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?!

Magpie, the system doesn't penalise your family. For CB you're treated as a family unit because it takes two people to create the child that entitles you to child benefit. It doesn't take two people for one to go out and get a job that earns them enough to pay income tax.

Morethan, working for a living isn't a lifestyle choice. It's what people need to do so that they don't starve and freeze. I completely agree that people should fund their children themselves, but as long as some people are allowed not to do that by government, then it's only fair to give government help to everyone, including those that pay the most 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,

It's not. It's a DIY personal allowance transfer scheme for people with the scope to pull it off.

But people are allowed to employ family members if they want to. The problem in those situations isn't the tax, it's the fact that the employee isn't actually doing any work.

It's not the same thing.

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?

I don't potato, I think that's fine. We do that when my own work is slow and his is busy. But it's real work, right? Paperwork, accounts and so on?

I'm talking about the bogus arrangements where a salary is paid but no work takes place. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

James, women have a limited opportunity to bear children, sometimes you just have to have them when you can, whether you've finished studying or not. Also, people sometimes need to study to change careers because their market has unpredictably changed. It's not realistic to expect parents to have an absolutely perfect set up accounting for all possible eventualities before having children. If everyone waited until that perfect and future proof moment, not many would be having children, especially without fertility treatment. Then we'd get people complaining about the costs of fertility treatment and women being castigated for not trying to have children earlier.

"( I know there will be the sound of hollow laughter that carers allowance makes up for a wage, but in theory"

I left that out because I don't believe that there is any theory in it. IMO carers allowance is not intended to make up a wage, it's just the governments way of making people believe that carers are valued. If they want carers to seem valued they should pay them the equivalent of minimum wage (after all other organisations would be prosecuted for paying people so poorly).

Maybe I totally missed your point

WooWoo

I disagree, for some people working is a lifestyle choice.
If you expect the state to fund a lifestyle choice it should do for everybody's choice.
Working to pay for an extra car, handbags, shoes at designer prices, luxury holidays etc isn't essential to live it's a choice and much different to working to put bread and butter on the table.
If a person wants a luxury lifestyle they should fund it themselves including their childcare.
How many times do we hear people complaining about what people own who receive benefits, it seems ok to do this apparently.
You are no more deserving because you choose to work imo

Written yes we atehmmwe saved,went without,planned,waited to have dc and dp worked all hours to get more qualifications to get a better job further down the line.It wasn't easy.The "good money" is debatable,the higher tax threshold means you pay more tax on one salary but get less back. Plenty of 2x wp families are earning "good money" and getting help so why not those who want a sahp?

Frankly, I think no one but the poorest should get help. Also, on top of that, the govt should encourage more competition to lower prices. The problem is that childcare costs are so high to be incredibly burdensome to even well off couples (why? Why are they so high here? I honestly don't know why this question isn't being asked) and, coupled with benefits, they are a huge disincentive for women to work. I don't think you should be paid to stay at home, and others shouldn't have it subsidised. I can see subsidies simply driving up prices, unless prices are somehow capped.

Sorry arsenic

It's me, I missed your bogus bit

WooWooOwl whilst tax allowances are for individuals but there are many cases such as child benefit, tax credits etc. that are decided upon household income. In my mind the family unit should either be treated as two individuals or as a household not some botched hodgepodge of one at one time and one at the other.

Arsenic of course there is no reason that co-habitees couldn't also have it, but this is always the argument that I see come up whenever the issue is raised, most likely because back in the days of yore it used to be called the married tax allowance (or something similar).

Also, I would add that the government are about to change the structure of maternity leave so that this can be more evenly split between mothers and fathers and so do technically pay parents to stay at home with their children when they are very little as SMP (soon probably to be called SPP?) is refunded to companies. I get the argument for two years, but it's not something I would personally fling any votes towards. Perhaps a better starting point would be re-introducing child benefit for one income families even if there is a higher earner.

Arsenic of course there is no reason that co-habitees couldn't also have it, but this is always the argument that I see come up whenever the issue is raised, most likely because back in the days of yore it used to be called the married tax allowance (or something similar).

Yes sorry, my irritation with the far right claiming it as their own was showing Wasn't aimed at you.

We have 3 kids and both work full time. Both our choices. We don't have family nearby so pay full time nursery, which is £1,000 per month per child. We spaced our kids out so that apart from one year, we ever only have one child at nursery. Indeed, one child per month is more than half my salary, the rest gets gobbled up by my commute to London (I work in the public sector helping others, not the City). DH earns the same as me (and yet he works as a researcher finding a cure for cancer, a valuable member of society I should think) and his salary pays the mortgage and all the bills.

