Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To not understand why people are anti benefits to SAHP but want more help to pay childcare?

102 replies

mamapants · 02/12/2019 08:45

I regularly see posts where people are considering giving up work temporarily to stay at home and would need benefits in order to do so. Although answers are split they tend to be mainly posters saying that isn't what benefits for and that the person should go back to work even though all the wages gained go on childcare. And a lot of comments about tax not being there to fund your choices etc.
At the same time posters and society as a whole seem to have no issue whatsoever in claiming 'benefits' to pay their childcare bill. Often amounting to more money. And normally saying there should be more help.
Why are they treated differently? Surely you could argue that having your childcare paid is having tax payers paying for your choices and if you can't afford to work then you shouldn't expect someone else to fund it.
Interested in why they are viewed so differently.

OP posts:
Perch · 02/12/2019 08:50

Why do you want to know? What do you think?

Lessthanzero · 02/12/2019 08:50

I agree. No-one is saying people claiming free childcare allowance is a scrounger, but if you stop working because your wages and working costs would be less than the cost of childcare, which isn't subsidised for the first 3 years, but are entitled to some benefits, then you're a scrounger.

Hwory · 02/12/2019 08:50

Why are they treated differently? Surely you could argue that having your childcare paid is having tax payers paying for your choices and if you can't afford to work then you shouldn't expect someone else to fund it.

I’m not one to lambaste someone that chooses to stay at home however the difference is the people going back into work but need help with childcare will still be ‘the taxpayers’ so they will be actively part funding themselves.

GiveHerHellFromUs · 02/12/2019 08:58

If you're working you're paying tax and national insurance, and generally childcare support would cost less than funding a family on benefits.

Eggies · 02/12/2019 09:01

I totally agree with you OP. Sadly it seems to me like many people think you're somehow 'better' if you choose to go back to work and have funded childcare. No idea why - parenting full time isn't exactly a walk in the park.

NC4this123 · 02/12/2019 09:01

@GiveHerHellFromUs based on the astronomical cost of childcare I highly doubt that. Even more so if a person had multiple children.

I agree OP. I see no difference

WooMaWang · 02/12/2019 09:03

Other differences that may matter (for the government) are:

  • the money goes towards paying the childcare provider, which helps to increase employment;
  • being in employment improves the likelihood that a person will be able to increase their earning potential over time (through gaining experience, training opportunities, possible promotion etc);
  • employed people ideally will be contributing to pensions, which is extremely desirable for a country with an ageing population.
Tanith · 02/12/2019 09:09

"- the money goes towards paying the childcare provider, which helps to increase employment;"

The money isn't enough to pay fees: the scheme is chronically underfunded. Nurseries and childminders are going out of business as a result.

IHateWashingUp2 · 02/12/2019 09:12

I agree entirely OP. The benefits (non financial!) to children of having their parent at home is not costed of course.....

Tellmetruth4 · 02/12/2019 09:16

The worker is contributing to pensions and putting into the pot and is being given (if under thresholds) minimum help in order to stay in the system.

The SAHM is not. Also giving money to the SAHM may lead to the SAHM having more children as soon as the SAHM benefit is due to end presumedly at school start age so you could have someone claiming SAHM benefit for many many years.

GiveHerHellFromUs · 02/12/2019 09:19

@NC4this123 I don't think anyone expects childcare to be free but it'd be nice if it was subsidised from a much younger age than 2.

Basically the benefits of going back to work should outweigh the cost of childcare for low income families, in my opinion. That's where the subsidy should come in.

AmIAWeed · 02/12/2019 09:20

I see a difference.
You're working so paying tax and national insurance.
You're then paying for childcare which provides employment = more people paying tax and national insurance

Finally, for many if they stop work to stay at home their earning potential is reduced from being out the work place, instead of growing their salary they are taking a step backwards at best and starting from scratch at worst

WooMaWang · 02/12/2019 09:23

@Tanith It (the free 15/30 hours) may not be enough to pay the fees, but the principle is that if you work and someone else is paid to look after the child(ren), then 2 people are employed. No one is if you get benefits to be a SAHM.

