Should SAHM enjoy full childcare subsidies?

[Funz]

I guess the rationale is if the mum is a SAHM, there is no need for full day childcare. And for 1/2 day childcare, the subsidy is the same regardless of working or non-working mum

[sleepy]

Funz:

I guess the rationale is if the mum is a SAHM, there is no need for full day childcare. And for 1/2 day childcare, the subsidy is the same regardless of working or non-working mum

So even if they offer subsidy, most SAHMs won't be utilising it anyway. No loss to them to be perceived as more generous?

One genuine situation I can think of is a SAHM without maid or any old folks' help. If she had just delivered a new baby, her elder child would most certainly need to go full day childcare so that she can have sufficient rest right after delivery and also to pay more attention to her new born. She's not entitled to any paid maternity leave, I suppose it's reasonable to give subsidy for full day childcare in such situation?

I don't forsee this as long term arrangement, probably during the initial few months or a most a year until she can managed both young children at home.

[Funz]

sleepy:

Funz:

I guess the rationale is if the mum is a SAHM, there is no need for full day childcare. And for 1/2 day childcare, the subsidy is the same regardless of working or non-working mum

So even if they offer subsidy, most SAHMs won't be utilising it anyway. No loss to them to be perceived as more generous?

One possible situation I can think of is a SAHM without maid or any old folks' help. If she had just delivered a new baby, her elder child would most certainly need to go full day childcare so that she can have sufficient rest right after delivery and also to pay more attention to her new born. She's not entitled to any paid maternity leave, I suppose it's reasonable to give subsidy for full day childcare in such situation?

I don't forsee this as long term arrangement, probably during the initial few months or a most a year until she can managed both young children at home.

Got loss, cos funds will have to be put aside to cater for this subsidy. Which means that other areas will get lesser funds. And once this option is available, there will be the likelihood of it being abused.

[toddles]

Funz:

I guess the rationale is if the mum is a SAHM, there is no need for full day childcare. And for 1/2 day childcare, the subsidy is the same regardless of working or non-working mum

Oh... I didn't know half day childcare gets subsidy regardless... that's quite fair then...

[sleepy]

Funz:

And once this option is available, there will be the likelihood of it being abused.

Can shed some light how to abuse :?


I think most SAHMs can be classified into 2 broad categories:
1. Choose to stay home to spend more time with their children.
2. Income not high enough after deducting related childcare expenses, better off not working.

Probably have some more...can only think of these 2 broad categories at this moment

For category 1, doubt they would send kids to full day childcare. Defeat the whole purpose of staying home. They certainly did not choose to stay home to scurb the floor while their kids are in full day childcare. For category 2, doubt they would send kids to full day childcare either. Purpose is to cut cost since net income not justifiable after deducting related childcare expenses.

I believe very few SAHMs would utilise this subsidy. But it's certainly very useful in genuine cases like the example I cite above.

By the way, only for discussion sake hor. My kids are too old for childcare :lol:

[sleepy]

toddles:

Funz:

I guess the rationale is if the mum is a SAHM, there is no need for full day childcare. And for 1/2 day childcare, the subsidy is the same regardless of working or non-working mum

Oh... I didn't know half day childcare gets subsidy regardless... that's quite fair then...

The discussion is on full day childcare subsidy
Half day childcare subsidy is the same regardless of FTWMs or SAHMs.

[Funz]

sleepy:

Funz:

And once this option is available, there will be the likelihood of it being abused.

Can shed some light how to abuse :?


I think most SAHMs can be classified into 2 broad categories:
1. Choose to stay home to spend more time with their children.
2. Income not high enough after deducting related childcare expenses, better off not working.

Probably have some more...can only think of these 2 broad categories at this moment

For category 1, doubt they would send kids to full day childcare. Defeat the whole purpose of staying home. They certainly did not choose to stay home to scurb the floor while their kids are in full day childcare. For category 2, doubt they would send kids to full day childcare either. Purpose is to cut cost since net income not justifiable after deducting related childcare expenses.

I believe very few SAHMs would utilise this subsidy. But it's certainly very useful in genuine cases like the example I cite above.

By the way, only for discussion sake hor. My kids are too old for childcare :lol:

There will always be those who choose not to work but yet send the child to fullday childcare even though they don't have another child to look after at home.

And there will be unscrupulous operators who will declare and claim full day subsidy even when child is only on half day.

Call me cynical but I have seen it happening. Am in the childcare industry.

[tankee]

I thought it was Govnt intention to encourage more SAHM to rejoin the workforce?

[foreverj]

sleepy:

Funz:

And once this option is available, there will be the likelihood of it being abused.

Can shed some light how to abuse :?


I think most SAHMs can be classified into 2 broad categories:
1. Choose to stay home to spend more time with their children.
2. Income not high enough after deducting related childcare expenses, better off not working.

Probably have some more...can only think of these 2 broad categories at this moment

For category 1, doubt they would send kids to full day childcare. Defeat the whole purpose of staying home. They certainly did not choose to stay home to scurb the floor while their kids are in full day childcare. For category 2, doubt they would send kids to full day childcare either. Purpose is to cut cost since net income not justifiable after deducting related childcare expenses.

I believe very few SAHMs would utilise this subsidy. But it's certainly very useful in genuine cases like the example I cite above.

By the way, only for discussion sake hor. My kids are too old for childcare :lol:

hi sleepy

its difficult and costly for the govt to administer grants on a discretionary basis. i guess it makes more sense for individuals to file for appeals with the relevant authorities. as for abuse, (i'm guessing) there might b cases where the mum simply put the kid in fullday cc when she herself has nothing to do. guess the govt should not be subsidising such cases.

[foreverj]

tankee:

I thought it was Govnt intention to encourage more SAHM to rejoin the workforce?

yes it is. hence more subsidy for working mums to entice them to go back to work...