What could the Government do to support families where one parents wants to stay at home?

[puddle]

This has been mentioned on the thread about 'wraparound' school hours. Many posters are saying it's a good idea as long as it is coupled with Government support for families that want to have one person working and the other at home.

What kind of support do people mean and how would it make a difference? What can the Government really do to make being at home a viable option for families?

Great ideas Flashingnose & Prufrock.

I agree sophable, but they will have to find the money from somewhere to pay for this. Will it mean higher taxes or taking money allocated to NHS or education? It's a lot of money to find.

Gobbledigook, for most people it's not a case of wanting it all, it's about being able to afford to live, not about maintaining a luxery lifestyle. Also, there's nothing wrong with choosing to work if that's what makes you happy.

Gdg - it might not replace a good income, but it would supplement a not great household income. And many people would choose to stay at home or cut down hours if they could afford to. Choices are made depending on circumstances, and if the choice is stay at home and miss out on a few holidays and a new car, or stay at home and be re-possessed, then the first choice is viable, but the second choice really isn't. A family supplement wouldn't make it possible to adopt a Desperate Housewives SAHM/ SAHP lifestyle (much as we might all like to) but it would make some kind of SAHM/ SAHPdom, even a struggling type, even in the early years, available to more parents than at present.

And more importantly it would give the message that staying at home to bing up kids is just as valid and worthwhile choice as going to work (Note I said JUST AS, not MORE). Feminism, to me, was about giving women a choice in their lives, not about forcing them to adopt a tradistional male role.

The govt policy is for universal employment which everyone who can working , not right but if this is how they think how they ever make it easier for a parent to saty at home

COMBINING TAX ALLOWANCES

Could we have a system where in a couple either each partner can separately use thrir tax allowances, or - if, say, i didn't work - I can transfer my tax allowances to DH against his salary?

But that still wouldn't be enough to replace a salary for most people softfroggie. To enable me and many other working women to stay at home it would mean replacing my salary, minus the amount paid out for child care.

I think the first thing they can do is make ALL childcare tax free.

and not just SAHM - SAHD's should be eligible for everything SAHMs are. I get very cross when I hear great plans to support SAHMs when SAHDs are ignored. OK there are fewer but for us to have an equal society then SAHD has to be a viable option for more men.

Otto - my salary minus childcare equals approx zero (give or take a bit, depending on childcare). With 2 under 5, that'd be most people's experience, surely? I reckon paying for childcare takes the whole of £20k to £40k gross salary depending on where you are.

I'm with gdg in that I don't see why the gvmt should pay me a salary to stay at home and look after my kids.

Also agree with chuffed about making childcare tax free, but that's not going to help SAHP, whih was the point of the thread.

OK this is going to be controversial for the single parents but if you are a sahm/d could the one income not be split x2 ie if the breadwinner is earning £50K the tax could be paid at £25K each which would have some good tax savings.

Chuffed - how would making childcare tax free support families who want to have a SAHP? It would simply be an extension of the governments drive to get everybody in work.

Alicatsg - toally agree - in fact until more men make a fuss about being allowed a work/life balance as well I don't think it wll be taken as a serious issue. (sadly)

Why shouldn't the government pay a parent to stay at home and look after pe school children. Opinions like that (from parents ) are exactly why SAHPs are so undervalued in this country, and why proffessional childcarers aretoo. Looking after children and giving them a good start in life has to move from being "womens work" to being seen as the valuable serviceto our society, both socially and economically, that it is.

I also think that a universal child benefit at a liveable amount would remove the stigma attached to single parents on benefits. It seems ridiculous to me that a parent doing the difficult job of looking after pre-school children full-time receives exactly the same state financial support as a parent of school age kids, who (regardless of everything written on the "what do SAHM's do?" threads) has a far easier job. And only receives a small amount more than my layabout BIL does for sittingon his arse wathing daytime TV all day because work is too "stressful"

Chuffed - that's my point the other way round. I think you say it more clearly, though.

