Do the proposed tax free childcare plans insult stay at home parents?

(320 Posts)
Jac1978 Tue 19-Mar-13 23:21:41

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?

SpringlingSpaniel Wed 20-Mar-13 11:01:23

Wonder what the logic is in having the ceiling so high, seems a bit bonkers.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:08:38

I agree Spaniel. Thank goodness they are still helping parents, does anyone remember Gordon Brown in his dubious wisdom planned to remove CCV altogether? He only relented after a mass outcry.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 11:09:19

The message I'm hearing generally is that SAHMs don't count in society. They are perceived either as wives whose husbands earn plenty or as single Mums who should be working not getting benefits.

Nowhere do I see representation for the very real bracket of Mums whose husband does not earn a fortune but who does work anti-social hours/spend 6 months in Afghanistan/move every 18 months who stay at home because it's the only practical choice. Or even for the Mums who think <looks left and right and whispers> " I had them, I want to raise them and be there for them like my Mother was for me" .

Not insulted though-just think it's another example of how society is still preaching 'stuff not substance' and how we've forgotten about what's really important in life.

Besides, the SAHM was doomed when they took more tax of hubby than they gave back in child benefit back in the 60's.

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 11:12:04

Am I right in thinking that familes claiming tax credits/universal credits will not be eligible to claim this 20% either? So it's only middle earners that are going to be able to?

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:14:14

So what is really important in life then? And what really important things should the limited purse of the state fund in terms of SAHPs and childcare?

Sillyoldbagpus Wed 20-Mar-13 11:16:03

Yes it is fair. If you don't think so get to work!

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 11:19:07

"Or even for the Mums who think <looks left and right and whispers> " I had them, I want to raise them and be there for them like my Mother was for me" . "

Um.. then why would you need a tax break for childcare?

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:22:57

Actually - does the fact that I work mean that I am not actually raising my children or I'm can't be there for them??

<narrows eyes>

I don't think it discriminates against SAHPs.

If I'm not working I don't need it.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 11:26:54

I didn't mean that SAHMs should get childcare..as others have said what's the point?

Besides, for me to go to work I'd need weekend and night childcare potentially at a moments notice..let's see them legislate for that hmm

As a human being the important thing in life should be your family.

Personally I've given up worrying about what the Govt give to whom as they seem to live in their own deluded bubble.

I automatically assume that it'll be 4 reams of paper to apply, impossible to understand how it's worked out and if I do qualify that I'll need to save at least half of any monies gained for when they write to say there's an overpayment.

SpringlingSpaniel Wed 20-Mar-13 11:28:00

"Or even for the Mums who think <looks left and right and whispers> " I had them, I want to raise them and be there for them like my Mother was for me"

Glad to hear I'm not raising my children hmm

Leaving that aside, that's a wonderful sentiment, but thinking this country can afford to financially support every woman/man who would like to make that choice is completely deluded.

Times have changed since our mothers raised us. Then it was possible to afford a decent family home on one income, for example, and although many mothers made the choice to stay at home, (and without knowledge of the benefits system back in the 1970s/early 80s), I'm pretty sure those mothers who did choose to stay at home didn't expect to receive benefits to fund that choice.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 11:29:05

SirChenjin not at all. That is absolutely not my point. Not even a little bit.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 11:31:20

My word! before I get lynched let me qualify.

The point was, it's their choice..it was in no way meant to be a reflection on other people's parenting..flippin 'eck

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:36:46

Exactly - their choice to stay at home. Why on earth should the Govt contribute to that choice when SAHP are not actually contributing to the financial pot?

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 11:41:23

Oh sorry, misunderstood smile

Indith Wed 20-Mar-13 11:41:54

It is help to pay for childcare for most of all those who need childcare. If people have made the decision to stay at home then they do not need subsidised childcare.

However. It is not all that much help.

Personally, I think that a better option would be making a salary sacrifice scheme like the current voucher scheme available to all so that parents actually have the choice. With the new scheme if a parent loses their job then they will no longer get childcare help which will seriously hamper their return to work as they will have to remove children from childcare and risk losing their places while they job hunt. Current voucher scheme the parent who is still working would be able to continue getting the vouchers. Also both parents have to be working so students can't claim but again, under the current scheme the working parent can get vouchers.

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 11:43:10

I did read that this will not apply until 2015, and that people who are already involved in the scheme won't have to change over (annoyingly I can't remember where I've read that though!)

So if you have the scheme, it looks like you can stick with it, if you would be worse off under the new one.

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 11:44:36

sorry, people who already use the voucher scheme (shouldn't talk on the phone and type at the same time!)

Indith Wed 20-Mar-13 11:45:22

Course really what we need is affordable childcare generally or at least a proper living wage that covers lliving expenses so that when people stay at home it really is their choice and not because they can't get a job that will cover childcare.

eg I have spent the past 6 years or so at home because I know that I can't get a job that would cover childcare whereas dh could so he works. Now I'm done having babies I am going to uni so that I can get a better paid job. Or at least that's the idea. But my childcare bill is going to be over £16k shock. Dh earns too much for me to get dependents allowance. But quite clearly one decent but not huge salary can't pay that plus the mortgage plus feed the family. We have some savings to get through the first year.......

Indith Wed 20-Mar-13 11:47:42

Yes you can stick with the voucher scheme until 2020 I believe. Of course this could all be a moot point because it is planned for after the next election so if labour are elected then they will being in their own idea. Which will be similar. But slightly different. Which will make some people better off and some people worse off. Because you can't win them all. One size fits all is impossible. Unless you actually change the wages and the costs rather than trying to give people money back after they have spent it.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 11:51:24

anklebitersmum

Heelo. I am similar to your example above, except my husband isn't in the forces.
I am a sahm because it suits my family and most of all myself.
He doesn't earn a fortune but with the TC/WTC and cb its always been enough for me to be a sahm as our outgoings are minimal, and we are not materialistic.
The benefit cuts are not going to affect us as in my own right I have never received any, my dh meets all the requirements for UC so we will continue the same. I am not available to seek work so I will not meet the requirements.

I am not assuming others who work are materialistic, not there for their kids or any other negative thoughts that wohp's usually tend to believe.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:51:26

Agree - living wage and affordable childcare is definitely the best way forward. No Govt will do that though because that's too - erm - sensible?!

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:52:31

I don't 'usually tend to believe' anything Potato

pigletpooh Wed 20-Mar-13 11:57:14

I think its very divisive of this government to bring this up now. It brings the age old argument of working mums versus SAHM. Already on Vernessa Felts talk programme we had a working mum calling SAHMs lazy or rich etc. Mr Cameron wife is a working mother designing handbags when she could afford to stay at home, which is more important handbags or your children. But don't forget she can afford excellent child care which many can't. And not everyone's got a granny around the corner. In France nearly all mother's work because they have an excellent child care system in place but I for one could never afford to work when my children were little as the child care was thin and expensive and I knew that I could do a much better job myself although I did manage to work p/t with my husband covering but it was unsocial hours.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 12:01:52

SirChenjin Yup..agreed..common sense is absolutely not on the table grin

potato I don't think working parents are materialistic or absent, hopefully I've now made that point.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now