FabSwingers.com forum: Childcare vouchers

By *reelove1969 OP Couple
over a year ago

bristol

Just heard the beginning of a radio debate about government childcare vouchers. The question posed was 'should stay at home parents receive these also ?'

I have not been able to listen to the whole debate but I'm curious to find out what these vouchers would be spent on as presumably the stay at home parent would be minding the child themselves

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Just heard the beginning of a radio debate about government childcare vouchers. The question posed was 'should stay at home parents receive these also ?'

I have not been able to listen to the whole debate but I'm curious to find out what these vouchers would be spent on as presumably the stay at home parent would be minding the child themselves "

I'd guess it was in the context that this would allow them to get out the house and back into work!

For those in employment they're great - but one of the key blockers for many wishing to work is affordable childcare!

Give them the vouchers too - then they can work!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

I did see this...Its to help working parents i think if they are earning below £30,000. I want to know when are they going to help single people who have no dependants... .It hard out there for everyone not just families

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No idea!

I do think we're going to pay in future years for the pressure now placed on both parents to have to work throughout their children's early years.

On that basis I think the emphasis on childcare is wrong - but I don't know why stay at home parents should receive any forms of vouchers.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

I can see the 'non working' parents point of view.

The Gvt proposes to give parents who work £1,200 per year towards finding child care ( they are allowed to earn up to £300,0000 between them) YES ( £150,000 each ) Anyone earning above that ( guffawwwww ) is not eligible.

Parents who stay at home get fuck all.

Now ..... the money is to help toward child care.

As the stay home parents who want to bring up their own children have LESS, MUCH LESS than workers......should they not get the allowance too ? After all they need lots of stuff for their children. So ..why not ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

These will only be available to families where both parents work. They will be worth up to £1,200 a year. Your joint income can be as much as £300k to receive them (apparently, taken from conversation on BBC Breakfast this morning).

The proposal is that the vouchers can be used to pay family and friends for childcare.

I'm not sure what it does to increase childcare places, it addresses some of the affordability costs but not to such a great extent in some of the busier areas like London where the costs are very high.

The stay at home argument is that there are no tax breaks for staying at home and raising your child, thereby not accessing difficult to come by childcare places, and only "rewarding" two parent families where both go out to external work.

Of course parents also work in the childcare sector.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

ignore the first bit of my post i did not know what i was on about

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't think it would be right to pay people to stay at home - that's already an issue - young women having children for various benefits etc.

If you stay at home the benefits are not financial - they're much more rewarding than that. To me the emphasis should be on helping more parents be able to bring their children up - themselves - not in the care of others.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

£300k is ridiculous. The people that manufacture these ideas really can't have a clue as to what is 'normal' for most people.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"I don't think it would be right to pay people to stay at home - that's already an issue - young women having children for various benefits etc.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm Okay ....So let's give the money to the NON working parents so they can stay at home.

And NOT give it to working parents as they should be at home raising their own children.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"...........

Parents who stay at home get fuck all.

................"

Yet people still wonder why I slag off the Tories

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"£300k is ridiculous. The people that manufacture these ideas really can't have a clue as to what is 'normal' for most people."

It says UP to £300K per couple

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"£300k is ridiculous. The people that manufacture these ideas really can't have a clue as to what is 'normal' for most people.

It says UP to £300K per couple"

Ah right - well that's much more normal then!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"£300k is ridiculous. The people that manufacture these ideas really can't have a clue as to what is 'normal' for most people.

It says UP to £300K per couple"

Izzat supposed to make it OK?

David and Samantha Cameron will qualify. These are people who leave their kids in the pub.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think it would be right to pay people to stay at home - that's already an issue - young women having children for various benefits etc.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm Okay ....So let's give the money to the NON working parents so they can stay at home.

And NOT give it to working parents as they should be at home raising their own children."

Bored or just trying to pick out an argument?

I didn't advocate anything of paying anybody.

I did say that I think in future generations we will regret the pressure placed on parents of young children having to work while their young children are in the care of people paid to look after them.

So rather than seeking methods of putting more children into childcare, I think effort should be to support parents of young children to be able to look after themselves.

