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?

This measure ignores the massive variety of reasons why a SAHP might not work and still need affordable childcare. They might care for an elderly relative. They might do voluntary work. They might be studying in order to get a better job. They might be between jobs. Basically, according to the tories, unless you are a full-time wage-slave, you are of no value whatsoever to society. That's the take-home message. It's pretty bloody depressing.

Potato I don't disagree that people earning £99K are earning a lot. It's possible to be wealthy and earn a lot less than that though and to not have CB either. And of course people earning >£100K in total are earning even more and don't have CB. It depends on wether you are a one or two income family and what assets you have. Wealth is actually completely different from income and is usually derived from inheritance and capital assets. People who own their own homes outright, like you, are far more wealthy than people who are in hock to the bank. Wealth is actually a technical term, with a defined meaning, perhaps you didn't realise that.

People who are giving a good role model do not have to be earning a lot. Many of the most important people in society earn very little. what they have in common though is they go out to work, and they pay their taxes.

Bytheway Not only a poor role model for your kids, but your actions may have a negative impact on my kids in the future. How dare you not consider the political implications of your own actions?

'Well, you are providing a poor role model, there;s no getting away from that, unfortunately.'

Jesus Christ. And you dare to call yourself a feminist?

Being a poor role model is teaching your children that earning ability is the most important measure of value in a person. Not being considerate, caring, community-minded, intellectually curious and generous. Nope, if you don't work for money, none of that counts. It all pales before the glory of mammon.

If my kids grow up with your attitude, Russians, I know I'll have failed as a parent, no matter how much they are or aren't earning.

russian - agreed - you can't always know that a dual earner household is making a greater overall tax contribution than a single earner, especially with the personal allowances, as you say. But the point is that the dual earner household is getting a very small rebate to help them continue to make both of those contributions. In some cases the alternative would be for one of them to stop paying tax altogether, and then the net tax take would be lower all round.

potato - How does it cut both ways? Suppose - for the moment - that only the women's tax contribution was counted for the purpose of this rebate (god forbid, but this is just hypothetical). If I get a small amount back on the overall amount that I'm paying, and you get nothing back on the nothing that you're paying, then what's unfair about that? Especially if the small amount directly funds the means for me to contribute the overall amount. You actually benefit more than I do.......

The original point I was making is that the govt isn't introducing this because it wants to favour one choice over the other, but simply because it's better for the economy to have more people in work and paying taxes. And if a small tax rebate can remove a substantial barrier to achieving this, then it's a sensible use of public funds.

I say that as a working parent, btw.

Mother Theresa earned nothing... Aung San Suu Kyi earned nothing in her inspirational icon of democracy phase - they did not go out to work and pay taxes - they are/were important people and more of a role model than any suited businesswoman who happens to break through the "glass ceiling" - some of us have different values .....

I must say I can't see how being a SAHM can possibly be described as a 'full time job' once all the children are in full-time school.

impecunious I don't call myself a feminist at all. Where did you get that idea? I'm a socialist but that's the only ist I am. I'm a working mother of daughters (and a son) and I care passionately about the future that my kids will inherit. It is unlikely that they will win the lottery (since we don't gamble) so they will have to work and I don't want their life chances to be limited by the shortsightedness of others. And I also don't want them to have to struggle as much as I have had to do. Things are supposed to get better over time.

Impecunious well, if they grow up with your reading comprehension skills they really WILL have problems. :( Nowehere have I said that what a person earns is the important factor. And nowhere have I said that mammon is the most important thing. As you would know if it wasn't for the whole reading comprehension thing, I suppose. My kids will likely all end up working in rather low paid jobs in the arts or education sectors. Not a lot of mammon there.

Russains, did somebody tell you it was gone with the wind and lobster bisque day today?

