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

[mamapants]

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.

These are my thoughts on it. If someone is in work, they are paying tax, the nursery payments help pay nursery workers wages, they in turn pay tax, everyone is spending money.

Most people who have children still have more than one child. If someone stays off work til they don't need childcare any more (say until the youngest child is in 30 funded hours so 3) realistically that's likely to be at least 5 years off work.

After such a long time I think they are going to struggle finding a job, that is going to pay for wraparound care plus holiday care or be flexible enough for this not to be needed. You see it all the time on here, by then the fathers job is more important, the mother wants to work but is by this time very confident and struggles to find anything to fit in with family life hours that she wants

It's much easier to request part time or flexible hours from an existing job.

I wouldnt be as against paying women to stay at home for longer if it didnt affect their longer term employment but the fact it that it does.

If there was spare money in the pot for children I'd rather pay it towards promoting extended shared paternity pay so that dads were more involved in the basic care of their children and mums weren't so affected in the workplace.

I do get your point though, but overall I think keeping people in work is more beneficial for the economy and helps gender discrimination and pay gaps etc and also I think for the children, going to pre school helps prepare them for school

There's also the simple fact that benefits are a trap. People get stuck in them. Shifting a welfare system towards a model where people (who are actually able to work) are supported to work is actually better for everyone. It's not necessarily some dreadful smear campaign against SAHMs.

But, equally, for a lot of people (and especially those who have struggled through with childcare payments etc to try to keep a career going) it is simply a case of 'why should I pay taxes so someone else can choose to stay at home for years?'. That's not actually prejudice, and any government that ignores this attitude within the population is very foolish indeed.

@Woomawang You miss my point. I was answering another poster who claimed that the money going to the childcare provider was increasing employment.
In fact, by putting so many settings out of business, they are decreasing employment and driving down wages as we rely more and more on the big nursery chains.

The issue is segregation. Most mums (and many dads) would opt to stay home until their youngest turn 5 if they could afford it. Many can't.

So why do some parents deserve to spend more time with their kids than others or why are some kids more worthy to have their parrnts look after them 24/7 than others?

If all parents went with their wishes they're wouldn't be enough taxes paid to support everyone and the gambling public services.

Being a shp shouldn't be a choice unless it can be afforded.

Decades of brainwashing and lose of value (can't think of the word, diminishing or something ) of parents being at home for the child rather than being shoved into full time childcare. Yanbu, at all. Our 'culture's as modern mothers haven't improved things at all.

If you're working you're paying tax and national insurance, and generally childcare support would cost less than funding a family on benefits.
No not if your not a single parent. Childcare via tax credits is £210 a week, if the mother stayed at home the extra tax credits paid would be much less when her partner is working.

Well yes @Tanith. Sadly the rhetoric rarely matches the reality in uk government policy. Underfunded services are a real issue.

Tax on a wage that would attract childcare paid bus tax credits is going to be much less than £220 a week.

*£210

Yes on a purely financial basis, it often makes little sense. If you are a single mum with two young children in a minimum wage job you could very well be getting far more in childcare subsidy than you pay in tax. It's ideological. Given that most women (And men) want to spend more time with their children I do think we should be have a more nuanced approach. Imagine if the government limited childcare subsidy to over 3s and put the extra money into increasing maternity leave/parental leave so that most families were able to mostly have family looking after under 3 year olds. It would be transformative and potentially improve career prospects as less women would give up work fully and they could get back to work more easily.

I don't really support either more subsidised childcare, or funding for parents to stay at home.

Rightly or wrongly I think both would be seen as targeting mothers so they would be pressured to change their behaviour whilst fathers get to carry on like nothing has changed.

I'd rather see incentives for employers to offer more flexible working, and better paternity leave and shared parental leave, so that both parents are encouraged to play a more active role in parenting during the early years. Too many of my friends are run ragged doing most of the childcare/house stuff and often struggling to work as well whilst their partners' lives seem to have barely changed at all!

