Child Care

Croker · 02-05-2005, 20:02

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.

kronas · 02-05-2005, 20:07

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.

Croker · 02-05-2005, 20:10

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"

**Paul** · 02-05-2005, 20:16

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.

Ramrod · 02-05-2005, 20:25

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.

Roy MM · 02-05-2005, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

as well as the fact that many scroungers now think the tax payers should pay for everything "they" want.

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

kronas · 02-05-2005, 20:42

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.

allieyoung666 · 02-05-2005, 20:44

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!

**Paul** · 02-05-2005, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy MM

And that statement has what to do with the topic?

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

allieyoung666 · 02-05-2005, 20:58

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.

Roy MM · 02-05-2005, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

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

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

**Paul** · 02-05-2005, 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy MM

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

Huh

**Maggy** · 02-05-2005, 22:19

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 ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£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..

Ramrod · 02-05-2005, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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?..

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

**Maggy** · 02-05-2005, 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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

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.