Treating nannies like slaves..really upsets me

[reneet]

I will say this and ran off (please don't look for me and throw things at me).

Why should the government 'PAY' you for taking care of your OWN children? Should their happiness, laughter and 'warm fuzzy feeling' be enough payment?

Being the devils advocate here.

[bodsier]

pa123, i'm intrigued, are you saying there is another way, short of working anyway and earning pittance? I think we should put pressure on the government to do more, surely now is the time, I know of some who have had to give up part time work due to tax credit changes. The government are stripping away at the little independence we had left....I digress...maybe we should start another thread, and a revolution.

[ClareC]

I don't agree the government should pay SAHM to stay at home, however, childcare costs should be tax deductable to enable those that want to work to be able to afford to!

It's a ridiculous situation where women have to be high earners to be able to afford to work.

[Belle]

didn't there use to be a scheme whereby you could keep up your national insurance 'points' towards pension whilst taking time off to look after your kids? But I think the Govt scrapped it? Whilst I see that it's not feasible to subsidise SAHMs I think schemes like this make sense.

[gillandjoe]

It just seems like a lose lose situation in this country at the moment. I know a fair few couples that lie about being in a couple so that they can get benefits only available to single mums because trying to live on the fathers salary alone would be nearly impossible. Seems like a ridiculous situation to be in - childcare and rents are SO expensive!

[gillandjoe]

PS Im not condoning benefit fraud by the way!

[midivydale]

No intention of throwing things here:) but just a thought:

Isnt it in everyones interest to have a society where as many as possible and most certainly those that WANT to work?

I dont think its a matter of government paying for your children (on the other hand why not as they indeed do so for all teenagers)but more so ensure that there is a possibility to work for those that choose to.

To me, it seems madness that people can not afford to work, what a true waste of female talent and knowledge.

I am from sweden where the situaion could not be more different and before i came here i had never heard of a society where you cant afford to work?!

Surely, the government are paying more for your children if you dont work yourself to support them? No?

[bodsier]

Apologies kapaxiana, a major diversion has occurred, I do recall you were talking about the treatment of au pairs, ah well, maybe they really are not considered to be important? Mothers don't get much opportunity to consider themselves, so understandably the platform offered has been taken.

[VanessaPMR]

I dont think its that au pairs are not considered to be important bodsier, I think its rather that some of us are tired of threads where mothers are demonised, either directly or indirectly. Obviously treating any worker badly is problematic.... but the subject title sort of boils down to... nasty mums..doesnt it?

Also, and I dont think its an inaccurate guess, the number of forum members who are fortunate enough to have a property large enough that they would be able to house an au pair is so tiny that going 'off topic' is getting more interest. I think its democracy in action.

[midivydale]

Oh dear, sincere apologies for going off topic. Not in the slightest trying to marginalise the welfare of aupairs or nannies (of which the majority of my swedish london friends started their uk life). Sorry

[susyp]

I am a SAHM for past 4 years and previously had a high pressure job in TV - didn't feel I could do that and have a child and be happy! I am not sure I would want to be paid to do this as a job but I wonder if there is some middle ground like a tax credit for my husband or something ie so that we get the same tax breaks that working mums do - as obviously we are taking a major financial hit. Most of my friends who work don't have to work but wish to. I have no idea what working mums do get so apologies if I am way off course on this!

Also I think there should be more help on returning to work, am applying for stuff now and definitely think that my 4 year career break is affecting my chances as I am not even getting interviews on jobs that I would have thought I was over-experienced for. Applying for jobs now that are 10-15k below what I used to get. Definitely feel that I am looked down on by the professional class as it were for stepping out of it for a period of time.

susypx

[Jessie]

Hi Susyp - working mums get no tax breaks, or any help from the government - not anymore, and not this one, anyway!!

[amydown]

Nope. No tax breaks for working mums that I know of.

As ClareC points out, I find it really frustrating that childcare costs for working parents are not tax deductible. It seems inconistent with other tax rules - if a professional has to incur costs that are wholly and exclusively necessary for doing the job, the costs are tax deductible. Childcare costs when I'm at work are wholly and exclusively necessary in my view!!! For instance, paying employer's NI insurance for nanny's salaries out of my net pay feels like double taxing.