I effectively work for nothing while we use nursery, with less disposable income than anyone on benefits. (I'd like to know where working parents get all the help, I get bugger all). My next door neighbour, he earns as much as both of us combined, therefore his wife can stay at home, therefore they have a much bigger house. Nursery will have costed us £110,000 over the 9 years we will have needed it, not counting up the cost of breakfast club and after school club once at primary. Fine, again, our choice, we live on an extremely tight budget and a tiny house as a result, we get no help from anyone, whether financial or in kind.

But. I will have worked all my adult life, contributed to my family and shared the financial burden with DH (jolly useful when he was made redundant that someone else could pay the mortgage) and I bloody well hope that I will get a half decent pension and, if my SAHM neighbour comes whinging about her poor pension provision after having devoted her adult lives to their children (she won't because she is lovely) I shall put my fingers in my ears and sing la la la. I think that with all the taxes I will have paid, and the money I will have pumped into the economy, I will have paid more than my dues. And yes, we saved before having kids, which we had in our 30s because we were students in our 20s (me occasionally part time so that I could fund my studies without assistance) unfortunately my husband was made redundant at the top of the credit crunch, and all our savings disappeared because we still had to pay nursery while he was trying to find work.

It is indeed all about choices, I chose an interesting career, to contribute financially for my family until I reach retirement and security in my old age. Would you say single mums don't deserve to be helped because it is their fault they are not part of a couple to share the financial burden? Of course not. To say that people who work don't deserve help with the prohibitive cost of Childcare because it was their choice is similarly unfair.

Rant over.

Morethan, are you talking about people who have a huge private income from rent or investments or something?

I really can't see how you can say working is a lifestyle choice, it's what everyone who can should be doing to provide for themselves. If they don't need to provide for themselves because they have a private income then they are still paying tax, so why should they be completely disregarded by their own government?

It is not about who deserves help, it is about who needs it.
Plus, the little money spent on working parents will be paid back 10 fold in taxes if they work for another 30 years.
Rant really over!

morethan
Wohp do fund themselves -they are getting a tiny amount towards CC if they in fact use CC -I didnt. I dont resent it because it didnt apply to me.

I get about £11 a year uniform laundry costs because I wear a uniform for work -do you resent me that even though you dont wear a uniform???

Arsenic don't worry I didn't think you were sniping, I just thought you might be young enough to have had that pass you by

Sapat good rant!

It is not about who deserves help, it is about who needs it.

I understood the whole of your main rant.

But this^ is where it gets problematic because there will be people on much lower incomes who really can't afford to work, because of the cost of childcare, even with the 20% (?) break. So 'need' becomes a distinctly unfortunate claim for you to make.

I just thought you might be young enough to have had that pass you by

God bless you for such a generous and inaccurate thought Dooble

It's the couples who earn £20somethingk each who are really jiggered. Too much to benefit from the tax credit regime. Not enough to pull off what *Sapat is doing. A struggle to afford childcare. A struggle to afford a SAHP.

Yet they are bang in the national average earning bracket.

I cant see why this is unfair

the simple fact is (a) childcare is really expensive and (b) families with one sahp (and I am one!) are a bigger drain on the economy anyway

we pay 1 x tax and have 4 x people using heathcare,schools etc
we also spend less- and boost economy less

if we both worked we would pay more tax, and spend more money

Of course it's about who deserves it, just as much as it being about who needs it.

No one needs to have children, but most of us like to, and everyone has equal right to have children if they want them regardless of whether they can provide for them financially or not.

Everyone deserves equal consideration from their government, no matter how much or how little tax they pay. The government doesn't have to treat everyone equally, but they should be being fair.

Sapat -our circumstances are almost identical, agree wholeheartedly

And if more got off their behinds and did the same this country wouldn't be the shocker it is

And if more got off their behinds and did the same this country wouldn't be the shocker it is

Well that raised the standard of debate

sapat- why rant? I think you are very lucky- you both have fulfilling carerers and you have three kids- you are lucky

I am just bemused why you feel the need to "rant" and make snide comments about your neighbour. and whilst you decry it, they are snide

I am really worried about my DP and his pension provisions, he is a SAHP. he is basically fucked. rather than rant you should feel very priviledged and grateful IMO

I could spout on with the intelligentsia about the good bad and ugly of what can't be changed

The simple matter of the fact though is that there are too many claiming this that and the other and not enough contribution

And I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are