I'm hoping there's already a thread on the SAHM writing about CB cuts in Saturday's Grauniad (money section), but in case there isn't...

[kveta]

please someone come and talk about it here! this one

DH and I were both spluttering all the way through this, and found our hearts didn't bleed too much.

Did anyone else read it and weep?

I see your point MissM - I was just making the point about comparing like with like.

A working couple with two preschoolers on 30k each, may appear to be very well off on paper,but take out two lots of childcare costs (which would be knocking on 2k a month in many areas) and they're not. Whereas a couple with two preschoolers and only one working parent earning, say, 45k, have no childcare costs, don't have to run two cars, don't have any of the other expenses incurred by working.

If you compare like with like in a different way: two families with school age kids, one with both parents working at 30k, and the other with one parent working at 45k and one at home, then at least the second family are choosing for one parent not to work (which is a luxury really, with all kids at school).

I think at the end of the day, although it may seem unfair on families which have one higher earner, you do have to remember that in every family where both parents work, you've got double the number of hours being worked. You can't simply look at overall family income. A family with a single earner might be working, say, 40 hours a week. A family with two earners are doing 80 hours.

I can't feel huge amounts of sympathy for the woman in the article when she is clearly making a choice to not work right now, and is also clearly able to live with comfort and a fair few luxuries anyway.

I take all your points Violethill. I suppose such reasoning falls down when the parent in question is on their own.

Violethill - ahem - the stay at home parents are also working but not in paid work.

If they have a high earning spouse in this area chances are he/she is away from the house 14 hours a day working and commuting.

Once children are at school there are still childcare costs unless you work as a TA or lunchtime supervisor.

You can not make generalisations about families with one person earning any more than families with two people earning. Some families with two earners may live very near their jobs and have granny nearby to help with childcare.

Only if you believe that splitting as a couple should allow one parent to act as though they are 'childless' and hand over all responsibility to the other parent - or the state.

I do realise these issues are complex, but if you make parenting the key issue (rather than whether the couple remain together) then it completely alters the mindset.

I personally don't like the term 'single' parent, because every child is born of two parents, and unless one tragically dies, then that child still has two parents, whether they are married, co-habiting, or separated. It is perfectly possible for two adults who no longer live as a couple to continue to earn, and indeed to continue an active parenting role. Unfortunately society has made it far to easy for parents to opt out of this responsibility if they choose.

miffy - I totally understand that. And yes, there are still childcare costs when your children are at school, but very significantly lower than when they are at nursery. You get at least 6 hours a day free, for 39 weeks of the year!

Childcare is expensive, but child benefit and tax credits give people a choice weather to spend it on childcare or on keeping one person at home. Its about giving people choices. Of course single parents are getting royally screwed, but then I always knew that would happen and I didn't vote tories....

Actually violethill, paying a childminder fulltime can be as expensive as paying nursery fees especially when you factor in that for some bizzarre reason a lot of childminders charge 50% over holidays when they don't actually work and you might have to pay that 50% in addition to holiday clubs.

I know fairymum.

I used a childminder for dd1 and nursery for dc 2 and 3. The 50% charge is usually a retainer for when the parent is on holiday, which is absolutely fair enough if they are keeping a place open for your child. At the nursery my children attended, you paid full whack 51 weeks of the year (it was only closed for Christmas week). That's the reality of childcare. Child benefit is a drop in the ocean - didn't even notice mine come in and out the bank while I was paying childcare!

"Childcare is expensive, but child benefit and tax credits give people a choice weather to spend it on childcare or on keeping one person at home."

Erm, no they don't. If you are not classed as needing the childcare (because the second adult doesn't work more than 16 hours a week) then you don't just get the money anyway. It's not a choic of what to spend the money on. Couples with one parent at home (or working up to 2 days a week) get nothing like the same money from the taxpayer.

.. you don't need it if one parent is at home though do you!

the second earner doesn't get tax credits whether she earns 10k or 30k if her DH pays higher rate tax.

Not if one parent's at home all th time, of course not. If they're working 2 days a week you might well need it but don't get it.

But that's beside the point. Your post implied (perhaps I read it wrongly) that a couple on a certain income get a certain amount in tax credits which they can choose a) to put towards childcare, or b) use to enable one parent to be at home. I was saying that isn't the case.

Violethill, i am talking about childminder for school age children. You still pay a retainer over the holidays even you are working, cannot actually use the childminder and have to find alternative childcare.

