Child Care
 

Just been watching some election stuff. A woman was moaning about child care and stuff. My opinion is that if she has the kid she should take responsibility for looking after it.

I mean - It's her bloody kid at the end of the day so why should the government and powers that be get a verbal kicking if she can't be arsed to look after it

Discuss.

Re: Child Care
 

i have to agree, when you have a child you know that child cannot look after itself so have you have to make concessions for it.

if it means one half has to work the other stays home then so be it.

if you both need to work for financial reasons then look for a nanny or au-pair which ever you prefer.

Re: Child Care
 

Indeed. The kids place is with the mother I reckon. No argument about it.

The mother's job should be to be an actual mother and not run off to so-called "work"

Re: Child Care
 

Because in this crazy country it's not politically correct to dare to suggest that mothers should actually stay at home and look after their kids - as well as the fact that many scroungers now think the tax payers should pay for everything "they" want.

Re: Child Care
 

Unfortunately, many couples cannot afford to lose an income as the mortgage needs to be paid. There are other that we know of who carry on working because if they didn't then they couldn't afford he holidays etc. that they have been accustomed to having :(
Personally, I feel that if a couple cannot afford to have a child on one income then they shouldn't have that child.

Re: Child Care
 

And that statement has what to do with the topic?

I think fair play if mothers want to get back to work, they could be doing some vital work that benifits a lot of people

Re: Child Care
 

im certainly against the male perception that all mothers should stay at home but it would be a preference if i had kids.

either parents should look in to the fact that finance and housing and being able to provide a better enviroment for the child should be a priority rather than conceiving only to regret and rue it later on.

Re: Child Care
 

Well this country would be pretty screwed if you wanted us to stay at home and play mum, like somebody else commented on another thread, how on earth would I be able to do all my stuff that I do!

Re: Child Care
 

Well unless I missed something - the subject appears to be government provided childcare.

Re: Child Care
 

I never got any help we had to pay someone to help us, it is just to get the women to vote that is all.

Re: Child Care
 

oh so the (government provided childcare), states they are scroungers?

Re: Child Care
 

Huh :confused:

Re: Child Care
 

With all due respect if the birth rate continues to reduce then who the hell is going to support you lot in your old age?If getting working women to have children to be the future workers that will provide the income to generate future pensions and get childcare provided so they can do both...

Also if a single woman wants to get out of the poverty trap and provide for her and her child/children and the only jobs available are low paid ones then some help with childcare is a lot cheaper than paying out all the benefits that a single mother would be entitled to.

When I was paying for childcare when my children were smaller I was paying out £50 a week.I could afford that but a low paid single parent couldn't.I've no idea what the present rate is now..

Re: Child Care
 

But if the population continues to rise we will run out or recourses. I think we should be trying to reduce the population (worldwide)

Re: Child Care
 

Yes we will run out of resources for an increasing aging population unable to generate income...Which is why we need more children to be born so they can work to provide the income for those of us of pensionable age.

So we need a balance...should we keep the elderly alive longer or get everyone contributing financially to the public purse by working including mothers?Of course we could just get everyone to work until they drop dead...

It's the one dilemma that all political parties don't know how to solve.How to support an aging population with a decreasing number of younger generations.

Re: Child Care
 

Back in the (not so good) old days men worked outside the house and women worked inside the house (aha you won't catch me saying men worked and women didn't!)
Households had a single income, and the thought of women not being housewives was shocking.
Then after a couple of wars where women started doing jobs which men did, couples realised that if they both worked, then they'd have more money, could afford a bigger house, more holidays etc, and still be able to rely on a single income while they had kids.
As more and more couples did this, house prices went up, the cost of living went up, unfortunately this meant that it became harder and harder to survive on a single income, so couples started putting off having kids, from their early 20s to mid 30s.
The population growth slowed, causing a social security timebomb for future OAPs.
Currently it is not easy to live a relativly comfortable life with just one income (if you're just starting out) so more and more women are having to go back to work earlier than their mothers did in order to make ends meet.
Now if you look at the cost of childcare, and the median earnings of women who need to use childcare in order to work, it can be as much as 50% of their salary.
Now, a mother at home looking after the kids isn't out working, isn't paying as much tax and NI, but a mother who is working and has kids in childcare (even with goverment vouchers) is paying tax and NI, and what's more, the childminder is now paying more tax and NI.
It may be a net tax loss (the voucher costing more than the tax paid by all parties) but it looks good on the employment figures and stimulates part of the economy slightly.

Sure you can argue that couples should wait until they can afford to have kids, and part of me agrees with that, but I also know that incog is right in that unless we start having more babies (in general, not just with incog) we're storing up problems for our old age.

The irony is, if women had stayed working in the home, then we probably wouldn't be in this mess ;)

Re: Child Care
 

Age 0-2 £228 week / £975 month
Age 2-3 £220 / £953
Age 3-5 £210 / £910
As a personal example - South East England Prices.

Thats out of your after tax income.

One of the biggest problems IMHO is the inequity of the current process, my new eer offers flex benefits that mean I can salary sacrifice for childcare vouchers, the first 217 a month of these is tax and NI free. I've taken this as we have a childcare bill, this equates to a £1000 pay rise for our household over my previous job simply because of a tax break that not all eers offer.

Now if Mrs H also worked for an eer that did this (it is expensive for smaller cos to operate) then that would be another 217 of the bill tax free.

So running the numbers
It cost us £953 a month of after tax salary before.

Now it costs us 736 a month of after tax and 217 tax free

If both of us were with ees that paid child care vouchers it would be

£519 of post tax and 434 of tax free.

There is a great ineqity here between ees that work for companies offering vouchers and companies that dont in terms of how much it costs for childcare.

This governments wonderfully complex way of distributing this benefit means that it does not reach all that could use it. Thats the problem I have with it.

There is an off topic on this thread of SAHM vs Working Mum. After the first year-18 months IMHO they are better in day care as they can provide a better structure, friends etc than a SAHM can.