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?

[SirChenjin]

Working p/t still means you are working - and still able to claim CCV or make use of the new tax incentive.

I don't see any patronising at all - just a reworking of the system which enables parents to get help with childcare costs to enable them to continue working and contribute financially to the economy. If you choose to stay and home and therefore do not have childcare costs, I really don't see why anyone would see that as unfair. There is nowhere that I can see which says "you must increase your working hours"

[RussiansOnTheSpree]

fufulina It's not even just about our own security and fulfillment. The most important thing is the message it sends to our children - especially the boys. I grew up in a sexist society and still have to operate in one (I work in a male dominated industry and am a glass ceiling shatterer). I don't want my daughters to have to struggle as I did, one of the key elements to that will be the number of role models and the acceptance for the way things are Supposed To Be now from the boys of their generation and the ones younger than me but older than them. If those boys are getting completely dodgy messages at home, similar to the messages most of my colleagues clearly got, then my girls will have as tough a time of it as I did.

[wintersdawn]

The point that insults me is i work part time to help boost our income and attempt to keep my skills up and apparently that isn't working enough so we will lose out and I won't be able to work. Then when the kids are at school and I try and get a job I won't be able to as I'll have no current work history or up to date skills.

[morethanpotatoprints]

I don't think gov are trying to get all parents working on the contrary I think they only support parents working who don't need much support. The Higher earners won't need childcare support and many lower earners are complaining they will be better off not working as their childcare has been cut. It is also the reason why CB has remained for the rich, but the middle families lose theirs.
We do not have a coalition gov, it is Tory through and through. Make the rich richer and the poor poorer, its historically what they stand for along with a sahp. Which of course there is bound to be after the childcare cuts.

[fufulina]

Furiously nodding head! All the threads on MN complaining that the chap doesn't pull his weight, all totally linked in with how things are Supposed To Be. Basically because so many men, even if they realise it or not, think that household and kid work is for women. My DH is no exception, although he tries, it is very hard to undo such societal hard wiring.

[solveproblem]

I agree with fufulina and russian.
The two main reasons why I work is to be financially independent AND to me a good role model to my two boys. I would hate having them grow up thinking only women should do housework and childcare.

[Treats]

I don't see why SAHMs should feel that they're being undermined because of this proposal. It's addressing an economic problem - the economy is not functioning as efficiently as it could be because lots of skilled and experienced workers are unable to partake in the workforce because of the costs of childcare. This reduces income tax revenue which pays for - amongst other things - all of our childrens' schooling and healthcare.

It's not a moral judgement about the best way to raise a child. If you've CHOSEN to drop out of the workforce because you believe that's the best thing for your family, then that's fine. If you're being PREVENTED from working because of the cost of childcare, then this proposal should (though probably won't) remove that obstacle.

I'm slightly offended by the "I don't want my DH's taxes to fund other people's lifestyle choices" argument. Between you (generic you), you and your DH have made a decision to only contribute one lot of taxes to the public purse instead of two. Those of us in two earner households are contributing more taxes overall, so why shouldn't we get a TEENY (in the grand scheme of things) bit back if it helps us continue to pay those taxes? Our overall tax contribution is still higher than a single earner household's.

[SirChenjin]

Potato - did you miss the bit where Labour (under GB) was going to do away with CCV completely for all working parents? It was only because there was a mass outcry he relented, but somehow that is conveniently forgotten. CB has remained for families where one parent is a higher income earner because it's the easiest way of administering it from a tax POV. I don't agree with it, but I strongly suspect Labour would have done the same, and certainly won't amend it if they get in at the next election.

I totally disagree that it will only support parents who don't need much support - what exactly do you base that on?

[morethanpotatoprints]

Solveproblem

That is a good reason to work, but remember a sahp is just a good a role model and there is no reason for them to grow up thinking only women should do housework. That comes from how you behave as a parent.
My time isn't spent doing childcare and housework anymore than a wohps is

[SirChenjin]

that should read has been removed, not remained, obv!

Can you tell I'm working very hard from home today!!

[fufulina]

No, but the vast majority of parents at the school gate, and people filling the school-friendly jobs (normally poorly paid, low skilled, to be fair), all the people advertising cleaning products are women. All the people doing the important stuff, i.e., the stuff that is recognised as important by having a big salary attached to it, tend to be men. It's insidious.

