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?!

But you knew you are going back to your job Emerald. So trying to preface your support for pro-WOHP tax policy with an "I am a SAHM on ML" claim in the way peapod seemed to be, would probably have earnt you the same type of response.

OTOH, If you were posting about all day care of one year olds and how exhausting it is to do it is every day and you started with "I am a SAHM on ML" nobody would bat an eyelid I imagien.

imagine

That is so spiteful and patronising it almost took my breath away.

Don't be ridiculous.

What is patronising is being an employed mother on ML but PRETENDING that makes you a SAHM in order to make a self-serving point about the finacing of childcare.

It is deceitful and it happens quite a lot. Hence the heavy sarcasm.

If you're a mother that stays at home, you're a SAHM. Whether you did it for a month, or a year, or a decade.

Would you tell a woman that had a temporary job for 6 months that she could class herself as a WOHM? As, after all, it's only 6 months and she has the home to go back to.

I feel devalued as a SAHM parent. If I was a childminder looking after someone else's children my income would be subsidised by the govt (through working tax credits etc). It's only because it's my own children that I look after that it's assumed to have no societal value.

*couldn't

I get arsenics point. It's like saying you are unemployed because you are taking annual leave.

Arsenic you really believe women on ML aren't SAHP? What, are we on a good old long jollie holiday? Really prejudice against women on ML on MN!

That's like comparing apples and pears Tarka.

A cm will also (potentially) look after their own children. Cm is their job, which they get paid for.

Lots of people on low incomes will have a subsidy in wtc. The nature of the work is irrelevant.

Are you suggesting a wage for SAHMs?

*LittlePea8

Where is the prejudice?
Nobody is saying that a person on ml is not as good or indeed that you aren't doing the same job temporarily as a sahp they are saying its different.
At the end of your leave you intend to go back to work, otherwise you should give notice to become a sahp.
You see the two are completely different.

This has plunged to new depths

Next someone will use the term full time parent or some other such insulting dig at a temporary stay at home parent

How can it not be the same?

Are you not looking after children, what is it that a sahm does exactly that makes her different to someone on a year out?

As far as I can see the only difference could've the attitude

I'm suggesting a tax break (or benefit, whatever) for parents. WOHP can use it to cover some of the cost of childcare, SAHM can use it to cover some of the lost income from having one parent at home.

I'm not talking about general wtc. I'm suggesting that if my neighbour and I set up as childminders and "swapped" children, we would be financially better off because the govt would subsidise some of the fees (our respective salaries). I'm not suggesting I would do this, just presenting it as a thought experiment.

At the end of your leave you intend to go back to work, otherwise you should give notice to become a sahp.

Assumption! You have no idea what I am intending to do or what my organisations policy on this is. So please educate me, what is the difference between a short term SAHP and a long term SAHP?

Arsenic you really believe women on ML aren't SAHP? What, are we on a good old long jollie holiday?

Peadpod

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

Maternity Leave (when you intend to go back) is a bit of both isn't it? It is (temporarily) the daily routine of a SAHM but the legal and financial situation is different and so is the long-term/permenant situation/status.

At the point you will be paying for childcare, you will be working. So to come on to a thread and claim to be a 'SAHM on ML' and then comment on tax breaks for WOHMs is quite provocative, arguably misleading. Because ultimately, you are NOT a SAHM and you are not commenting from a SAHM's viewpoint.

Surely ML is different because for the first 39 weeks you are still being paid, you accrue holiday leave and our entitled to the benefits you would have if you were employed (including childcare vouchers). If you are a SAHM parent you are unemployed. It's not a judgement on either. Just that it's not necessarily looking at things from the same perspective. As a SAHM parent I don't get maternity leave (pay, benefits, annual leave accrual etc). Littlepea as a WOHM on ML does.

Are you not looking after children, what is it that a sahm does exactly that makes her different to someone on a year out?

If the thread/conversation is about weaning, nothing at all.

If the thread is about paying for childcare and the relevant tax breaks, there is a clear difference.

I'm suggesting a tax break (or benefit, whatever) for parents. WOHP can use it to cover some of the cost of childcare, SAHM can use it to cover some of the lost income from having one parent at home

Sounds sensible.

Arsenic sorry I didn't meant to sound like I was putting words in your mouth. I was actually been slightly facetious.

As far as I am concerned, outside of exceptional circumstances if you decide to stay at home you know what the financial consequences are. You choose ths life so don't complain or expect the government to pay. That is simply my view.

Could I add, I am already paying for childcare.

But the same could be said for "choosing" to work. Why should the govt subsidise that?

The real "choice" with consequences is to have a child in the first place. Once you establish that childcare (either by a parent or cm/nursery/nanny) imposes a cost (either through fees or through lost wages) why should one form be subsidised over the other.

But the tax break is not a 'benefit' as such. Not cash in your back pocket.

It is making the cost of childcare - in most cases a necessary bill to working - tax deductible. Just like other expenses for some professions are tax deductible.

It's not to offset less income for those families who choose to have a SAHP. It's to make the choice of working more accessible to parents.

Everyone benefits from this scheme. Everyone. Current WOHPs can claim it. SAHP's will also have the ability to claim it should they choose to get a job. It provides options.

No, it provides the option to go to work. The same could be said if the benefit/tax break was paid to sahp only. WOHM parents could still benefit if they chose not to work. Everyone wins :)

As far as I am concerned, outside of exceptional circumstances if you decide to stay at home you know what the financial consequences are. You choose ths life so don't complain or expect the government to pay. That is simply my view.

I think what is raising eyebrows and even seriously annoying people is the government's decision not to remain neutral on what is a personal choice.

You are using quite a condemnatory tone about SAHPs.

In fact there is a lot of developmental psychology to support their argument that their decision is NOT a lifestyle choice and a lot of good economic arguments to support the need for two WOHPs in some households (other arguments are available to support both positions as well of course).

So there is good reason to suggest that g'ovt should remain neutral.

If every person with a child instantly left the workplace, the country would fall to its knees. Not really feasible.

We have a one income family set up. We pay more tax than a two income family with the same overall income. WOHP already get a tax break through personal allowances.

No ones disputed that though