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.

I think part of it is economies of scale and what can be measured. So a childminder might look after 3 children but some sahp’s may only have 2 or 1 child (at least for some of the years they are sahp’s).

What is difficult to measure is if/how much more beneficial it is for children to be with their parents than someone else. Now SOME children will be positively benefitted by nursery/childminder - who may add variety to the toys they play with, social interaction and expertise from people who work a lot with kids. However SOME kids will be benefitted by being with parents. Perhaps more so those with medical/developmental problems requiring frequent appointments (but not confined to them).

Sahp’s possibly would also reduce car travel and rush hour traffic as journeys to work then child pick-ups would be reduced and they may have more time to take public transport.

I don’t think either should be funded but if one has to be it would be childcare for me.

The person would be working and modelling a work ethic to children. At some point childcare costs would cease and the person would still be in employment. The childcare provider will also be paying tax and contributing to the economy. Very very different to a SAHP being funded.

@Waxonwaxoff0 and that's why I said families who have had a change in circumstance in my first post.....

Again frangipani, a parent who isn't earning enough to pay tax and NI can quite easily be paying, directly or indirectly, a childcare worker who isn't either. There's no rule saying a nursery worker or CM has to earn over the NI threshold. Plenty of them don't!

@JacobReesClunge the chances of EVERY childcare worker being below the threshold is very very slim. And don't forget of course that in a nursery setting the nursery will be paying employers NI aswell as pension contributions and corporation tax.

There's a lot of whataboutery on this thread with people quoting extremes in a bid to prove a moot point. Whether it offends you or not, it is a fact that overall, people being in paid employment is far far better for the economy that people being at home and on benefits.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

I’ve never understood this emphasis on a ‘work ethic’. ‘Work’ isn’t virtuous in and of itself. I know investment bankers who are slogging it out in the city in order to make rich people richer, and that’s not really something I’d want my kids to aspire to. The fact also is, most people would drop their day jobs in w heartbeat if they won the lottery, which tells you all you need to know about ‘work ethic’ (your value is based on your income)

• Exercise and physical well-being ethic

Post cut accidentally - but was about to add that there are many positive behaviours that parents can model to children (volunteering, physical fitness, etc). Just because our societies place a high premium on certain types of work, and a very low premium on other things (the caring professions come to mind), that doesn’t mean we should all model our own values accordingly.

The idea is, as a working mother, you continue to pay into the system. Pension, NHS, contributions to other public benefits pots.

I'm sorry but I dont agree with the idea that I'm working and paying national tax and insurance so other people dont have to work and pay their way.

I wouldn't just give up my job and expect the state to pay for me entirely without putting anything back.

Of course working isn’t the only positive thing a parent can teach a child but it’s a huge one. They should understand the value of work and grow up believing you provide for yourself and don’t expect others to fund the choices you make. They should see contributing to society through income tax as something to be done to ensure we have schools, nhs etc.

I imagine because governments prefer people to be contributing to the workforce and to the economy. If every nurse with children quits work tomorrow we have a major problem, just as we do if every parent of children under the age of five stops paying tax.

You don’t have to agree with the viewpoint to be able to grasp it.

Of course the concept of staying home is a capitalist construct of the emerging middle classes a couple of hundred years ago. It had much more to do with status (a man earning enough to support non-earning adults) than concern about children.

Trixie and others have said why governments prefer it and I think everyone understands that. I had been wondering about why people prefer it but judging on people's answers it seems to be that people seem to think spending money to allow people to work is worthwhile use of public funds even if it costs more while money to allow people to parent isn't.
Reassuringly though the poll show it isn't the majority just more likely to post comments it seems.
People also seem to extrapolate a sahm on benefits to someone remaining on benefits for ever which obviously might be true in some cases but I would think mainly in scenarios where people weren't working to start with.

I didnt say EVERY childcare worker was in that situation though frangipani, that's a strawman. I said some are, and there's no denying I'm correct about that. So you and the people saying it will lead to income tax, NI and pension contributions being made by childcare workers are wrong.

It's perfectly possible to understand this indisputable fact whilst also being in favour of state subsidy for childcare. I do. But it's incredible how difficult it is to get some people to accept the reality here. Paying childcare subsidy to a low paid worker to allow work just doesn't necessarily lead to more back in the state coffers.

The economics of it isn't just about tax contributed right now. It's about much longer term goals for a productive society. Taking 7 years out of the workforce (for example) will have a significant effect on a woman's earning capacity possibly for the rest of her working life. And it has ongoing effects into retirement.

Even if supporting her back to work is initially loss-making, the intention is that over time people's earning capacity will improve and they'll be able to contribute more. Obviously it doesn't always work out that way, but it certainly won't happen if the person of out of the workforce. And the hope is that they'll be able to build up a pension so they don't need (additional) state support in old age.

A PP gave a really good personal example of how this support allowed her to become a pretty high earner (and net contributor) rather than have any possibility of continuing her previous career slip away over time. There are lots of such examples out there.

It really isn't a prejudice against SAHMs to think about any of this. Nor is it prejudice to say that being a SAHM (for many years often) is a choice that families should bear the cost of themselves (and the ongoing cost in lost earning potential years afterwards).