[morethanpotatoprints]

SirChenjin.

I base gov supporting parents who don't need much support on the evidence of the cuts.
As I said for whatever reason cb remains for the wealthy, childcare is cut for the middle and cb, oh and tax credits too. Then of course there are the real needy who are being taxed on bloody bedrooms, and entitlement to welfare by goal post shifting.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Treats

In fairness my dh has also said that he wouldn't want his tax to pay for other peoples childcare, as I am a sahm and there was no help in recession when our dc were small. Maybe this isn't acceptable or nice to hear but neither is it fair for a wohp to say they don't want their tax to allow a sahp.
It does cut both ways!

[rottenscoundrel]

No, it only annoys me that I have employed childcarers for my children for almost 13 years and will just miss out on it argh!

[RussiansOnTheSpree]

Treats To be fair, you have no idea whether your overall tax contribution is higher or lower than any given single earner household. A dual earner household will benefit from two lots of personal allowance, for example, and potentially will qualify for CB on a total income level far far higher than a single earner household - which will also only get one personal allowance (which decreases at the margin, also).

[SirChenjin]

That doesn't add up to evidence for childcare support - that's just your opinion!!

Were you the person recently who said that the reason there was so much unemployment was because there were too many people working btw?

[RussiansOnTheSpree]

Potato A SAHM is not a good role model for girls or boys, unfortunately. Unless she is SAH because she already earned a complete and utter fortune before sprigging, and can therefore afford to (that of course is absolutely the best sort of role model).

[RussiansOnTheSpree]

Where do you get the idea that CB remains for the wealthy????

[morethanpotatoprints]

SirChenjin.

Were you part of the brigade who were name calling about needing to know about world economy to have an opinion. Maybe not as you said above it was my opinion.
But yes, you don't have to be a genius to know that if there were fewer families with both parents working, there would be the vacated jobs for others to fill.

[Mopswerver]

As an SAHM I don't think this is unfair or insulting of itself but I am a little fed up of the current prevailing negative attitude towards SAHMs in general.

We are constantly being given the message from the media, the Govt and the likes of Cherie Blair that we are lazy work-shy scroungers who are throw backs to the '50's and are providing a poor role model to our DCs.
A bit galling when you have worked for 20yrs prior to having DCs!

If it is wrong to aspire to care for your own pre school children, why is it OK for women to work in nurseries looking after other people's children?

I'm afraid it smacks of a move to pressurize women into returning to work so that they can increase the Tax revenue!

[polyhymnia]

Don't usually raise my head above parapet on these threads but having worked all through my DS s childhood I'm with you 100% on role models Russians.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Russian.

I think families earning up to 98k and getting cb are pretty wealthy
Its interesting that you consider the only good role model for a child is somebody earning a fortune.

[RussiansOnTheSpree]

Well, you are providing a poor role model, there;s no getting away from that, unfortunately. You are shoring up the opinions of the future and you are entrenching what we have now in so many professions - the idea that once a woman has kids that's it, it doesn't matter how well qualified or how good at her job she is, if she can possibly afford to stop working once the kids come along then that is what she should do. This stigmatises women who can't afford to stop working and it makes things much more difficult than they need to be (which is usually quite difficult anyway, to be fair) for those women who do carry on working. It means that we have far less women in positions of power and responsibility commensurate to their intelligence skills and education than we should have. It means our society is skewed, and it means that every single generation has to fight the same battles.

So, yes. A very poor role model and materially disadvantaging not just your own children but everyone else's too. So cheers for that.

[pigletpooh]

Russians, why is a SAHM not a good role model for boys and girls, I would be proud of my sons or daughters if they decided to take time out to look after their children, I think it is one of the most important jobs in the world and, it is a job, a full time job

[ByTheWay1]

Russians...... - How dare you say I'm not a good role model for my kids!

I think bringing up my kids with our values, being there for them, supporting their education is more important to them, me and my hubby than being able to buy more stuff.... I am also a part time carer for my MIL - unpaid, so obviously of no value to those who think a role model needs to be a wage slave....

I have earned well in the past in a career, but I guess I don't live up to the feminist ideal because I choose to put others before myself.