There are also different systems of subsidy at work: Free hours, UC/TC childcare top ups, childcare vouchers, tax free childcare.

Monkeynuts18 · 02/12/2019 09:29

I don’t mean to denigrate SAHPs, but the difference from the government’s point of view is that someone going out to work is contributing economically. So they’re putting into the pot as well as taking out, basically. An SAHP on benefits is only taking out.

strawberrieshortcake · 02/12/2019 09:31

Agree with the PP, someone who is working, even in childcare is likely paying NI and taxes so they contribute and take out with cheaper childcare.
Whereas a SAHP just takes out.

It’s an obvious difference.

Sofast · 02/12/2019 09:33

Not everyone who works pays tax also. I work two days,( I cant get childcare for more than that in the hols so this is me for the foreseeable) I'm lucky that my family helps on those two days but if I needed to pay for childcare I wouldn't bother. Personally I think it's way better for children to have a parent at home. I agree with you op I dont see the difference

ZenNudist · 02/12/2019 09:36

Help with childcare costs is a government incentive to increase the tax base and employment levels.

45andfine · 02/12/2019 09:41

What's the difference between using nurseries and childminders for under 4 year olds and using schools as childcare until they're 16? It's all being paid for by taxes.

People who work also get benefits and many, because of low pay, don't pay tax.

Our circumstances are all different, maybe we should learn to be less judgemental and be more supportive of the difficult journey we are all on?🙄

Mlou32 · 02/12/2019 09:42

Probably because those who go back to work and claim childcare help are still working and paying taxes to raise their kids and do their bit for society.

WooMaWang · 02/12/2019 09:44

From a society level point of view, what you can end up with is large numbers of women who've been SAHMs for many years who gave vastly reduced earning potential across their careers and will be relying on state pensions in old age.

Add to this a context where very high proportions of relationships don't actually make it all the way through children's childhoods, and you have a bunch of single women needing to support themselves (and their children) with reduced earning potential and no private pensions. That's not a great situation at all.

Completely separately, there's also considerable evidence that the most disadvantaged children (measured by household income) have much poorer developmental and educational outcomes. The EYs subsidy is to try to improve 'school readiness' so that those children can benefit from education and (hopefully) grow up to have better earning potential etc.

Note for those determined to misunderstand statistics: this is a large scale m, statistical pattern in the population; the fact that you see yourself and your children as not fitting it does not mean that the pattern does not exist.

Ingridla · 02/12/2019 09:45

Totally agree OP. I see it purely as stigma.

Rainbowtheunicorn · 02/12/2019 09:46

They’re treated differently because they are working.

Being a SAHP is great but it’s a luxury- it’s seen as the easier option whereas if you are working and using childcare top ups you are at least trying to provide for your family.

I don’t have anything against UC but I think the reasons it is seen differently are quite obvious.

YogaDrone · 02/12/2019 09:49

It's obvious how they are different - in the one example you have parent, childminder, nanny, nursery staff or whatever employed and contributing tax and NI to the state as well as saving into their own personal pensions. The government incentivises this by giving free hours.

In the other example you have no contribution to the state but someone taking benefits out of it.

noodlenosefraggle · 02/12/2019 09:53

Because it means that working mothers are not only paying childcare for their own children but have to pay taxes for people to voluntarily not work. Its a lifestyle choice that if you cant afford to make as a family, you cant make. I'd rather my taxes went on more important things than people who are capable of working deciding not to.

notnowmaybelater · 02/12/2019 09:59

I've never seen posts telling people to go back to work because they morally shouldn't claim benefits to stay at home - posts encouraging women to go back to work are almost exclusively about not becoming dependent on a man (especially if not married to him or if he's a bit of a bastard) and about the fact finding a suitable job when returning to work after a long break can be difficult, long term earning potential is often hit hard, and a long stretch as a sahp can lead to serious poverty as a pensioner, which most people don't think about.

Those posts are about the individual from a self interested perspective, not about a moral obligation not to benefit from the taxes paid by society as a whole.