People aren't necessarily being ignorant or judgemental in feeling that isn't something they want to support through the benefits system for those who can't fund this themselves. It's a perfectly reasonable political position to take. You may want to take a different position, OP, but it doesn't make those who think differently somehow morally deficient.

What is definitely problematic (and outright offensive) is the oft-repeated 'I want to raise my children myself' refrain we see on MN from SAHMs. Mothers who go back to work do raise their children. Fathers (who almost invariably continue to work throughout) also raise their children. People whose children spend all day in school are still raising their children. Childcare workers are providing a service that is quite different to 'raising' those children.

It’s rather obvious.

One of the those routes (1) encourages gender diversity in the workplace (2) keeps society moving towards gender equality (3) keeps careers moving (4) leads to greater participation in the workforce (5) itself contributes to an entire employment avenue ie childcare of different kinds (6) the people receiving such “benefits” are invariably also people contributing to the tax and NI pot which is being distributed across the population including SAHP as individuals benefitting from Nhs schools etc. The reverse is not true.

And yes Not All WOHP earn enough to pay out to pot but my general point stands

@Thoughtlessinengland It definitely does stand, especially over the longer term. WOHP might be net recipients but there is the potential for them to contribute more over time. If they are out if the workforce, their earning potential diminishes over time.

Similarly, childcare workers may be low paid but there is potential for them to increase their earnings over time. They may go into leadership/management roles. They may build upon their experience to train in a whole range of professions (I teach loads of people in this situation who are looking to go into various people-centres professions or policy-making roles). They might start businesses and employ other people.

Just because someone is currently paid minimum wage (or thereabouts) does not mean they always will be. And the system is such that it can support those who do not manage to increase their earning potential over time.

There really isn't much recognition in this discussion of the reality of low paid work. The idea that staying in work improves one's future prospects and has a significant impact on pension provision simply doesn't have general application in the way some posters seem to think it does.

There are people who are only ever going to earn NMW or something close to it because the way our economy is structured simply doesn't allow for that cohort not to exist. Lots of them don't work enough to accrue pension contributions anyway, and for those who do, it's often not going to be enough to prevent them requiring significant state support in retirement. And low income women working in what will disproportionately be female dominated sectors (which is a big part of the reason they're poorly paid...) is hardly keeping society moving towards gender inequality.

Now I'm still in favour of childcare subsidy for low paid workers, because I think it's better than the alternative option of not providing it, but there's some real naivete here. MN is very middle class and it shows.

As well as what others have already said the ones that stay in employment are more likely to remain in employment once their kids are at school. They will be in a better position to negotiate school friendly hours etc, will not have had a career harming gap.
It is all too easy for the ones that stayed at home on benefits to remain that way. The problem of not being able to find a job that fits round school will come out then. If they have been unemployed for a number of years it will be even harder for them to find a child friendly job. They will have skill gaps etc.
Being supported with childcare for a few short years is much preferred to being in benefits long term.

Ah, careers.

@Lycidas, you are totally missing the point. Work ethics is about installing asense of responsibility and self reliance.

It's teaching kids about social responsibility. Of course most people would opt not to work if they didn't have to but that is exactly the point, we HAVE to work to support ourselves and thats the message to pass on to our kids.

Saying that, I don't think this applies to kids under the age of 4 who are too young to understand this concept. It becomes important when they are in primary school.

I think it’s incredibly entitled to think you should be propped up to have children.

If you can’t afford them, don’t have them. I’d have love to have had four but, we could only afford two

Namechange does that mean all state assistance towards having and looking after children or just part of it? I would be interested to know if you're eg considering SMP and childcare support as being in the same bracket as child benefit and child tax credits/UC/extra housing benefit entitlements here. I took SMP and claim child benefit myself and would think of myself as taking from the pot in that respect, but people don't always seem to.

Fine then job prospects JacobReecClunge. Whether it’s a professional career job or a NMW job it’s still easier to get one if you are already in one than it is if you have had a 5 year gap!

Well career and job prospects are two quite different things! One of the reasons I'm supportive of childcare help to keep low income workers in jobs if they want to is so that they're less likely to be completely fucked if any shit hits the fan, and it seems you hold the same view. I think that's a good enough reason in itself, personally.

Agree. I also agree that any profession that is female dominated is always paid lower purely for that reason. Think care work, child care versus relatively low skilled male dominated jobs such as bin men, builders etc. The latter are generally way above minimum wage. It’s infuriating.

We're at a point where many white collar jobs are beginning to be automated. I read about a case the other day of 200 in house lawyers at a large firm losing their jobs to automation. I really think this renders most of our discussions about benefits redundant. Attitudes will change overnight when people see this isn't just happening to blue collar workers - that's largely already happened and people responded by demonising the individuals affected. Personally I think it will be different this time with middle class people being affected. We'll have a ubi within 15 years is my prediction.

Perhaps because it's temporary, so continuing to work/pay taxes to enable this to gain the free childcare hours means that when DC go to school it's been worthwhile. Then we pay for breakfast/after school club/dinners.