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?

God this is so hard to explain I'm going to give up after this. Exactly the same in CTC as a household with £56k. I admit they will be paying more tax, but we're only talking £560 odd a year - it's hardly a fortune and certainly in no way supports a SAHP.

I will not put my child in full time childcare for the economic good of the country either.

X posted.

We were surviving, with a child and a mortgage, on one income of £20k or less for the past 3 years.

No one is asking you to!!!

I think the point people are making is simply that the days of the state financially supporting a parent to stay at home are pretty much over. It didn't happen in the past, it is unlikely to happen in the future - the country cannot afford it.

I know. All I'm saying is that the State isn't, and never has been, financially supporting them!

Well, that's a moot point.

Child Benefit was introduced in around the 1940s/50s I believe. That's a state benefit paid directly to the mother regardless of whether she works. Didnt exist prior to that.

And the last decade or so has seen huge amounts of help.... tax credits, free nursery hours for 3 year olds (whether the parents both work or not)

Things have swung so far now and the country is so overspent that some of these things have to fall by the wayside and parents once again become responsible financially for their own children.

I don't think the state is supporting any parents at the moment. I think its very wrong to think that working parents are "supported" when you consider paying for one child in FT childcare is averaging 1000 pounds a month. You have to factor in the outgoings of two working parents compared to that of one parent at home. Most people don't have a choice at all. Some people want to work and simply cannot afford to and others want to stay at home and cannot afford that. Personlly I don't think being a SAHM suits all people and neither do I think being a WOHM is for all. Some children do well in childcare and others do better at home. People are different and should be able to make different choices at different stages of their lives. My DH was a SADH for a few years because our youngest didn't thrive in nursery like our older children had done. Its all about choice IMO and I think this government is attacking parents and in the process of course children.

But as you said, all those things are whether both parents work or not, so I don't see how they can be seen as supporting SAHPs. Otherwise, as I said earlier, anyone who doesn't meet their absolute top earning potential could be described as being subsidised in some way.

As for free nursery hours, unless you're lucky enough to have a local nursery that will roll them up I don't see how you can use them unless one parent stays at home. Up here at the local school it's 2.5 hours 5 mornings a week. That's absolutely hopeless to use as any kind of childcare.

Fairymum - I agree with that. It does seem like support is steadily being withdrawn from all parents, working or not.

Disagree with violethill about the country being overspent. The country is not investing in families/children. This can never be overspending. Yes, parents are financially responsible for their children, but its in the state's interest to invest in the future.

No - it's not absolutely useless - I'd have chewed off my right arm to have 12 and a half free hours alongside the other hours I had to pay for!! Remember many of us on here had pre schoolers in the days when there were no such luxuries and you paid the full whack, all year round. Of course, if you expect to find a job to fit totally around your free hours, you may be disappointed, but as a help, surely the free hours are a good thing?

I think the simple answer, really, is that the state can't afford to help parents who choose to stay at home. At the end of the day, although it may be tough, and you're managing to have a parent at home by cutting back and living frugally, at least you can afford it. If a family genuninely can't, then believe me, both parents will be working, even if one of them is doing weekend/night shifts or pulling pints a few evenings a week. I think to have one parent not working at all is a luxury few families can afford these days.

I'm not saying that the State should support parents who stay at home, and just saying that it really doesn't.

Oh yes, if you can roll up the hours that's a big help. We did have DS in a private nursery for 2 days a week (at our full expense) until recently so DH could have a free run at renovating our delapidated house. The 12.5 free hours made a big difference.

But with me on maternity leave we moved DS to the local school nursery where it's 2.5 hours a day. It's better for him to be mixing with his future classmates so that's great, but if we were wanting to use it so DH could do paid work it would be impossible. As it is it's going to be a huge faff as we only have one car and I have a 30 mile commute to and from full time work. So if the Govt thinks that the free time helps any parent into work, then they're sadly mistaken unless they have a cooperative private nursery.

I realise that this has moved on somewhat, but now the thread has popped back into Active Convos, I want to address two things that have been bothering me since I read it this morning.

1. How on earth can she be 'struggling' so badly on her DH's salary? We live in commuter belt Surrey - I think only Central London is more expensive than here. We managed fine on DH's salary when I was SAH, and he earns less than her DH. Why on earth do they need to scrimp and save so drastically?

