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?!

Well that's were I usually leave mine when I'm stuck for some free childcare (aged 4 and 2)

You are making a point with the names though, aren't you? Or, more accurately, you are trying to twist a point about the wide variability of CC quality to make it about class.

No Arsenic. You're the one trying to twist it into an argument. It seems to be your MO

I don't have any class issues

Really if you knew me you most certainly wouldn't say that

But you don't so think what you will

Jo example with the names at all

No Arsenic. You're the one trying to twist it into an argument. It seems to be your MO

Don't be silly.

What was the point of specifying "Bianca, Jade, Charlie" then?

What am I missing?

I used names that seagull would recognise as the poorly educated workforce of childcare (in her eyes), because these were the names of the girls, yes young, but definitely not uneducated

As we all know a Bianca or a Jade couldn't possible have language skills. (Rolling my eyes now)

I know one thing

You all have far too much time of your hands

Oh dear, let's not get into a discussion about the names of childcare workers!

Bottom line is, many of us who have used childcare (and actually for far longer than it tends to be used nowadays, because a lot of women take a year off) have adult children so we know first hand that our children flourished.

My eldest was at a cm from 12 weeks. My younger two were at nursery from a young age. They also went to before and after school club. They are adults now, secure, happy, successful.

If they had been unable to cope in childcare then of course we would have had to re think. Because- strange as it clearly is to some people- us WOHP love and value our children as much as SAHP. Either DH or me would have had to stop working, or more likely we would have both cut down hours because that would have enabled us both to keep a foot on the ladder.

I used names that seagull would recognise as the poorly educated workforce of childcare (in her eyes), because these were the names of the girls, yes young, but definitely not uneducated

So you were stereotyping them on her behalf?

People usually keep the same names as they gain qualifications, don't they?

I have the same name I did at 14

Did someone say something about names?

Have an argument with yourself about this, the OP is still correct and thank The Lord or is that DC that he agrees too

Equally though wohp saying that at least their dc will grow up with a work ethic is equally insulting.
I think people are using role model of a higer earner and sahp because on the other thread about affording to sahm it was said that it is far easier with a discrepancy in salaries.
Those sahp being topped up by tax credits are very badly treated on here too. Only one step above people on income support. You get the if you want kids pay for them.

What's insulting about work ethic?

If you choose to stay at home that's great if you can make ends meet, also have no issue with people being topped up if they can't make ends meet as their employers pay so badly

But at the end of the day, our structure and that of all civilisation is working to provide

But you can't have a tax break if you don't pay tax

That's just the talk of idiocy

Did someone say something about names?

Have an argument with yourself about this,

Probably easier just to ignore your randomness

Holy misdirection, Batman.

despairs

Work ethic is great. However, wohp are saying that children of sahp will grow up without a work ethic which is insulting. I worked since leaving school at 16 and only stopped 20 years later and my mum was effectively a sahp. I will work again once youngest at school.
Nothing wrong with my work ethic and my dc will have a stong work ethic too.

No definitely your randomness

Your like an itch you can't scratch

A boil that won't pop

O and the quote at the start of op said critics have complained. These critics probably aren't even sahp.

Wow, I'm actually astounded that More than seems to be incapable of grasping such a simple concept. I really didn't think that would be something that needed to be debated, but there you go...

If this is the sort of logic you are teaching your children then I kind of worry for them.

Even if you do magically have £135 appear in your account for putting a pizza in the oven Can you not understand that if you also had a job earning £10k even, you would get £135 plus your new salary and you would spend it (or save it) and this would be more money into the economy?

So even in your apparently unusual situation, the economy would still be better off, even though you wouldn't be paying income tax.

Honestly, I actually feel like I'm discussing the economy with Yes Scotland voters.

Work ethic is great. However, wohp are saying that children of sahp will grow up without a work ethic which is insulting.

I don't think this is what many people are saying.

Unless one partner is a high earner then like morethan, the money they will be spending came from tax payers in the first place from CTC/WTC which amount to quite a but if you only take the min wage from SE. Whereas the second earner will be spending their wages (after paying tax first to fund those very CTC and WTC). The childcare provider will also have a wage to spend as well. It's economic sense.

As for wanting childcare as no family nearby and having more than one child, well that's a decision people make. If you can't do it without external help then either budget for the help or stay within your limits. Parents at work still go to school concerts, the dentist, do the house work etc all on top of a job. Millions do it, it's not hard.

Whilst I disagree with the fact the we give people money when they have children, I think if we are going to support children then it should be done via childcare than anything else. Working brings many advantages not just economic ones. I dislike the lesson that boys need to work hard as their salary will be expected to support a wife and children whilst girls will see that there is no reason they have to stay home and it's perfectly possible to do both.

Daisy flowerchain- I dislike the idea of pigeonholing boys and girls too.

I've always tried to instil the message to my dds and ds that they are equally capable of achieving a school, university and the workplace, oh and they are also equally capable of housework and cooking. (Though sometimes they've all needed a bit of persuasion about housework!!)
If any of them have children in the future, I very much suspect they will be equally capable of looking after them too.

'The lesson that boys need to work hard because their salary will need to support a wife' - have I suddenly landed in the 1950's? Because that's not a lesson I've ever heard of or seen since then.

Halloo I've unfortunately seen it on here quite a few times.

Often from Bonsoir

I dislike the lesson that boys need to work hard as their salary will be expected to support a wife and children whilst girls will see that there is no reason they have to stay home and it's perfectly possible to do both.

Where do you live? There are plenty of SAHDs around here.

Some posters seem very keen to attribute classism, sexism etc to the other side of the argument when it just isn't there.

Hallamoo * Apologies

Hallamoo, think the thread has gone now as was in chat but it shows that this lesson is still in place. The number of women who admitted that their husbands salary was high up on their priority list when choosing a man was astounding. It was very depressing reading and mothers of sons likely just wanted to lock them up and protect them. It sends the message that men must work and women don't have to based on being born one sex or the other.