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?!

Yes, the choice is yours and I have no quibble with what others choose to do. I have also never implied that the children of SAHMs might not have a strong work ethic. I had a sahm myself, and it did no harm whatsoever to my own work ethic.

This thread is not about that, though. It's about whether it's unfair for WOHPs to get help with childcare costs when SAHPs don't. All I am saying is that I don't think the state needs to provide incentives for SAHPs because the benefits are primarily experienced by the families concerned, rather than by society as a whole.

I'm volunteering to keep the library going.I was the only one under 70 at the meeting.When I go back I will have to withdraw my name off the small list which I already feel bad about.

I've done all sorts of things(committees etc)and yes some had wp helping too but they were by far in the minority and generally stopped understandably enough when people went back to work from maternity leave.

Interestingly years ago our Outstanding pre school used by many wp was under threat of closure at one point due to lack of volunteers on the committee.It was the sahp who kept it going.All are back at work with careers going from strength to strength.

Interesting - nearly all of the PSA members on our committee are WOHPs, both mums and dads. Very few SAHPs.

Sorry, talking about primary school not pre-school. All of the parent governors WOH as well.

I think everyone would like as much help as possible for their life choices. That's human nature. But I repeat, when it comes to the govt making economic policy, it's a case of doing what will work best for the good of the majority.
It makes a lot of sense to make childcare (which in the UK is vastly more expensive than comparable countries) slightly less expensive. It's not some hand out- it is about reducing what is a huge cost. It makes absolutely sound economic sense, and it's nothing to do with belittling people's choices to not work.

And I'm saying all this from a perspective of not benefiting from the policy a joy, because we had to pay for every penny of childcare for 3 children. I'm don't begrudge people with young children getting that support (yeap, partly through the tax I pay!!) Likewise I don't begrudge women who now get a years ML when I got 12 weeks.
I sense a lot of resentment from those who benefited from individual taxation when they worked, and now that their own personal circumstances have changed, they expect the taxation system to change to suit them. It's really quite unpleasant. I suspect I speak for others too when I say I'd find it easier to listen to this debate if it weren't driven by a minority of SAHM with high earning husbands who despite their protestations seem rather unhappy with their choices. Neither do they want to make an alternative choice, such as getting their husband to give up his 60k a year job and both earn a more modest amount so that they can claim the holy grail of child benefit... It stinks really. There are far more deserving causes out there

We can agree to disagree then.

jot not joy

Well I'm unhappy with you inferring we are miserable with our choices and have partners who can simply request and walk into a less stressful job.

We too funded our childcare choice of a sahp completely ourselves,wouldn't benefit from help to future sahp families and will benefit from childcare help(not that we'll need it so much as we'll be far better off).

Yes it does stink and there are far more deserving causes than a few wp demanding one thing(a lot don't actually need)for them and spitefully begrudging it to others.

Perhaps some of us lucky enough to have had a choice would like the less well off to be able to enjoy that choice too.I'm sure if you asked an awful lot would or don't their voices count?

I disagree with the notion that 2 wps is always better for the economy/society than 1wp and 1sahp.

No one's saying that's the case. But in general, the economic activity generated by two working parents is greater than the economic activity (NB not tax take) generated by one.

Seagulls, there are lots of people staying at home now because they can't make childcare work financially. This policy may improve the breadth of choice they have.

I'm interested in policies that advance equality. Given the massive gender pay gap in part caused by time out of the workforce, I generally support policies that make it easier for women who want to work to do so. There's a lot of evidence that this is the larger problem.

And I know loads of women broken hearted because they had to go back to work sooner than they would have liked particularly in the earlier years.It goes both ways.

But yy to measures to improve more choice.I would like to see more to help sahp get back into work eg childcare for studying,volunteering etc.Application help for those after a break,classes etc.A year off for both parents....There are all sorts of things that would help parents getting back into work.

I wondered when the SAHPs do all the volunteer crap would be raised. Like others all our school volunteers are working parents. We don't have any that don't.

"I am not saying that working parents shouldn't get any help with cc at all, but for some who don't need the money for essentials it is a lifestyle choice. In other words they could financially afford not to work but choose to.
I think if we are to fund lifestyle choices then all choices should be funded"

I thought we already funded lifestyle choices. There are several threads where you state your DH takes the min wage and you claim tax credits but don't actually need the tax credits and save the money to buy property. So you don't need money for essentials but claim it anyway yet all those pesky tax paying parents shouldn't get any help. Without those tax paying people there simply wouldn't be any tax credits.

I'm not against any of those measures, seagulls. But given their stated priorities and the funds available, I can understand why the government has prioritised this.

Please tell me you're joking DaisyFlowerchain, about those other threads...

No' she isn't. Plus the ones where the poster works for her DH for a certain amount that minimises his tax but doesn't endanger the tax credits being paid.

Oh my word, a hypocrite in our midst

Claims tax credits and has a property portfolio?!

Wtaf, I have definitely got it wrong here, I'm breaking my back, as is DH, we don't claim a penny of anything, don't get CB, buy childcare vouchers yes, but do it all because we are driven to do the right thing and there's this going down?!

I would support a 33% tax/NI flat tax for all with no reliefs, no tax credits, no child benefits, no housing benefit, no childcare help, no nursery vouchers etc.

No political party shares my view. They are all spend spend spend. Instead they want to pander to the electorate and continue to spend money hand over fist. This Government has not even begun to get this country back to solvency. You could never run a home the way the state runs the country at present. It will all come crashing down on us.

Apart from the tax part, I'd agree with that greengrow but add on IS to the list and make JSA time limited. Although I think you would have to have some form of housing allowance for those too disabled to do any form of work as we need a welfare state to provide the basics.

It would stop all the arguments, everyone would be treated the same and nobody gets state money for doing nothing. Aside from the economic benefits it would bring it would have many other advantages.

No party would ever go for it though. The current party have started to reverse the benefits trend we have but it goes nowhere near far enough.

Iam

I believe you are referring to me in your post that doesn't seem to have anything to do with this thread, but I'd like to see the hypocrisy please? I won't benefit from any policy made about childcare, as I have stated so many times I don't agree with cc for my dc.
I think I have a right to opinion as anybody else.

Oh, little bear.
I do not work for anybody atm, yes at times I have been paid for work done for our business. The rest of the time I have done it out of the goodness of my heart.
You seem to know more about my life than I do, that's kind of freaky.

Not really. You put a lot of information on MN. I just remember certain things about posters. Your approach to benefits is one of them.

Well, that's fine but by twisting the thread I started asking for advice, oh let me think many months ago will hopefully surface soon.
I have reported you for your defamation, you made several comments at the time under your last nn if I remember correctly.

more

I'm also confused as to your hypocrisy

I doubt you're going to get an explanation though