2. She was describing all the savings she's needed to make, which added up to £400 a month, to compensate for the loss of £33 a week (so £130 a month) of lost BC. Huh?

3. If her incomings far exceed her outoings, what's the problem? She's got loads more coming in than going out. That's a good thing!

Weird......

Anyway, I feel better for getting that off my chest, please continue!

What I don't understand is why the joint income of parents is not taken into account - i.e. under-the-threshold salary + under the threshold salary versus one salary over the threashold, yet - boom - the latter couple loses CB, whereas the former couple has more money net, yet keeps CB.

Surely the working family tax credits represents the mechanism already in place for joint/family income to be taken into account when assessing eligibility.

Why, then, is there this ridiculous split over the CB? It's just stupid, and when a law is stupid the cost of enforcing it is likely to increase, in financial terms as well as in terms of political capital.

Also, how certain is it that these proposals will go through without challenge? After all, we have a coalition government, and what will happen if a lot of Lib Dems suffer food poisoning on the day of the vote on this (maybe some mini-party conference, with Lib-dem-coloured Coronation Chicken gone bad ?)? The Conservatives can't get it through on their own.

I don't understand that either PluPerfect. Why not just get rid of CB altogether and add it onto CTCs?

Annie - didn't she say her outgoings far exceed incomings? I agree though, I'm finding it hard to have any sympathy.

I am convinced that the reason the Tories haven't combined Cb with CTC is that they will be getting rid of CTC.

OMG - do you think so? And put a good proportion of families in this country on the streets? Are they trying to self destruct?

gaelicsheep - that's probably what she meant, given the tone of the 'article', but I quote:
"Our incomings ? including that not insignificant £33.70 a week in child benefit ? greatly exceeded our outgoings".

Daft mare!

Good thing I'm not a proof reader then!

I'm a wannabe proofreader! Got a certificate and everything. But then no-one would give me a job.

I agree TCF: I think it will fall under universal credit and be more tightly means tested and lots of little bits (like the disability payment, bonus for working FT etc) will vanish off into thin air......

Disposed of? Oh gosh no; rationalised to cut down on needless bureaucracy and those damn awful public sector employees who just steal money from taxpayers but don;t do anything to earn it and don't really need jobs oh no.......

I don't think it's so bad, except for the sacrifice of jazz dance. I mean, everyone's entitled to whatever lifestyle they want so if they do spend money on all that expensive stuff, at least it was keeping the economy going and people in jobs. Just shows, there's now a cleaner and a jazz dance teacher out of work, and an Ocado driver with less work etc etc

What gets me is how, despite having no savings at all, they still did all that expensive stuff anyway! How can you moan about having no savings when you have a cleaner. I don't know.

Well how did that happen? Am well out of the loop.

Yes, gaelicsheep, tax credits do sound a fat target...

DH and I were discussing this the other day, and although I reckoned that these "cuts" are not efficiently cutting debt, but just moving it (to those who can't reject it), he seemed to think they didn't care and started talking about how everyone could cut back, and we could cut back. A bit off-topic.

SanctiMoanyArse, your comment made me think about the old:

"If you owe the bank £100,000 and can't pay it back, you have a problem. However, if you owe the bank £100 billion and can't pay it back, it's the bank which has got a problem."

It could well be the same with governments.

The whole business about having a cleaner while having no savings was based on the galloping property inflation we saw over the past decade or so. DH this evening did the numbers of a property sale from near us, calculating that the people gained over £100K over seven years from their property. Before anyone moans that we are not "intimately involved" with other people's finances, these details were transparently plucked from the Land Registry. If they had a mortgage, they were effectively leveraged, meaning that what they put down (their deposit) appreciated more than the property itself did.

Given such inflation, is it any wonder that people felt they had no need to save, while enjoying benefits like cleaners and ironing, getting the economy used to providing these "services" which are not actually structurally "needed" jobs and are therefore vulnerable jobs.

Stories like this mean that inflation is pretty had news for stability.

I can see that inflation deteriorates savings but your reasoning does not encourage prudence. We should all spend willy nilly -- that's the government's advice too, get your money out of the bank and circulating. But I don't really feel like it, given the crappy hand the squeezed middle has been given, and the fact that I won't get any help if I need it most probably, and so being as how there seem to be plenty of rainy days ahead, I think it's really irresponsible not to save when you can afford stuff like jazz dance and a cleaner.