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?!

I think we are well past the era of women staying at home because that's their place!!

"For my kids I prefer them to know life equals work"

Well newsflash most sahm have worked before they had a period of sahm and will work again

Anyway this thread has moved on from the op and descended into all the usual arguments.

I don't think sahms want a childcare subsidy or tax relief on childcare anyway.

Plus I suspest many part time or low paid wohp won't get it anyway. Think I remember hearing that you must earn 10k to benefit. So someone on 9k miss out but someone on 90k gets it.
Smacks of another disaster like child benefit changes.

I didnt use it and i am not against it or critical of Cc .
I just dont believe that all parental care is optimal or that its the only way to bring up happy children.
Likewise not all Cc is optimal.
Its inate in parents to love and care for their DC -there are lots of ways of doing this and we dont blame male WOHP or insinuate they dont care for their DC if they are not present 24/7

But alas we don't live in a Utopia

Nor shall we ever

Honestly there's debate and then there's pure fantasy

Off to do my dishes

Those who say that that they are supporting the economy more by having 2 people working please explain as.
Average salary is say 32k ish. 2 sets personal allowance and in receipt child benefit. (Ok you could say they are helping by employing someone to look after dc but not all do)

A high earner on say 70k with a sahp puts considerably more in the way of tax into the system plus we may also pay for preschool as it is of benefit to dc and economy.

The sahp is also not working thereby gives effectively employment opportunity to someon in an unwaged family living on benefits. A simplistic view but you get the idea.

I think we are well past the era of women staying at home because that's their place!!

I don't know, have you seen the stats on the full-time wage gap, part time working ratio or proportions of stay at home parents recently?

On what governments should do: anyone who voted Labour, Tory or Lib Dem in 2010 voted for a party who said fixing and growing the economy and dealing with deficit and debt (at differing speeds) was their foremost priority, as they saw that as the route to the greatest wellbeing for the greatest number.

If you voted for someone else, you may have a legitimate complaint. If you voted for any of the three main parties (or didn't vote) you can't really complain about the government prioritising the economy and growth.

I did read a poster on mn once who made an interesting point that part of the apparent huge increase in gdp since the 1970s was actually the fact that a lot of unpaid childcare by an sahp (which doesn't show up in gdp) has changed to paid-for childcare, which does show up in gdp.

I'll check the stats but I'm not sure this is based in reality; the majority of women have always worked and the increase in women in work over the last 40 years is not as great as we're often led to believe - it's an intensely middle-class perspective.

Library If person A works and passes their child to person B to look after then both A and B earn money and pay income tax and VAT on spending.

Person B can also look after person C, D and E's children at the same time meaning that C, D & E can work, earn money and pay more tax. The economy wins.

That is why having people in work is better.

ilove you are missing the point! It is not possible to take toddlers to some things. The school my dc went to previously only had daytime performances of things and younger siblings were not allowed to go due to space restrictions. When children have a filling or tooth extraction again younger siblings are not allowed to be present. Or if I am not well enough to look after my dc (fortunately extremely rare but I'm not in the lucky position of having a Dh in a job where he can take time off to help at short notcie).

These kind of things come up surprisingly often with 3dc as you probably know. If you have local family to help no problem! Or friends with the time to help out, but having recently relocated I don't.

I just don't see why I can't have the same subsidy for childcare one day per week now, than I can have three days a week when I go back to work in another year or so. When I'm back at work I will be far better placed to afford the childcare as we will have 2 incomes not one...

But why compare two WOHP on £32k each with a WOHP on £70k plus a SAHP. It's not logical. A WOHP on £70k won't stole being paid this much if their partner goes out to work.

In addition to Baker's point - economic activity and jobs tend to beget economic activity and jobs. If you are manufacturing something that displaces an import, that will lead to more local wealth and more jobs. If you are a marketer creating a 'need' for a local product, you are creating a job for yourself, jobs for those who make the product, and economic benefits (and possibly jobs) for those who sell them and form the supply chain, and for those down the chain right down to the person teaching piano to the marketer's child, which she can afford because of this work.

It's really not as simple as income tax and VAT.

Also the stuff that working people buy with the extra money they earn by working simulates the economy, making more jobs (to make the extra goods and services people will buy).

but I'm not in the lucky position of having a Dh in a job where he can take time off to help at short notcie. Well neither am I really but if the shit hits the fan he does or I do. That's being a parent.

What do you think happens for WOHP when nursery calls to say DC must be picked up ASAP as they are ill. One of you has to go.

Sorry Jassy, X-post

Spot on, LittleBear. And I have zero family around to help. Mutley, are you suggesting that families with a SAHP that don't have extended family nearby have a more difficult time than WOHPs with the same situation? (For extreme clarity and avoidance of outrage: I am not suggesting that the opposite is true.)

You do what we've done. You find the balance and flexibility that works for your family. It's shit. It means sacrifices in term of career, salary, health, sanity. You go our of your way to build local networks of people you trust and who are in the same position, so that you've got a friend who'll take the kids while you do something urgent, because you've done it for them. You make friends with unlikely people in a similar situation because you find unexpected common ground. For introverts like me it's incredibly tough but it's what you have to do.

It's a point worth reinforcing, Baker. People appear to struggle with it.

Ditto Jassy. We don't have family close by at all

I've heard it all now, an argument that working people buy things to keep the economy going.
Oh us poor sahps with no disposable income to spend in the shops whenever we like.
I don't half read some rubbish on here.
Aren't wohp erm working when sahp is shopping at their leisure

But why compare two WOHP on £32k each with a WOHP on £70k plus a SAHP. It's not logical. A WOHP on £70k won't stole being paid this much if their partner goes out to work.

I think this is because some sahms have convinced themselves that their partners would be unable to earn their current salaries if they were out at work. I suppose that might be true for people on very low wages that wouldn't cover childcare, but that's all I can think of.

Morethan, you have two adults spending one adult's earnings. Two adults spending two adults' earnings will generally be spending more. Including on childcare.

That's apart from wealth and job creation from economic activity through supply chains and associated activity, as I mentioned earlier.

Which bit are you struggling with? There's quite a bit of economic evidence available on this. The impact assessment for this policy is just a starting point.

Economic activity is hardly limited to shopping. And on the subject of shopping, since you raise it: do you think working parents don't shop? Oddly, I manage to keep my child and myself clothed and shod, keep food in the house and make various purchases. It's mind-bending, I know. People go to work and do other stuff.

Exactly Snapes.

My DH's tax bill didn't halve when I went back it work from mat leave.

It's bizarre