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?!

It is possible I am being dense, but I really don't see what is so problematic about a transferable personal tax allowance.

I don't understand what you mean Dooble

When I say 'formal childcare' I mean formal childcare setting, which is a valiant attempt on my part not to use the word institution, because although usefully descriptive, I know it can give offence. I mean nurseries when I say formal. As opposed to home-based care.

Seagulls so basically you want the government to force women to stay at home until their youngest child has turned two.

Oh you mean the growth of nurseries makes childcare affordable and democratises the whole thing?

No I didn't say that and I'm pretty sure you know I didn't mean that but that those who feel it would be better to have a period as a sahp should be helped like those who want 2 xwp are.

I think the issue with a transferable tax allowance is seen as validating marriage over living together. Personally, I think it would be a great idea.

Sorry I took formal childcare to just mean childcare that you pay for. You could always just use the word nursery if you don't want to offend.

What I meant was is that you can see this not so much as the government giving preference to one type of childcare over another but more as them giving more women the opportunity to work, as you had pointed out that there was a large tranche of women who didn't in the 50s/60s. Lots of women want to work and you could argue that there are many, many advantages to society when our workforce is not disproportionately male.

x-post

seagulls then don't argue against this, argue for what you want.

Seagulls so basically you want the government to force women to stay at home until their youngest child has turned two.

When there are two parents (and of course there aren't always) and at least one of them isn't a woman (not always, obviously) the question jumps out at me;

Why women?

For the majority of families where there are two parents, we could incentivize a year at home each, particularly now families are smaller.

It's an interesting thought experiment, at least.

People are answering the op ie explaining what she doesn't seem to understand.

And yes to the transferable tax thing but make it for partners too.I'm not keen on being told what to do by DC.People should get married because they want to not for financial benefits.

I think the issue with a transferable tax allowance is seen as validating marriage over living together.

No earthly reason you couldn't have it for cohabitees. Tax credit claims are already run on a joint claim basis for the unmarried, so is child benefit. It's not that different.

I'm not keen on being told what to do by DC.

If he brings in a £10 a week pat on the head for being married, I'm tempted to get divorced in protest

I don't agree with the idea of a transferable tax allowance.

Tax allowances are for people who pay income tax, if you don't pay income tax, you don't need an allowance.

I'd like to see some form of other means-tested payment for SAHPs who are forced to leave their jobs because child care costs have, in effect, wiped out their salaries.

We aren't entitled to any help because DP "gave up" his job to look after our DS. It was seen as a choice. To us, we felt we had no option (DP would essentially have been working shifts to pay childcare costs and never see his family). It's perverse.

In fact a transferable tax allowance scheme should be everything to do with proving co-parent status and nothing to do with marriage.

Plenty of wp don't pay income tax and get top ups from the state.

Many families on one income pay lots more tax than some on 2.

Arsenic yy to that with bells on!

As pp have said, SAHP don't need childcare, but this group of parents are effectively penalised by government policy.
Loss of child benefit
Loss of personal allowance, if earning over £100k, which on the south east you probably need to have a SAHP- why can't SAHP transfer their tax allowances.

And now this. Being a SAHP is I believe quite unfashionable now, particularly politically. I actually like looking after my children but don't like the fact that I feel my family set up is not valued at all.

I don't want childcare costs but it would be nice if there was some tax incentive that would benefit families like mine.

Woo tax allowances are for individuals. The wealthy and couples generally where one is self-employed and one doesn't work can get round it by 'employing' the non-earner in bogus fashion.

It's just unfair.

Ok, wondered if it was a typo! Simultaneous arrivals here and very much not planned - one child, yes, twins, no - and it completely changes the economics of work/childcare. Also I only found out I was carrying 2 at 13 weeks, and they arrived at 29 weeks, so not a huge amount of time to readjust.

Sadly you can't always plan for the family you have.

Magpie, your family set is valued by your family. It doesn't need to be valued by anyone else for it to be a valid and reasonable choice for you to make. Your tax incentive is that you don't pay tax.

Arsenic, the situation where high earners 'employ' the non worker is completely separate to the issue about a transferable tax allowance. I agree that its wrong for people to do that, but I don't think people need a tax allowance if they don't pay tax.

We do actually need tax to pay for stuff we all benefit from, I don't think it would do society any favours to drastically reduce the amount of tax money coming in.

Arsenic
My dh is employed so can't do as you suggest.

Woowoo
I'm perfectly happy with our set up, just not happy with the tax system effecitely penalising our family.

For cb you're treated as a family unit, but not for tax purposes. It's double standards.

You can argue that being a sahp you can look after your own children, but so could a career person who works but doesn't need the money for essentials, that too is a lifestyle choice.
It should be assessed on a needs basis.

WooWooOwl

I know plenty of duel income families who don't need to work it is their choice to have 2 sets of working parents, its their lifestyle choice they should fund themselves.

My dh is employed so can't do as you suggest.

Oh it wasn't a suggestion. I'm very judgey and po-faced about it, i'm afraid. I even insist on doing actual work if DH's company pay me the odd £100

Arsenic

There have been times when my dh has employed me to do work for him as he is small business owner.
At the time it has meant an increase in tax credits but at the same time our income has increased so we have paid more tax.
I also did a proper job, but the business doesn't always need me and it can't always afford my wage.
Why do you think it unfair?