Do the proposed tax free childcare plans insult stay at home parents?

[Jac1978]

Working families will receive £1200 a year per child up to a maximum of 20% of their total childcare costs from 2015. Both parents or a single parent must be working and earning less than £150,000 a year to qualify.

Is this a welcome boost to help parents who can't afford childcare or does it insult parents who choose to stay at home and look after their children themselves? Should they be encouraging parents to work or stay at home or should they not help parents at all as it is their decision to have children?

Student parents are basically totally fucked under these proposals.

Nope.

pompompom I'm caring for my MIL at home, and retraining - taking a post-grad in Maths, and looking after my 2 fabulous kids outside school hours ..... had to recently give up part time work I'd taken on (after being a SAHM before the kids went to school) so I'm a SAHM again, or am I a part time (unpaid) carer (MIL doesn't have quite enough wrong with her for us to get help), or a student (hubby earns too much to get funding), or...............

SAHM doesn't quite cover the breadth of my particular SAH experience - but even if the kids were small enough to be home I wouldn't get any help with childcare... hey ho...

Surely it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to imagine that many SAHMs might well actually want to find a job after a year or two at home? And that that job might require retraining? You could head over to the student parents board if you don't believe that these mythical creatures exist. Or possibly the elderly parents or special needs board if you think nobody has any other caring responsibilities besides looking after a toddler or two.

Frankly it seems a bit bizarre to decide that since from your narrow experience you know no-one in that position, they can't possibly exist.

Errrr pompon well I am as are a shed load of other sahp I know.

Sadly we did what was best for our children and family and now on resurfacing find our career down the pan,the years of scrimping starting to really dig in,society belittling the needs of many babies,children and mothers and a government saying families with a sahp aren't hard working,don't want to get on and certainly don't need any help.

Fasterstronger, that's true!! That's the point - if they work they benefit from a childcare subsidy! Removing it from SAHPs on the assumption that they don't need childcare ignores all the good reasons why they might in fact need it.

Fine, I just have a different perspective that's all. I don't know a single SAHM that's doing any of that

There's no need to be rude though

Ah ok - I've re-read my post above "Why would a SAHM need or want money off childcare?!"

Obviously there are SAHMS that are doing retraining/caring/other reasons for needing childcare. I was referring to SAHMs who stay at home and don't need childcare, though realise that might not have been clear.

No stop getting so snippy

I don't mean to be rude, but I gave you a list of good reasons why a SAHP might need childcare and you just dismissed it outright by saying 'well I don't know anyone in that position' as if that meant they didn't exist. There are lots of things that exist outside my experience, but that doesn't mean that I can't accept that they are true.

cross-posts!

I didn't need childcare as a sahm, well apart from when I was studying. I had to work around dh as I could never have afforded it. However, as I decided not to wohm I didn't need it.
I think that students and sahp's seeking work should receive subsidised childcare. I also agree that the people who will be entitled to childcare through UC from age 2 should receive it as it is for the benefit of those particular children, rather than the parents.

I would agree with the unfair to SAHP argument if WOHP were getting free childcare.

but they aren't. they are getting a small fraction. they rest they pay for themselves.

There are far fewer long term sahp's than there used to be because we live in a society where many women want to return to work.
It will be interesting to see how potential employers cope at interview when people need to attend with child as they have no affordable childcare. We are constantly being told that being a sahp is a luxury that many can't afford. But so is working for no profit because childcare fees take a full wage, if you expect to be subsidised for a lifestyle choice.

Isn't that the same for SAHP too though? Right now they get a small subsidy (childcare vouchers via partner or accrued in previous job if they are lucky) Since SAHP may have reasons just as valid as WOHP for needing childcare, why should this be removed for one group but not the other? All this tory talk of an aspiration culture - hardly the case if SAHP are stuck where they are because they can't afford childcare to retrain.

Sorry, I meant 'Right now they get a small subsidy (childcare vouchers via partner or accrued in previous job if they are lucky) but have to pay the rest themselves. f

A big part of this is enabling women to get back in to work after having children, surely? I want to work. When my DC were tiny I could only afford to do limited hours due to the childcare costs, but that wasn't a choice. More affordable childcare means that I do more hours and pay more tax (when only doing 2 short days I didn't pay any tax at all).

imp - but surely they don't need much child care as they are SAHP (unless they are a carer in which case I agree) so they would have received a greater percentage of subsidy?

And the children?

Yes as a society we should help women work but going by my wider circle and what you read on here an awful lot of women feel forced back to work because being at home for even 5 years isn't financially viable and because they fear they'll have no career on their return.

I suspect an awful lot of women would rather stay at home for a few years and feel their dc would be better off at home but have no choice.

Staying at home shouldn't be seen as a luxury,for many children it is beneficial.

Nobody is allowed to discuss this because it makes many feel shite and infers that looking at the needs of families and children as individual cases somehow goes against women working.It doesn't but all families are different and the current gov are building an anti sahp mood to suit their own purposes which rides roughshod over the needs of the most important people involved- the children.

an awful lot of women would rather stay at home for a few years

then they need to plan their family in a way means they can do this without the need for financial support paid for by other people who are working, and often not seeing as much of their own DCs as they would like.

Faster

Can you not see that it is the same for both? Why should people who are working receive support from others who are working? They should plan their families in a way where they can afford their own childcare.

How do you do that Faster in today's society with every penny going on getting a mortgage,frozen salaries etc?

Only the rich have money left over.

We ploughed every penny pre dc into getting a mortgage,there was no other money left over.

So are only the rich entitled to having dc and help under this government?

I thought people claiming tax credits were able to claim up to 85% of their childcare bill, depending on income?

mrethan Why should people who are working receive support from others who are working?

its mutually beneficially. each contributes to the common pot.

how does a SAHP benefit Ms/Mr Average?

Oh - will people claiming tax credits, with one parent staying at home, still get help with childcare if they want it, I wonder?