not.

Pray tell, what would the government need to do in order for you to feel that they considered your lifestyle 'valid' when it comes to this?

How do you plan to have three children in a year??

misunreasonable
you seem to have left out the second half of my posy which was
"( I know there will be the sound of hollow laughter that carers allowance makes up for a wage, but in theory"

Written yes we atewe saved,went without,planned,waited to have dc and dp worked all hours to get more qualifications to get a better job further down the line.It wasn't easy.The "good money" is debatable,the higher tax threshold means you pay more tax on one salary but get less back. Plenty of 2x wp families are earning "good money" and getting help so why not those who want a sahp?

A less it's a long story but they were much planned.

But didn't government policy normalise formal childcare at that age when maternity leave was set at around 3 months until not that long ago? It's only recently that maternity leave has been increased to a year.

It's been a contradictory mess really

Certainly in the early 80s, when maternity leave at a time when ML was that short, group settings were thin on the ground, and I believe the thinking was only the top (nanny employing) and bottom (childminder using or gran exploiting) strata of society would return to work and they wouldn't be using nurseries much. The 60s and 70s childcare theorists weren't as down on nannies as they were on nurseries.

I'm not endorsing this line of thought, BTW; it's what i've gleaned from my political autobiography habit

I wonder if there is much of an archive concerning WW2 creches and the people who used them? That would be interesting.

Sorry, edit fail;

Certainly in the early 80s, at a time when ML was that short, group settings were thin on the ground, and I believe the thinking was only the top (nanny employing) and bottom (childminder using or gran exploiting) strata of society would return to work and they wouldn't be using nurseries much.

The 60s and 70s childcare theorists weren't as down on nannies as they were on nurseries, so there was less concern.

Arsenic raises a very good point further down re the elephant in the room.

I have an early years degree and sorry just don't think shoe horning babies under 2 into childcare is a good thing.For some it is a necessity for others the money being used to help with childcare would be better spent on helping the parents who want one to gave a sahp.

It has long been thought that a parent,then granny,then nanny would be preferable but this gov glosses over that.They want cheap nursery chains their mates want to make a profit out of like catering companies and free dinners and academy chains.

Anybody who things they have the best interests of families at heart are bonkers.

I don't work and I still require childcare for an hour or two each day, five days a week. My dcs are at two separate schools that get out at the same time every day. I have to pay a childminder to pick up my 5yo dc, as I have to pick up my 8yo at his special school (don't qualify for paid transport as live just inside the amount that would qualify for transport). So I pay £30 per week out of my benefits to cover that.

So while it may not be a common problem, it does happen.

Thankfully there is a breakfast club at my 8yo's school, otherwise, I'd have to pay over £50-60 per week to have childminder take 5yo in morning to make sure they both get to school on time as well.

Certainly in the early 80s, at a time when ML was that short, group settings were thin on the ground, and I believe the thinking was only the top (nanny employing) and bottom (childminder using or gran exploiting) strata of society would return to work and they wouldn't be using nurseries much.

Well from another perspective it's not so much the nature of the childcare setting that they are formalising more the opportunity for women to remain in the workplace after they have had children. To my mind this can only be a good thing, but then I'm very much in the middle category that would pretty much have had to stay at home, so am perhaps biased.

I would also argue that combined with the length of maternity and what is soon to be parental leave entitlement and a childcare tax rebate that can be used across a wider variety of childcare settings (nursery, childminder, nanny) than the current voucher scheme, what the government are actually formalising is providing families with more flexibility.

Of course the child benefit changes definitely impacted upon households with one high income and a SAHM disproportionately but that doesn't make this particular policy unfair.