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?

Fair enough. I do agree that an active choice to be a SAHM has to be funded by someone - presumably a DH's or DP's salary, which therefore has to be high enough to support that choice. I was just pointing out that it COULD be funded by benefits, in certain circumstances, so it's not always a choice that can only be made by richer people.

Yep, it could be funded by benefits in some situations by some people - but that's a whole other thread with a real bunfight potential

"Although I made the decision irrespective of benefit/ Tax credits etc, childcare provision etc. I would still have moved heaven and earth to be able to manage the choice I made. "

^This^

It backs up what I was saying about it being an instinctive preference that really has little to do with money.

Good for you potato

Its a good change and I like the way it goes up to high incomes. Not only are the couple making two tax contributions but also creating employment.

does I apply to nannys or just nurseries? or can you spend it as you like?

A real bunfight, you say?? None of this namby-pamby stuff......

Truthfully, I know next to nothing about the benefits system and have no strong views on it, so I have no intention of going down that path.

Oh dear me no, this is nothing compare to the buns that might start flying!

compared

dreamingofsun is that argument actually based on the idea that SAHMs don't pay tax so don't get a say in how the country is governed?! Like prisoners. Never mind the fact that SAHMs may have other sources of income which are taxed, that they may have been paying high rates of tax until very recently, that they are part of a tax paying household, that they pay VAT? Gosh.

well and presumably the vast majority aren't criminals either solomandaisy

Well, yes. And the idea that you don't get to have a say in government spending if you aren't paying income tax isn't a great one, is it?

SolomanDaisy - "getting a say in how the country is governed" is done by exercising a vote through the ballot box and AFAIK the property and income qualifications for doing this were abolished over a century ago.

I haven't heard anyone on this thread saying that SAHMs should be denied the right to vote because they don't pay income tax - but do correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure what you are saying, tbh.

Who said SAHPs shouldn't have a say in how the country is governed because they don't pay income tax

This post: "since SAHM aren't contributing towards the tax free element, I don't see why its an insult to them. They can take advantage of them if they decide to work, otherwise they are nothing to do with them."

Suggests that 'contributing' to tax is what entitles someone to an interest in government decisions. That's why my post was specifically addressed to that poster.

BTW I'd say governance discussions in a representative democracy are a little more complex than access to the ballot box.

I think you are misunderstanding the context of the post Solomon, deliberately or otherwise.

I read that as SAHMs can't take advantage of a tax break if they don't pay income tax, therefore their position is unchanged by the new proposal.

I don't see the "nothing to do with them" comment as saying that you can't have an opinion on whether OTHER people can have the tax break or not - simply that it makes no difference to your circumstances whether they do or they don't.

Think you're reading something into it that isn't there......

I think I'm reading it as it was intended. That is the entire post, no context removed.

'SAHM aren't contributing towards the tax free element' seems pretty clear. But as I wasn't sure that such a ridiculous statement could be intentional, I asked the poster to clarify. I hope I am wrong!

Yes it is pretty clear - you can't benefit from a tax break if you're not paying tax! There's nothing ridiculous about that.

As you point out, SAHMs, along with everybody else, pay tax in plenty of other forms, but that's irrelevant to this discussion, because it's about THIS PROPOSAL which is a tax break on income tax. And nothing in the post suggests that you're not allowed to have an opinion on it.

I think you're trying to take deliberate offence when the poster didn't intend any.

presumably Fathers who WOTH can benefit from it though? whether their partners stay at home or not?

Treats

Exactly, you are so right. That is why some sahps and wohps are willing to make financial sacrifices to be able to do what they want to.

I have heard both type of parent say there is nothing left for extras. Some women returning to their career after mat leave have nothing left after childcare.
Some sahps struggle with one parent working and tax credit top up.

The post talks about contributing, not benefiting. Two different things. Interesting that (based on you saying '...you're not allowed to have an opinion') you assume I am a SAHM.

Where does it say you are not allowed to have an opinion? Or am I missing something? The issue here is whether or not the tax incentive is an insult to SAHP (note I say parent ) and of course it isn't because it's there to support parent's who woth and who buy childcare. I'm pretty sure the poster meant contribute in the financial sense through tax paid via income earned.

Of course we could get into all sorts of other discussions about whether or not there should be similar incentives for SAHPs who do other things, but that's not the issue here atm.

Trying to type and converse with a lively 5 year old who wants me to play catch so not sure how much sense this post makes!

Can someone answer my question. Can Fathers who work claim it anyway to pay for childcare if their partners are either sahm's or mums that earn under the tax threshold?

Yes, I am entirely certain the poster meant in the financial sense. As a minimum 'nothing to do with them' means the tax breaks are nothing to do with SAHM/Ps as they are not directly affected by them, which is a ridiculous view of tax breaks as social policy. The tax breaks are as much to do with SAHM/Ps as the new German incentives for SAHM/Ps are to do with WOHPs. Because it's not just about tax, it's about social policy and whether that policy is designed to encourage/endorse certain life choices.

That doesn't mean I think the tax break is an insult to SAHMs, I think that's ridiculous statement.

Owllady, no, both parents in a couple need to be working.

but a single parent with custody can claim them?