My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

News

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

319 replies

Jac1978 · 19/03/2013 23:21

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?

OP posts:
Report
lisad123everybodydancenow · 19/03/2013 23:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Trekkie · 19/03/2013 23:29

Don't understand.

Why is it insulting to families with a SAHP if they get the money as well?

I can see that it means a single parent who is not working cannot claim but presumably the 15 hours will stay which will help while looking?

Think i need this explained a bit more, why is it insulting?

Report
morethanpotatoprints · 19/03/2013 23:34

I don't think it insults sahp's. Don't forget it is only this generation of parents who have had any childcare subsidy at all. It certainly wasn't available when my 2 older ds's were small.
I think any help or support in this climate is fair.
Does everybody still get the 15 hours at 3.5 years for pre-school

Report
lisad123everybodydancenow · 19/03/2013 23:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Marrow · 19/03/2013 23:40

Not sure what you mean. How does it insult SAHPs? If a parent has chosen to stay at home then why do they need help with childcare costs?

Report
CogitoErgoSometimes · 20/03/2013 06:02

I'm sure there will be some group or other that regard any help for working parents as being 'discriminatory' against those that choose to opt out of paid employment and stay home, but I don't agree with them.

Report
TheSteveMilliband · 20/03/2013 06:56

I can't work out how this is a good thing unless you have 3or more preschoolers. Given this will replace childcare vouchers which I think are worth more to most people (?)

Report
meditrina · 20/03/2013 07:11

It's a not remotely well thought through part of the policy.

Not all parents who at at home are lifestyle-choice SAHPs: redundancy is common and securing a new post can take months.

Will childcare becomes unaffordable because the payment ceases, exactly at the time a wage is lost? Or will there be a grace period?

Report
BooCanary · 20/03/2013 07:12

According to moneysavingexpert, families with one or two preschoolers will be worse off under the new scheme than with ccv's. Single parents will be better off, and the scheme will be more widely available.

Why would it be insulting to sahps? For those who don't want to work, why would they care. For those who do, but can't afford the childcare, surely its a good thing??

Report
WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes · 20/03/2013 07:15

Many em

Report
TiredyCustards · 20/03/2013 07:15

I think it's the fact that the govt seems to be trying to socially engineer all parents into work, ignoring the fact that childcare isn't the best environment for all children, that makes it a slight towards sahps.

Also the fact that single-earner families can currently claim childcare vouchers, but wouldn't be able to take advantage of the new scheme.

Imo, the voucher scheme gave out the message 'pre-school education is beneficial to children and society' but the new one says 'get a job you layabouts, your kids will be fine.'

Report
WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes · 20/03/2013 07:17

Sorry, meant to say, many employers still don't do CCVs, neither mine or DH's do, so they aren't available to all working parents.

Report
WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes · 20/03/2013 07:20

Also, when I was previously made redundant my CCVs and tax credits stopped the same day, no grace period there either if I had wanted to keep nursery places whilst looking for another job.

Report
meditrina · 20/03/2013 07:27

I was wondering if it might be like contributions-based JSA.

CCVs were no use if your employer didn't offer them, and cannot offer a grace period as they are a salary sacrifice scheme. But thus isn't, and there is potential do to it better. (Not holding my breath, given how administratively appalling this lot are).

Report
5madthings · 20/03/2013 07:36

Well i am a sahm parent for now and not bothered by it.

Quite a high threshold of income to be able to claim. Given they are cutting back on si many other areas that seems strange and unfair on parents who have children with sn's who would iften like to work but cant find suitable childcare for their child so they have no choice but to be on benefits.

Report
AThingInYourLife · 20/03/2013 07:41

Only in the sense that gay marriage insults straight people who are married.

ie not at all. And you're an asshole if you feel insulted by it.

If you don't need childcare, you are losing nothing.

Who gets "insulted" at help for other people? Particularly help you could access if you were really that insulted by the whole thing.

Are childcare vouchers being abolished? I read Liz Truss saying they would still be an option (for the far smaller number of parents that have them as an option).

Report
dreamingofsun · 20/03/2013 08:17

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.

Report
cogitosum · 20/03/2013 08:24

But it's not just the sahp that doesn't qualify it's their partner who is working and do are contributing. That's the bit that some people find unfair (and will be difficult to police) under the current scheme a working parent can claim even if their partner doesn't work.

Report
RussiansOnTheSpree · 20/03/2013 08:53

I wonder if all the people who sacrificed salary to get CCV will get that salary back now. And I wonder if they will think the missed pensions contributions were worth it.

Report
WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes · 20/03/2013 09:15

I can see the point about parents with a SAHP feeling this is unfair, but then they don't need childcare.

Also, how are they going to know who has a working partner and who does not? As with the child benefit cuts, which partner will get the money, how will they know if that person's partner stops working, will yet another tranche of people have to start doing self assessment?

Report
Treats · 20/03/2013 09:26

There's a discussion on Five Live about this now. The usual "don't have children if you can't afford them" wibble from some of the contributors. And an over-focus on the fact that a couple who both earn up to £150k will be able to claim it. As if the vast majority of people who will claim are earning anything like that much.

But the woman representing SAHMs (the editor of this website is not making a very good case. She's just said that taxpayers money is being spent on criminality, poor health and anti-social behaviour, implying that if we supported more women to stay at home with their children, we could spend less in these areas Hmm

Report
Treats · 20/03/2013 09:32

Some much more dignified contributions now from some single mothers - one of them is this woman - who have pointed out how hard it is to work and care for children if you're on your own. They've just demolished a splutterer......

And - thankfully - one of them is stressing that the majority of people who will be claiming this aren't earning nearly £300k.......

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

SirChenjin · 20/03/2013 09:38

Why is it unfair? If you are not working, presumably you gave up working to look after your children - so why expect any form of funding from the Govt? Free childcare is still available in the form of 15 hours a week after all.

Report
SoupDreggon · 20/03/2013 09:40

Equally, if you chose not to look after them yourself, why expect tax payers to fund that choice?

Report
EmmelineGoulden · 20/03/2013 09:42

I guess the argument that it's unfair on families with stay at home parents is that they have forgone lost wages in order to look after their children, quite possibly more money than families with both parents working will spend on child care. So why should families with both parents working get money from the government to make their decisions more affordable when families with a stay at home parent don't?

And the (sensible) counter to that would be that it's considered to be in the country's best interests to encourage people to stay in paid employment. And the subsidy is intended to encourage parents to work as much as possible, rather than to ease the financial burden of having children.

But the real answer will be that they think it will buy the most votes for the cost.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.