I agree with you op, it's not a very fair bias. Honestly I think encouraging mothers or fathers to be able to care at home for their child extended is important and mostly likely better for the child.
Better support in both areas would be great

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.

Is raising the next generation not doing your bit for society - unless you're a childminder and being paid for it?

I agree with you op.

I think staying at home with your kids or working a shitty min wage job to fit round school is seen as beneath a lot of mn.

@Perch I was asking because I thought it was interesting how people seem to make very different value judgments on these two situations even though both cost the tax payer money.
It's interesting that lots seem to think it's better because the worker is paying tax and ni when that might not be true if they are low earners and even when true the childcare being paid will normally cost much more than the individual is paying in tax so they are only contributing on paper.

Why?

Because one is paying you for you to stay at home and the other is helping you get out to work.

And the folk needing help to pay for their childcare are the ones working paying taxes to fund you staying at home.

@notnowmaybelater there are definitely posters saying that people shouldn't sah and claim benefits as a value judgment. There was a thread just this morning doing so- it's what prompted me to ask. People were saying not to do that it's not why benefits exist they are for people who have no choice, go to work and claim money for childcare. The language people use is different stay at home parent is claiming benefits, working mums are getting their childcare entitlement. It's very odd.

I agree OP. I'm a single working parent and I get tax credits. And I don't pay tax because I don't earn enough.

I prefer being at work though but I didn't go back until DS started school.

I find it interesting that people often describe being a SAHP as being a "luxury" - but the vast consensus on MN is that it's harder being a SAHP than a WOHP.

Or that SAHPs on benefits are lazy. They would never say that to a SAHP who was financially supported by their partner. And a lot of those SAHPs on benefits are single, doing all the parenting with little help from the other parent. Far from lazy in my eyes.

If it all equates to the same amount roughly out of the public purse then neither choice should be seen as better than the other but you’re right ....sahp painted as lazier for that choice

@reginafelangee thats my point though if they are claiming the childcare then they are unlikely to be contributing more than they are taking out of the system. They are not funding other people staying at home. They might well be before and afterwards but so might the sahm.

@mamapants

Sure some won't be earning much. But many are earning enough to contribute will be. Not everyone is on the breadline or in entry level jobs.

And the ones who find it hardest are those who are not entitled to any help and who can't afford to stay at home.

everyone who pays tax is contributing. Whereas if you are choosing to stay at home on benefits then you are taking.

I think staying at home is great if that's what you want to do. But pay for it yourself.

Benefits should be for those who cannot work or a safety net for those temporarily out of work.

It shouldn't be a long term lifestyle choice.

It's interesting that so many posters don't get that it is absolutely possible to be working, not earning enough to pay either NI or income tax and still receiving state help towards childcare. Seriously, do the maths. NI kicks in at about 8.5k, income tax at 12.5k, do people really not understand that there are loads of workers earning less than this? And there's really no guarantee that the people being employed to do the childcare will be paying any NI, tax or pension contributions themselves. Most childcare workers aren't paid much above NMW. If they only work a couple of days a week/bit more than that but term time only, hardly an unusual state of affairs, they won't be earning enough to pay NI or tax and the amount their employers will be paying into their pensions will barely be anything.

I'm still in favour of subsidy for working parents on a low income anyway, but it is absolutely possible to cost the state more by working than you will pay in. And continuing to work in those circumstances doesn't mean you're automatically going to earn more later, either. Some people just aren't ever going to be able to earn much.

Reginafelangee you'd need to be earning a fairly low income to get childcare tax credits though.
And its not true that if you are paying tax that you are a net contributor. Think you need to be earning about 40k before you are contributing what you put in.
You could equally flip what you've said the other way and say well great to choose to work but only if you can fund it yourself.
I personally agree with others up thread who've mentioned that more flexible working is the answer but unfortunately not many employers are keen on that.

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

Unless you are earning in excess of £40k p.a. then you are getting more from the government than you are putting in.

Lots of working parents don't earn enough to pay tax and/or get tax benefit and child benefit.