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?

Yes.

so it is discriminatory to families with a stay at home parent then

Depends how you look at it. It's to cover the cost of childcare, which is unnecessary if you have a SAHP. But there is an argument that alternative tax subsidies could be made available to help people afford to be a SAHP. That's why it's about social policy, not just who pays tax.

Owl, no.

Some people will be 'insulted' by anything - the point here is that if you need childcare because you are working,you can have some subsidy. If you are a SAHM, you do not need childcare, so do not need the subsidy. Simple.

In the case of this thread, the OP asked if the changes were an insult to SAHP which of course it isn't. This tax incentive supports parents who are already in work with their existing childcare costs, with those already using CCV able to stay in their current scheme. I don't see it an endorsing or encouraging any lifestyle choice. If alternative tax incentives are made available to SAHPs then that will be a separate issue, but I would imagine that any Govt will look at the potential investment and consider their return.

What I don't understand is if Gov are indeed trying to get sahp's back to work why are they making it so difficult for some wohps to continue working, by cutting their childcare? Hence making more sahps.

it would be unfair to SAHP if WOHP had their entire childcare bill paid for and SAHP didn't have any childcare paid for. but it is just a small part of the WOHP entire bill so I don't think it should pay for any childcare for SAHP as they can pay of occasional usage out of their family income.

SolomonDaisy

I know where you are coming from. Many years ago when Family Credit first emerged it was in the form of a tax break to a wohp to allow the other parent to be a sahp. I think I got my dhs tax allowance, which then helped a lot. This then progressed through various stages to give us the Tax credit system we have today.

I think it still works like that though in a way. I receive no income for being sahp but dh has TC's which are enough for me to be s sahm, nothing has changed really.

I'm a SAHM and I saw the headline on the front page of the mail this morning in the post office. I'd read about the new childcare scheme already and didn't see it as an insult to me at all.

I was surprised to see that a family earning £300k can claim it though , especially as we are considered not to need child benefit because my DH earns £70k p/a.

Some people on here are saying that SAHPs do not contribute. I contributed to the pot for 20 years before I became a SAHM. It's the 20 years of earning and saving that enabled me to become a SAHM in the first place ( and a lot of luck with cheaper house prices back when we set up home together)

I am all for working parents getting help with childcare costs but I think the £150k per parent threshold is very high. I don't like the idea of people on that level of income getting financial assistance when elsewhere people are facing the bedroom tax and other cuts.

the 150k figure has been chosen was it makes it easier (cheaper) to administer. otherwise the next tax bracket down would be 40k which would be too low.

can i just say we as a family would benefit from this tbh. As I said before we only need 'childcare' in the form of after school club if hospital or therapy appointments clash with school times. As a carer I am actually pulled up on missing appointments (whether I have told them prior or not ) even if they coincide with school times. Why if my husband is a taxpayer can we not access this scheme? He earns very very much lower than 150k, 100k per annum for example

genuine question

I save the economy thousands per annum by caring for my severely disabled daughter btw
my sons are set such a POOR example

Jesus this thread is sad.

So being at home caring for children you brought into the world, giving them a happy safe environment during the day ,security,educating them..... is not setting a good example!Who says?

You know many babies,toddlers and children would prefer to be at home and many wouldn't actually thrive that well in childcare or aren't we allowed to admit to this.

There is a huge elephant in the room as regards this subject ie the needs of children which pretty much come last these days.

So yes these measures are insulting to sahm(and children) as they pretty much sweep under the carpet the needs and wants of many children and mothers.

Sooooo many mothers would prefer to be at home however nothing is done to facilitate it or even help.Instead tax payers money is being spent on families earning up to £300k,sahp lose CB whilst families with 2 working parents earning the same and even more keep it along with 2 tax allowances and lower tax if under the 40%,now they get even more money.

It's dreadfully unfair and sending a very sad message ie all mothers should be working and if you stay at home you deserve to be punished.300k families are far more deserving as the mothers work.Get into work regardless of what is best for your children and family.

for an individual to contribute more tax than the services they use and their share of other services, in one year (i.e. be a net tax contributor) they need to earn over £26k per year.

(this is excluding DCs etc.)

so for a 2 parent family, if we only count the cost of the adults, they between them they need to earn a total £52k.

there are about 30 million tax payer in the UK. only 1.6 million earn more than 50k.

this means in most families, for the adults to be tax neutral or net tax contributors, they both need to work.

there are only 400,000 tax payers who earn over 100k so the chances of a two parent family earning 300k is very low. and even of they did, they would be paying about £120k per year in tax so giving then a few k back would not be outrageous, particularly as it is only does to keep admin costs down.

It is when it is a time of austerity and we're supposed to be making cuts.Wasting money on the rich is wrong particularly when the Tories define 50-60 as wealthy and take CB away from those on a fraction of those now needy families earning waaaay more that are being given financial help.

One can only presume the utter unfairness is because sahp are regarded as not being part of a hard working society and something to get rid off.

Seriously?

Why would a SAHM need or want money off childcare?!

And actually I don't think families on a combined income of 60k should get help let alone those on 300k.

Those on a single income of 60 (and only one tax allowance in addition to being taxed at 40%)are deemed wealthy sooooooooo not sure why those getting waaaaay more are deemed needy of help.

It's the money being spent on it whilst it's being taken away from others far less wealthy.

It is the fact that sahp could do with help too but continually lose out.

Not that hard to understand.

8% of women earn over £40k I heard on R4 in relation to this measure. Some of those 8% will have a partner on very little. There will not be many people with under 5s where both earn over £150k a year.

however I would not have brought in this measure at all. We need much tougher cuts and a smaller state not taking away child benefit and then paying some cash back to working parents with the other hand. It's just pointless moving money around and relatively small sums when childcare for 2 children whether nanny or nursery costs about £30k a year not £1200 in London.

The removal of employer national insurance presumably could apply to those with nannies by the way and could save you say £13% of a gross £25k salary - £3250 or a bit less as I think it is limited to £2k a year. I have not studied it in detail as I don't have a nanny any more so may be they excluded domestic servants. Anyone read the budget detailed documents to check that point? May be there is a nanny tax thread somewhere.

kazoo - because unless the two parent family with one person working earns more than 52k, the couple are not a net tax contributors.

so any benefits for them would be paid by other people working.

pompompom - because they are looking after elderly parents too? because they want to retrain? because they are looking for a job? because they have a disabled child and need a break? because they have 3 children under 5 and are going crazy with PND? Any number of very good reasons.

I don't know any SAHMs doing any of that.

imp because they are looking after elderly parents too? because they want to retrain? because they are looking for a job? because they have a disabled child and need a break? because they have 3 children under 5 and are going crazy with PND? Any number of very good reasons.

but these could also apply to someone working, who spends a lot of their salary on childcare.

you don't know any SAHMs looking for a job or retraining? Seriously? And none with any family responsibilities? Wow.