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?!

Going out to work puts more money back into the economy than staying at home - that's basic economics and cannot be up for serious debate.

You could have a debate about whether there were other social benefits to having a SAHP that could not be measured purely in economic terms. Personally, I've yet to see any real evidence for such benefits, and I remain of the view that the advantages of having a SAHP are primarily enjoyed by individual families rather than to society as a whole.

Jassy.

I think you'll find the argument was that wohp did this? Has somebody disputed this?
Two adults working won't necessarily be spending more, there are lots of variables.
Oh and a sahp also spends money to keep the economy going.

You sound as though you are having difficulty with that concept, Morethan!

non-earning SAHP = no additonal money to go back into the economy
WOHP = additional money to go back into the economy

It may be that all the additonal money earned by having two WOHPs is spent on childcare but it makes no difference - it still that much extra into the economy.

WRT your final sentence: You can only spend the money once. It doesn't matter if it takes you a whole day wandering round the local shopping centre or 30 minutes browsing websites in the evening.

Two adults working will be spending more. If I stopped working, DH's salary wouldn't magically increase by the amount mine decreased. Sadly!

WOHP did what, morethan?

Whose salary is the SAHP spending? Would that money otherwise not be spent without the SAHP spending it? If you were at work, would you spend less? (Unusual - the costs of working eg childcare, commuting, clothing are often significant.)

Do you have evidence that your scenario (two salaries not creating more economic benefit than one in general, which as we've all agreed is the basis on which public policy gets made) is more likely than that mentioned in many statistical publications from the ONS and others on the link between GDP and households with more than one earner?

Do you accept that economic activity and benefit isn't confined to spending?

Mutley
You keep foisting your personal circumstances onto me as if I havent brought up 3 DC and have no idea of the difficulties!

If you cant take your toddler then you have to make alternative arrangements like everyone else.

morethan

Its simple
The WOHP have 2 salaries to spend on handbags !

Going out to work puts more money back into the economy than staying at home - that's basic economics and cannot be up for serious debate.

Spending is what really makes a difference. It isn't unusual for high earners not to have time to spend what they accrue, so it is debatable, in fact.

It must be me, but there seem to be some dim employed people on here tonight.
Spending keeps the economy going, how the hell do you know or think you have more money just because 2 of you are working.
I could be a millionaire as far as you know, I'm not but how do you know how much money I have or spend?
You can imagine but you could also be wrong.
I am quite a frugal person in some cases, but in others I splash the cash like its going out of fashion
Come on get real.

I love

When you are looking at disposable income I think you may have lost the handbag argument. I'm a rich Bitch.

Sorry, really not trying to goad just trying to make people see its not as simple as that.

Agreed morethan

It's all variables and I think some of the posters on here are being unnecessarily personal with their insults

Spending is what really makes a difference. It isn't unusual for high earners not to have time to spend what they accrue, so it is debatable, in fact

What do you think high earners live on? Thin air?!

But why are we only talking about high earners? Are you saying that all SAHP would be such high earners if they went back to work that they wouldn't have time to spend anything?

I am not a rich bitch

Just a bitch

High earners are perfectly capable of spending their money. If they don't spend it, it is invested. Invested money also works when lent to other people or companies to grow their businesses, providing additional jobs etc etc.

Jazzy

Yes I do accept that economic activity and benefit isn't confined to spending.
Of course it isn't but spending certainly helps.

arsenic

I would agree that DH does not have time to spend his money

Me on the other hand.....

My dh would earn the same whether I worked or not. However, If I worked I wouldn't be ableo do all the extra things I do like caring for early relatives and numerous things at school. I would also be far more stressed. Where, I live most sahp have partners on high salaries. Therefore, as economic family units they put more back than 2 averaged salaried wohp.
We live in the south East so argument re taking jobs away from out of work individuals still stands.
If the govt treated us as individuals than I would be able to claim income support and child benefit but they do not.

Sorry but we are in South East and jobs are still hard to come by.

But why are we only talking about high earners?

We're not. I was refuting your assertion that it was the act of working per se that put money into the economy. I used high earners as an illustrative example of my point.

Rufus

But greeneyes your argument presupposes that if both parents work they can't earn above average salaries and that in a family with a SAHP the WOHP does earn above the average. When that isn't actually the case for a great many people. It is perfectly possible for two WOHP parents to earn far in excess of the average salary. Just as it is possible for a WOHP supporting a SAHP to eaten below the average.

Spending keeps the economy going, how the hell do you know or think you have more money just because 2 of you are working.

I don't, morethan. But in general, if person A is working, and then their partner (person B) starts working, their combined salary will be greater than Person A's alone. What they have left over at the end of their essential outgoings may not be higher (many variables) but those outgoings also contribute to the economy. The idea that 'spending keeps the economy going' being solely about the spending of disposable incomes of individuals is facile, and borderline economiclly illiterate.

I asked you several questions, none of which were about you personally. Have you answers?

Arsenic, any evidence for this rather extraordinary statement?

It isn't unusual for high earners not to have time to spend what they accrue, so it is debatable, in fact.

Are you suggesting that without a stay at home partner, high earners (how high, by the way?) would spend less than low earners?

And incidentally (morethan doesn't like this question, I assume, which is why she's ignoring it) do you accept that economic activity is a great deal more than consumer spending?

Where, I live most sahp have partners on high salaries. Therefore, as economic family units they put more back than 2 averaged salaried wohp.

But surely that's irrelevant, because they put less back than a family in which the DH was on a similar salary and the wife also worked. What's the point in comparing them to a family in which both partners have less earning potential?

I accept that SAHPs may make other contributions such as those that you have mentioned, and it is obviously easier for them to do so - though I know many WOHPs who also have caring responsibilities and/or volunteer in the community.

Invested money also works when lent to other people or companies to grow their businesses, providing additional jobs etc etc.

Not the same as money spent on goods and services.

I'm not going to nitpick around the hypotheticals, though.

Snape said;

Going out to work puts more money back into the economy than staying at home - that's basic economics and cannot be up for serious debate.

Which was plain wrong. I was just pointing out that it was wrong.

Morethan, our posts crossed. I think your definitions of 'spending' are incredibly narrow if you're basing it on disposable income that someone someone working would not be able to find the time to spend.

I'm still asking whether you've any evidence for your assertions.

greeneyes, I'm sure all of that's true, and hugely important to society if replicated. But the fact is that the other stuff isn't the government's stated priority, so they aren't going to spend money on it.

It's also a fact that, if the partners of the high earners worked and paid for childcare, their combined earnings would generally be greater.

And it's still a fact that there isn't a static number of jobs to go around. Economic activity tends to beget economic activity.

Jazzy

God is your job really boring? solicitor?

How is it wrong, arsenic?