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?

anklebitter

No ankle, I didn't think you had. I had read several heated posts above and wanted to make it clear that wasn't what I was saying, moreover just relaying my families position in the scheme of welfare cuts.

SirChenjin I am very glad to hear that . So many times somebody will relay their own experience and others will presume they are having a go at others who decide to do things differently. It is a shame really when all of us are only doing whats best for our families in the situation we chose or find ourselves.

Piglet - perhaps she just really enjoys working and finds it very rewarding and stimulating? Why should she give that up?

I didn't say she doesn't enjoy working but she doesn't have to put her values onto every mother in society. And as for being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen I feel very sorry for mothers who feel that what a SAHM is about and undervalues child care and is falling into the Government's plans of making working mothers look down on those that are SAHMs. Just as they try and make out that all the problems in society are due to the unemployed and not the greedy bankers. Don't fall into the government trap of thinking just because you work or have a career that your so much better than those that don't.

piglet I for one could never afford to work when my children were little as the child care was thin and expensive and I knew that I could do a much better job myself although I did manage to work p/t with my husband covering but it was unsocial hours.

That sounds like you would have worked if you had been capable of earning enough to afford childcare. You sound somewhat bitter to be honest.

potato and piglet

In what way is Samantha Cameron putting her values onto every mother in society??!!

SirChenjin In completely NO way.

Samantha Cameron is in the public eye and tries to make out she is a career women, but really designing hand bags, luckily my daughter is studying engineering and not making hand bags for posh women

I am insulted that my child benefit was taken off me, I couldn't care less about childcare as I have no reason to use it unless hospital appointments for my daughter coincides with school pick up for the youngest

Perhaps I'm being thick but I can't see for the life of me why parents who stay at home to look after their child need any help with child care costs. Seems as simple as that to me.

I must admit that child benefit cuts seem to be the most unfairest. It should be per family not parent.
When there are people earning up to 98K still receiving it, there is something wrong.

exactly, my husband doesn't earn much over the threshold and I had to give up work because I could no longer cope emotionally or physically with working and caring for my dd, who is severely disabled. But I am sure the Camerons have empathy for people in mine and my husbands situation

Piglet

I'm not sure but I think you might have been making the same point as I did up thread.

When my older dc were little there was no help with childcare and it was also sparse. If you couldn't afford it or find it, you didn't work, unless you had extended family for childcare. I think that people should be grateful for any assistance with childcare in this age where the pot is empty, (or so we're told). That's not bitter its just fact, and my choice to be a sahm would have been the same irrespective of anything else.

piglet - i don't believe working mums look down at SAHMs. Generally we are jealous that they have been able to spend time looking after their kids rather than slogging away in an office and rushing everywhere

woops pressed return too quickly......guess that makes us slightly reticent about wanting to use some of our income to give tax breaks to SAHMs

There are plenty of women in the public eye, but unless you are very easily impressed or swayed by other women or lacking in self confidence you don't base your decision on whether or not you want to work by what Samantha Cameron or anyone else is doing.

Agree with the cuts to child benefit - that made no sense. Well, it did from an administrative POV in that it's easier to look at the income of a single person rather than trying to work out what a couple might be earning jointly, esp. if they don't live together or are not married, but that was a really, really unfair one.

Personally I blame Samantha Cameron and her handbags. And Cherie Blair just for being Cherie Blair. And Sarah Brown. And every other working wife of a PM.

Racmum I hope you don't mind me quoting your post, you state my situation and feelings exactly
"I'm a SAHM through choice. I think the point OP is trying to make is that she feels the role of SAHP is being continually undermined by govt. policy and I agree.

I'm not saying that I want to paid for looking after my son but equally I don't see why DH's tax should fund child care for other people.

You only need to look at the child benefit changes to see that families with one high earner are an easy target. There are NO incentives at all for one income families and that is because the govt. clearly doesn't value IMO having a SAHP."

Did you see one response to this post from Racmum, Startail?

"Hang on a minute Racmum the taxes that your DH pays already subsidise people's childcare for example the 15 hours free childcare etc. You can't pick and choose what your taxes pay - they pay for the army; you may be a pacifist, they pay for hospitals; you may use private healthcare - same re education.

The £1,200 can only be spent on childcare. The government aren't writing a cheque that can be spent on anything. As a SAHP you don't need childcare. You may like your DCs to go to play school etc but you don't need them to."

I thought pre school was more to do with education rather than childcare?

I think the point was that we don't necessarily always agree with what our taxes are spent on, but we can't pick and choose.

I don't like Samantha Cameron. And I don't buy handbags. But high end luxury goods design makes a lot of money for this country. It's one of the few areas in which exports are quite strong. I think that since Piglet you don't seem to know much about economics you should maybe keep quiet on the subject.

'I think it's the fact that the govt seems to be trying to socially engineer all parents into work, ignoring the fact that childcare isn't the best environment for all children, that makes it a slight towards sahps. '

I agree with the above. And the fact they scrapped CB for single earners over 50K but not for joint earners even though those joint earners may have had free childcare from family etc. Why do those on 150K each need help with childcare? Not everyone in work needs to work, if they choose to why shouldn't they pay for their own childcare?

Truss and Clegg make many derogatory comments against SAHM. I wonder if they feel such disdain for SAHDs?

The only fair way is to bring back CB for all and increase it for those on lower incomes. That way parents can use the money to offset SAH or childcare costs. But the gov won't go for that as it allows choice and they know that more mums/dads would choose to be SAHD (if studies are correct that most parents-especially mums- would want to stay home or work part time while DC are pre school age). Just because Mrs Clegg and Truss want to work long hours and use child carers doesn't mean everyone wants to, it isn't right for all families, they should stop trying to patronize people into doing it their way, every family knows what is right for them and SAH may well be right for many as there are still a lot of us...

russians your first post about barefoot at home was exactly what I wanted to say, and you articulated it brilliantly. The whole point about working is that it's not about these years when the kids are small, it's about when they're grown up. If I took seven years out, I'd be unemployable in my current industry. Working now means I maintain my career. And I'm financially independent. You never know what's around the corner.

Startail and Racmum - couldn't agree with you more. This government is making sahms feel under valued and undermined.
SirChenjin, you are right, we can't pick and choose where our taxes go but we can disagree with it (as I do indeed disagree with many things our taxes go to), campaign against it, and use our votes sensibly.

What annoys me more than anything is that I just wish this government would sort out the flexible working legislation. It is pushing women back into work but into what jobs? As an ex employment lawyer I know what a joke the flexible working legislation is and I find it so frustrating. There are many of us happy to work, unfortunately getting a descent, part time job that may allow for a modicum of balance in our life is just so hard. Talking about envy, I envy those mums that are able to work 2/3 days a week, maybe work from home on occasion etc. I wish there was a greater emphasis on incentives to encourage employers to offer this.

I resent the implications of being barefoot at home. I always wear slippers