Of course you get tax credits even if one person stays at home. My bil works and my sil stays at home. They get tax credits. We have never qualified for tax credits despite at one point paying over 3K a month for childcare.

'I personally don't like the term 'single' parent, because every child is born of two parents, and unless one tragically dies, then that child still has two parents, whether they are married, co-habiting, or separated. It is perfectly possible for two adults who no longer live as a couple to continue to earn, and indeed to continue an active parenting role. Unfortunately society has made it far to easy for parents to opt out of this responsibility if they choose.'

I don't think you can blame 'society' for some absent fathers just being complete arseholes. Yes, a child does still have two parents, but we all know that it doesn't necessarily work in such a rosy way as you describe. I think CB for mums in certain situations isn't a 'drop in the ocean', but makes a big difference to her balancing the books or not.

I wasn't the poster who made that point.

I think the simple answer though, is to work over 16 hours a week if you want to reap the benefits of tax credits, rather than just the money you earn.

TBH 16 hours is only two days, so it's not an unreasonable cut off. It's only two fifths of a normal working week.

You could still work only a half time week, two and a half days, and be easily above the threshold.

You get a certain amount of child tax credit, yes. But nothing like the amount that the taxpayer shells out in working tax credit for childcare when both parents work.

I worked it out once. I don't have the figures any more, but if our income was earned by DH and me combined and not just me, we would be a much much bigger drain on the taxpayer. And pay less tax.

Sorry, I'm typing one handed and couldn't be bothered to scroll.

That depends on jobs being available that are 16 hours or more. The only jobs DH was offered part time were 14 or 15 hours. Result: we'd have spent almost his entire earnings on childcare. And we weren't prepared to have a 3 year old in nursery full time. That was our decision, but we made the sacrifices. In fact I think we got about £200 a year more than we would have with double our income - that's hardly being subsidised.

I think you have to look at it as the individual's potential to earn though. I mean, two people earning 25 k each, are still two people working. Each paying tax at the appropriate amount according to the tax system.One person earning 50k is one person earning and paying tax ....etc. Look at it as 'man hours' kind of thing. And yes, you could say that the high earning partner might be working a really long week, 50/60 hours, but that often applies to many people on more modest incomes. I know loads of couples who are teachers, or one teacher one policemen/social worker etc. They both work very long hours

At the end of the day, we are all individuals and could work (within all the restrictions to do with childcare that we all have to work with etc etc)

Presumably you are more likely to have higher childcare costs if both parents work? If we are talking drain on tax payers I would like to argue that supporting working parents with childcare is supporting two people who pay taxes, who are likely to build up two pensions, who pour money into the childcare sector and who are more likely to pay more taxes long-term. Personally dislike the expression drain on tax payers as I think tax credits as well as child benefits (universal) is an investment in children weather they attend childcare or are used to support one person at home.

2 people earning 20k each pay less tax between them than one on 40k because of 2 personal allowances.

If your going to talk about earning potential, then anyone who doesn't get themselves promoted up to their highest possible earning potential is thereby cheating the country out of tax revenue. Is that what you're saying?

I really don't like the thought that I should put my pre-school child in childcare in order to prop up the childcare sector.

Anyhow, this is all presumably off topic as I will never, in my profession, be earning anything like enough to be a higher rate taxpayer, so DH won't (for now) be losing his CB. I just wanted to correct what seemed like a misconception.

I don't think anyone is suggesting you should put your child into childcare in order to prop up the childcare sector gaelicsheep!

Fairymum's point was that that is a by product of using childcare.

I used childcare to ensure my children were well cared for while I worked. I think that's the only reason any parent would think about when choosing childcare.

AAARGH - sorry, for multiple posts, but Fairymum did you read what I said below? It is NOT either or. I'm not going to get the exact figures now, but once you get past something like 25k income with one child you get exactly the same as a household with an income of £56k. Where's the subsidy for a SAHP exactly?

Yes, but 2 people earning 20K each are probably in the position where they both HAVE to work because it would be very difficult to live on one wage. However, if one person is earning 40K and the other person stays at home they have no childcare costs so would probably be better off. I am not saying anyone is cheating the country by the way, you were the one who mentioned drain on tax payers. I don't want you to put your pre-school child in childcare either if that is not what you want, I am making an economic argument in answer to your "drain on tax payers". Of course the childcare is also important because it employs tax payers.