I am a SAHm and it is costing me a fortune to send ds to nursery with the voucher scheme. i would love to work but childcare just isnt affordable. I wanted to stay at home whilst my children were babies but now youngest is almost 4 (but doesnt start school til next sept) I would like to go back to work but childcare is just crippling when tyou have no family close

Prufrock: this is why I think what I wrote, but maybe I'm wrong or being grouchy today.

Firstly, with two pre-school, my childcare costs equal my take home pay. Therefore, I'm no better off for working or being SAHP. If you make money after childcare costs, I think you must either have some cheap childcare, or be earning over £30k FTE, which is a pretty high salary, and I don't see why that should be replaced for you as a gvmt benefit.

secondly, I didn't chose to have kids for the country's ecconomic / cultural benefit, though I hope they will be, but as a personal lifestyle choice.

However, I speak as a working parent by choice, and not as someone forced into work becuase we need the ££. I guess I'd feel differently if I was forced into working to make an essential contribution to the household income.

Also, it's a shame if to feel valued as SAHPs we feel a needc for financial recompense.

Hope I said this OK - I really value your point of view, even if different to mine:

Chuffed (not stalking you promise) that wouldn't work as apart from discriminating against Single parents, it would also benefit couples without children. Moving to family tax returns (where a single earner could use all the family members 0% and 10% tax allowances) would directly tie the tax benefit to the number of people that single earners salary has to support - and by extnding the transferable allowances to other dependants (elderley parents, disabled siblings for example) it removes claims that it would discriminate against the childless as well.

I think there needs to be choice - maybe a scheme that benefits those that choose to work - ie tax free childcare no matter what income and something else for sahp....I know I'm dreaming...

Softfroggie - I'm sorry if you thought my post was getting at you - not at all. I value your opinion too (even if you are wrong )

Regardless of why you had your children, teh fact is that they are of economic benefit to teh country. So why should you, as their parent, shoulder the whole financial responsibility of bringing them up.

And my universal child benefit would be given to SAHP and working parents - so for working parents it would offset some of the cost of childcare

Oh and I don't need finacial recompense to feel valued as a SAHP, I just think it would be a nice way fo society to show that it valued SAHP's

I actually think the current system works pretty well. I have a lot of friends who receive a lot in benefits - and going back to work means they actually get LESS. So effectively they are being paid to stay at home.

However, I suspect a lot of MNers are what my friends would consider to be stinking rich.

I wouldn't say no to the gvmt upping the child benefit from the £11 to £17ish to something significantly larger, to thank us for producing kids who'll go on to become tax-payers in 20 yrs time.

Do you think I'd have to pay it back if they turn out bad, live off benefits / go to prison, or is it a generality thing?

Amd I like the family tax return idea...

sorry this is a very working class perspective but..........

The fact that both men and wome go out to work nowadays means the cost of living has gone up. Houses are more expensive. men dont earn a wage enough to support the dear wifey at hom,e. in fact IMO we have gone a bit backwards on this equality. yes I am all for equality because we can all earm the same. but when both of you need to work full time to support the house and pay the mortgage on a cappy terracced house, there is something wrong somewhere. Evereything is soooo expensive in this country. I am all for working families, dont get me wrong. i want to work etc etc but childcare is expensive, we would lose out.

I feel so frustrated with our country atm

I read a statistic about 10 years ago saying that 30 years before, an American worker could support a house and 3 children and a car on one income, and that since women had entered the workplace, family income had gone up by only an average of 6% (as opposed to the 100% you would expect if the laws of supply and demand didn't exist). So you now needed 2 incomes to support those things. Same with houses, of course. If the expectation is that both adults in a household will work, then mortgages and houseprices will be geared towards that, disadvantaging any couples who don't fit that model.

some kind of paid-for pension for a parent taking a career break to look after children in early years (pre-school)

focus on increasing the positive perceptions of being a full-time parent

childcare services investment - not just dusty old playgroups in church halls but lots of social activities in each neighbourhood run by well-trained staff who pitch in and play with kids