Treats - I don't have a problem with the proposals. I won't benefit from them (par for the course) but that's fine - they are not completely dreadful proposals (the cut off point is too high, and they need to think about people between jobs, people studying, people with disabilities (as always)). It was just your statement was a bit dodgy because obviously lots of dual income households don't pay that much tax. :) I should probably have left it though, since I support your main contention that this isn't a bad idea. I just think it's likely to be badly executed.

Russians I don't know how you can say your kids life chances will be limited by the shortsightedness of others, by puting down SAHMs, I would only say that your opinions will make them very narrow minded. I think everyone to their own, and do what best fits them

ByTheWay Nowhere have I said that what you earn is important. And in fact Mother Theresa worked 24/7 her whole life. Being a nun is a job as well as a vocation. Being a woman in a male dominated environment doesn't have to involve money and nor does breaking glass ceilings. The concept refers to women being allowed to do things that were previously assumed to be the preserve of men. HTH.

' 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).'

SAHP can be great role models. SAHD as well as SAHM. There are lots of SAHDs now or those who split childcare and work around each other. It can be a good example that you can put time with DC before career goals, extra income etc-if you have a choice and want to do so. (Yes lots of people need to work just to survive)

'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?'

Exactly. Which shows it is all about the money and so they can say we have 'gender equality' even though in my eyes caring for people should be equal in importance to earning income; carers, SAHP etc.

[laughing so hard I might actually break a rib] at 'poor role model'

Is that as compared to 'barely there to be setting any kind of example at all' Russian?

(please-all none 'poor role model believing working Mums' refer to my previous comments before you flame my lazy, morally redundant SAHM behind )

Piglet - the people with narrow minds are the people who have been conditioned by their upbringing to think that a mother's place is in the home. And who then perpetuate that through the way they bring up their own kids. :( My kids are growing up to think that anyone, regardless of gender, can do anything they want, if they want to go for it. I know whose kids will benefit society more.

Well Russians you are entitled to your opinion.

I am fully aware that my dc are really appreciative that I have been a sahm, they have told me numerous times and that will do for me. My dd is especially appreciative as there are so many things she wouldn't be able to do if I wasn't at home. A nanny just wouldn't be the same apparently.

Well, forgive me, but to tell a SAHP that they are providing a poor role model for their children because they earn no money amounts to saying that money is the most important measure of value for you. If it wasn't, then you'd be quite happy with a SAHP doing valuable community work for no pay. If money is not the most important thing, then what are you doing insulting SAHPs?

You're quite right, you didn't actually call yourself a feminist. Forgive me again, I tend to assume that most literate educated women arguing for the value of women's equal position in the workplace are also feminists.

If you're not a feminist, then I guess you don't agree with the whole equal rights for women, and having the vote, and being able to apply for a mortgage without your husband's say-so is irrelevant to you. And presumably also the right to equal pay for equal work? And to the right to self-determination?

Mystifying!

anklebiters You're right. Poor is far too weak a word. Mea culpa. Appalling might be better? :) I agree with you that people who are barely there are bad role models too. The best sort of set up would obviously be to have proper 50:50 shared care and to completely rip it up and start again in terms of how the working world actually works - working hours, presenteeism, tax structures, etc. We won't get that while men remain fundamentally in charge of everything though.

Impecuinous I didn't tell someone they were providing a bad role money because they were earning no money. Reading comprehension. Again.

Role MODEL. Clearly my typing is on a par with your reading comprehension!

My kids are growing up to think that anyone, regardless of gender, can do anything they want, if they want to go for it. I know whose kids will benefit society more.

So are mine. They are also growing up without having narrow minded beliefs about what is worthwhile foisted upon them.

Russians - you were right to call me out on my potentially dodgy maths, but I think that overall we agree. Right down to the fact that it will probably be poorly implemented......

I once made the mistake of saying on MN that - personally - one of my reasons for going back to work was because I wanted to be a good role model for my daughter and because I thought it was important for women to be visible in the workplace, and I got absolutely pulled apart by some SAHMs as a result. I was actually a bit shocked by the vitriol - it never occurred to me that I was saying anything controversial........