I agree that the government shouldn't have to pay to look after your kids but as someone else has pointed out, it is surely beneficial for the rest of the society if every person that is able to and wants to work remains economically able. Otherwise, who is going to keep the economy going, pay for state benefits for those in need, etc etc. In that sense, every incentive should be provided to help those wanting to go back to work do so.

Personally, when I return to work, it will make no financial sense for the first few years. Like many working mums, my pay will go entirely towards childcare with "luxuries" like travel, lunch, clothes, etc. coming out of savings. I'm doing it to keep my career going for the long-term but it's not an easy decision to make by any stretch of imagination. Waking up in the morning, going to work, thinking "Hurrah, I have the luxury of paying ?20 today for the luxury of going to work!".

[VanessaPMR]

Yup, Amy et al. I'm with you on this one, and will also be experiencing a negative wage (i.e. actually paying out MORE in childcare than I will be earning in my net wages) just to keep a foothold in employment.. does that count as slave status? Well obviously not, as it was a 'decision' I took, but honestly, talk about lack of support for working (and indeed non-paid) working mothers..

And as a portion of my wages go to the exchequer in taxes...surely, I should have some say as to how it is spent? i.e. not by squandering the talent of its female workforce by literally pricing them out of paid employment.

Rant over due to Raa Raa being over..sigh

[susyp]

ah you see I am so out of touch after 4 years, I recently started getting a newspaper delivered but I have a 3 1/2 year gap in my current affairs knowledge. Maybe that explains the lack of job opportunities!!!

I was talking about this with a friend over the weekend who used to be a barrister, now works for a council as a lawyer 3 days a week and barely gets enough to cover childcare, she is doing it to keep her hand in as they say, and to keep sane, she doesn't want to be at home full time. But her husband's career is flying high - in a similar field - he is constantly going on work jollys abroad etc etc. Why is (normally) the women that have to sacrifice! In my case I did choose to but for many women it seems to the only option, like it or not.

Susypx

[mrsS]

Well this is where, in my opinion, the UK is a bit old fashioned. As midivydale pointed out, it would be more beneficial for the country if more people could work rather then being forced to stay at home as they can't afford the child care. I am as well from Scandinavia where a fulltime place at nursery costs a maximum ?120 per month, that is if high-income bracket btw, so if you earn less you pay less in nursery fees. No mums, or dads, in Sweden have to miss out on career opportunities as a result of deciding to have kids. Seems a bit more fair. BUT, they do pay high taxes of course, but at least they get quite a lot back for it. Also, they get 18 months maternity/paternity leave at about 80% of your wages, and if the leave is split equally you get a ?1000 'equality bonus'. Crazy!

No nannies or au pairs needed. :)

[srisky]

Not much, I know, but some (most?) employers offer childcare vouchers i.e upto approx ?243 (decreased to approx. ?128 courtesy of the coalition) of your salary is deducted prior to tax, NI, pensions and put in to childcare vouchers, which can then be used to pay any ofsted registered childcare provider. This equates to several hundred pounds of savings per annum depending on how much is deducted and which bracket tax payer you are. Both fathers and mothers can apply for childcare vouchers. Worth looking into if you don't do it already.

[prm]

Please don't get mixed up! Aupairs are not slaves! They are mostly young girls with no childcare qualifications or experience, who speak little english and are coming to the UK to improve their English and experience family life. They live with the family, and they get a room and food plus a weekly cash allowance for looking after children and helping with some chores around the house if required. It's very different from being a professional, qualified and experienced nanny and a very respectable childcare option if a family wishes to choose it. Our aupair is part of our family and we take her out to meals with us, to visit family and friends, we have a cleaner and don't ask her to do any housework, she has friends and family visit from home whenever she likes.. It may not always be like that but in every case I know of (including our own) families actually pay more and go out of their way to improve the standard conditions offered by aupair agencies.

Edited to add I don't think Kapaxiana was refering to aupairs in her opening post but others have introduced the term in later posts and that is what I wanted to clarify.