Stay at home parents

[eFestivals]

But surely this is encouraging the part time workers to work longer, so they can qualify for the extra help, rather than discouraging them (plus they get the extra money from the work).

Granted it's assuming there's a full time job to go to.

and assuming that they can get free childcare somewhere while they look for that extra work.

[fred quimby]

The c**ts are the large number of people who look into childminding and back-out due to that part.

If you think it's something that's easily accepted by all then you need to get out of your bubble a bit more than you do.

[kaosmark2]

They get 16 hours for starters....

[eFestivals]

What an odd stat to have, although large number is meaningless of course. I wouldn't have thought people would say this is why I didn't go into childminding.

Still I assume you have seen it somewhere so Know.

It's something I know via a family member who worked in the system.

[eFestivals]

They get 16 hours for starters....

which covers the 16 hours they're already working.

[fred quimby]

It's something I know via a family member who worked in the system.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

But surely this is encouraging the part time workers to work longer, so they can qualify for the extra help, rather than discouraging them (plus they get the extra money from the work).

Granted it's assuming there's a full time job to go to.

[eFestivals]

Better than experts down the pub

better than the experts in govt, seeing as that's where they went for their info.

[feral chile]

Why are we promoting the work ethic when there's unemployment, and discouraging families from having a parent at home with the kids?

We as in the government, I should add.

[kaosmark2]

So you are saying they have a six hour surplus ?

Its a wonder how any working families find time to find new jobs What a silly thing to put forward LMAO

[kaosmark2]

Why are we promoting the work ethic when there's unemployment, and discouraging families from having a parent at home with the kids?

We as in the government, I should add.

[kaosmark2]

What the hell are you talking about lol....

You first admit it doesn't really take ten hours to find work. Regardless of what JSA say, it simply doesn't. Specially with the internet etc...

Secondly, all families have some form of "child care issue"... Most kids who are totally consuming of your time are in bed by 7pm... 8pm latest... They sleep at some point. I think you can find some time to look for a job in the paper / web etc... Update that CV... Send the emails / applications...

You are talking rubbish

[bunique]

It's 15 hours a week, not 16, and it only applies from the term after the child reaches 3 until they reach school age (therefore not covering before and after school care).

We are one of the families who would "lose out" under the new scheme versus the current one. We each claim childcare vouchers to the maximum value for our one child. We "gain" £75 each in tax a month by doing this. Across the year that's c.£1,800 whereas the new proposal is support up to a maximum of £1200. If we had a second child we would gain as the offer is per child and I don't think you can claim the old vouchers for more than one child. And the "average childcare bill is £6k/year" is a fucking joke. Our childcare bill is more than our (not insignificant!) mortgage every month. Not working isn't an option as even minus childcare one of our salaries wouldn't cover the outgoings. General consensus from Mumsnet last night was that the big winners are the self-employed who currently don't qualify for support with childcare. Surely a better alternative would be to make childcare tax deductible as an expense up to a realistic amount. How will this new policy apply if one parent is in full time education? Or disabled and unable to work? Ill thought out, surprise surprise. Hope the consultation brings some changes.

[bunique]

Just to add - I don't believe that we are "entitled" to any help as a relatively well heeled working couple. What I'm cross about is the way this policy has been lauded as a boon for working families when in some cases it really isn't!

[TheGayTent]

I have never understood two parent families that use child care before say school age.

[Guest]

I have never understood two parent families that use child care before say school age.

[TheGayTent]

we needed child care.. what's odd about it?

[bunique]

Unless circumstances changed post conception I'd never consider both parents working. I think it's strange that people do.

[feral chile]

Unless circumstances changed post conception I'd never consider both parents working. I think it's strange that people do.

[Guest]

Unless circumstances changed post conception I'd never consider both parents working. I think it's strange that people do.

[bunique]

You won't lose out. If you are already a member of the old scheme you can opt to keep using that system.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21842018

[feral chile]

I think it's strange that you think it's strange. We couldn't have had our second daughter without us both working. Are you saying poor people shouldn't have kids?

[TheGayTent]

What's strange about it? Our outgoings minus childcare are more than one income.

[Guest]

Surely not. Who'd do the menial jobs if us peasants didn't breed?

[Guest]

I'd sooner be poorer (in a monetary sense) but be spending time with my child(ren), and thereby enriching both mine/my partner and my child's life, than be richer but not seeing my child(ren) and them spending time with, and being bought up by, child carers.

Edited March 20, 2013 by tonyblair