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?!

Err seagull if that's for me, I'm confused

I work well over 40hrs per week

Regardless that's not what I said, or did I miss something about part timers?

I have also worked continuously from leaving uni through to being 40 with two 6 month maternity leaves

But like you say, it's not a tally

Where are these PT doing this ??...

Sometimes I wonder who people are argueing with

Iam

I apologise if it wasn't you, but I thought you said that sahps were sitting on their backsides. So I asked if this is what you saw yourself doing had you been a sahp.

I wasn't commenting on whether you had a day off or were at work.

Personally, I am usually on here during the day, housework gets done at night time or dh does some during the day. Our dd is busy across the kitchen table from me doing maths and English, having done music theory and practice this morning. I am setting her work, supporting learning and marking her work whilst I mnet.

Normally on these threads partimers(after all only a third of mothers work full time) generally like to pile on and lecture re their worthiness,how much they contribute to society and the laziness of sahp.

There was one thread where somebody who worked 1 day a week was bashing lazy sahps.It was pointed out that her other free 4 days kind of meant she must have been doing a lot of the sofa lounging she was accusing sahp of doing.

Must say when I return to work I want a job like many posters on here.The amount of MNing they do they must be a doddle.

Maybe the SAHP wants to work, but can't afford a job where childcare would be cost effective. The 20% might not make any difference to that so that is the justification. We both work full time with 1 child, but know that if we had 2 that were both needing full time childcare while we were at work, that gets close to 1000/month so the thought of becoming a SAHP becomes the financially sensible option, even if it isn't what either of us want.

Whats the point of bringing other previous posters into though Seagulls
Noone has actually made those comments on this thread.

Im on annual leave so im being paid to MN

There was one thread where somebody who worked 1 day a week was bashing lazy sahps

I remember that! That can't have been real.

What is this obsession with derrieres and sitting? Do most people have standing up jobs? I sit down more now that I work. Isn't that fairly usual?

Not all working people can be nurses and tree surgeons surely?

Is there a difference between someone choosing to give up their income and stay home with their kids and asking for state support and someone deciding to continue working and pay for childcare and asking for government support? Of course there is a cost of chilcare for SAHM's.It cost us approx £30,000 each year(my salary) for the 7 years I was at home. The least the government could do is make it ok for my tax free earnings allowance to be transferred to my husband for those years.
Everyone makes a choice. If you choose to work and pay for childcare,why should that choice only be subsidised? That is like saying that it is better to return to work and have your kids looked after ,and studies have proven time and time again that generally that is not the best scenario for pre-school children. What message is the government sending out here?

Funny how tax allowances are for individuals. And child benefit is based on individuals but other benefits based on family income. Incidentally I think transferrable tax allowance should be fof cohabiting couples too.

Of course there is a cost of chilcare for SAHM's.It cost us approx £30,000 each year(my salary) for the 7 years I was at home. The least the government could do is make it ok for my tax free earnings allowance to be transferred to my husband for those years.

Precisely. I wonder if politicians ever wander in her for a read. Or do their minions just wheel them in on special occasions to discuss their biscuit preferences?

in here for a read...

Fgs no one is propping my lifestyle up except dh and he is happy to do this. We receive no child benefit ot tax credits but we pay shedloads of tax. Not going to gve income but we are definate net contributors. More so than 2 earning 30k. Thank you.

Fgs no one is propping my lifestyle up except dh and he is happy to do this.

I believe you girl, don't worry

I'm a bit confused about how Iam can be propping you up while you are sprawled on your 'behind' on a sofa turning the country into a shocker. Maybe she's not a very good prop?

It's a derisory amount, isn't it? And the dreadful marriage-rewarding nonsense.

God that amount of money we would have to consider getting married. £1k a year is a lot to turn down in order to hold your principles.Really gets my goat.After 23 years together DC is holding a gun to our heads.

That said I was hoping to get a job sooner rather than later so it may not affect us in the long run.

Seagulls, The tax allowance is transferred, but the the tax on that is just a fraction of it so you'd only actually be turning down a couple of hundred quid. And getting married costs a lot more than that just for paperwork!

One of the biggest problems with childcare is the profits being mafe by the nurseries. Not disputing the that thet have to pay staff, premises and insurance etc, but nursery nurses are poorly paid. A huge amount of money being paid is profit for the companies running the nurseries.

So the tax break given is in a round about way subsidising those nurseries to make a profit.

Surely the best thing would be for not for profit nurseries to be set up by a government body, still subject to the same standards etc but with much lower costs.

Anyone with a particularly low income could perhaps be given a free/reduced place? This would in some circumstances get people off benefits as the childcare cost issue would go away.

Actually nurseries are very unprofitable businesses according to a report which came out last year.

Can't remember what the average profit was but it was really rubbish.

The owner of the smallish nursey chain where I live is doing v nicely.