Rationally I would expect that to mean one parent being able to look after their children while they are young.

It would presumably mean enabling the working parent to have greater disposable income but I hadn't yet thought it through to the extent of being a solid policy yet!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

The level of joint salary will be one of those areas that will cause uproar as it looks like electioneering.

Help is needed with childcare costs in this country but the cynic in me thinks this will be a greenlight for private providers to increase their fees by £1,200 a year.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The level of joint salary will be one of those areas that will cause uproar as it looks like electioneering.

Help is needed with childcare costs in this country but the cynic in me thinks this will be a greenlight for private providers to increase their fees by £1,200 a year.

Exactly right.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"The level of joint salary will be one of those areas that will cause uproar as it looks like electioneering.

Help is needed with childcare costs in this country but the cynic in me thinks this will be a greenlight for private providers to increase their fees by £1,200 a year.

Exactly right."

And it's £1,200 per child.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"I don't think it would be right to pay people to stay at home - that's already an issue - young women having children for various benefits etc.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm Okay ....So let's give the money to the NON working parents so they can stay at home.

And NOT give it to working parents as they should be at home raising their own children.

Bored or just trying to pick out an argument?

I didn't advocate anything of paying anybody.

So rather than seeking methods of putting more children into childcare, I think effort should be to support parents of young children to be able to look after themselves.

Rationally I would expect that to mean one parent being able to look after their children while they are young.

It would presumably mean enabling the working parent to have greater disposable income but I hadn't yet thought it through to the extent of being a solid policy yet!"

Is the question about being bored or trying to pick an argument directed at me ?

It seems to be as you have quoted my post.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"The level of joint salary will be one of those areas that will cause uproar as it looks like electioneering."

Everything the Tories do is electioneering.

" Help is needed with childcare costs in this country but the cynic in me thinks this will be a greenlight for private providers to increase their fees by £1,200 a year.

On combined salaries of £300,000 you can well afford a nanny/ au pair etc or to pay for day nursery childcare out of your net income.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

It's 20p for every 80p that a parent spends up to £1,200.

I wonder what will happen with universal credit with this? Will it mean those getting UC, the lowest paid, will be ineligible as they get UC?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If one parent has no job at all and stays home to look after the kids then no I don't see why they should get childcare allowance. If they have a part time job then yes they should get something as they will need childcare for that time they are working.

No comment on the £300k figure. Well just one word..... Bollocks!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

The World At One is discussing this now.

Arguments for aligning it to tax bands and tax free childcare from the minister.

He has huge respect for mothers being stay at home mothers as it's their lifestyle choice. No mention of stay at home fathers.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Autumn statement will set out the lower £120 tax allowance for childcare for those not able to access this.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *xxwiganMan
over a year ago

LEIGH

2 parents working then situation changes due to death or losing a job, there is now only one working parent.

The child/children are in childcare but now they will not be subsidised by the tax payer and the single parent will have to find the money to continue with childcare with a lower income.

Another policy not thought through properly.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I did see this...Its to help working parents i think if they are earning below £30,000. I want to know when are they going to help single people who have no dependants... .It hard out there for everyone not just families

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"2 parents working then situation changes due to death or losing a job, there is now only one working parent.

The child/children are in childcare but now they will not be subsidised by the tax payer and the single parent will have to find the money to continue with childcare with a lower income.

Another policy not thought through properly."

You surely don't think death should prevent a parent from going out to work to provide for their child do you? They can become fertiliser or something. Keep working.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can't (shouldn't) they help themselves?

The issue here I think is to find ways for children to be looked after while parents work.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *xxwiganMan
over a year ago

LEIGH

"2 parents working then situation changes due to death or losing a job, there is now only one working parent.

The child/children are in childcare but now they will not be subsidised by the tax payer and the single parent will have to find the money to continue with childcare with a lower income.

Another policy not thought through properly.

You surely don't think death should prevent a parent from going out to work to provide for their child do you? They can become fertiliser or something. Keep working."

i assume if they donated organs this government might think it a good idea to make the organ recievers liable for any childcare costs

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

is this to replace the 2together funding or the 15 hours of early years funding?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread