Housewife 'wage'

[Russ]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...247864,00.html

It's been a long time since I've thought this could be possible but I think the Tories might have a good idea here. It runs the risk of being abused like all benefits but this might just work.

[kronas]

first of all i would like to know here the money is coming from.

secondly this is open to abuse, you can see that if someone was to have a baby for the sake of the cash then have another one to get another years income there is exploitation.

who would ever thought of it, getting paid to bring up a child in its first year.

its just a vote winning plan to me.

[orangebird]

This really annoys me - why should my taxes go towards paying for someone else to sit at home on their backsides because they had a baby they couldn't afford?

Originally Posted by kronas

first of all i would like to know here the money is coming from.

secondly this is open to abuse, you can see that if someone was to have a baby for the sake of the cash then have another one to get another years income there is exploitation.

Yes, perish the thought that someone might get pregnant simply to abuse the welfare state ... It's bizarre, first Labour started out Torying the Tories, and now Howard's trying to out-Labour the Labour party.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by orangebird

This really annoys me - why should my taxes go towards paying for someone else to sit at home on their backsides because they had a baby they couldn't afford?

Perhaps it was unplanned? Perhaps the mother had a particular ailment where she was advised that her chances of conception were reducing as time went on and if she wanted a child she should have one at that time?

This is not about paying someone to stay at home - it's about renumerating someone for the hard work they go through in bring up a child, which does not have any "sitting on their backsides" involved.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Perhaps it was unplanned? Perhaps the mother had a particular ailment where she was advised that her chances of conception were reducing as time went on and if she wanted a child she should have one at that time?

This is not about paying someone to stay at home - it's about renumerating someone for the hard work they go through in bring up a child, which does not have any "sitting on their backsides" involved.

Russ, my sister has four children. And we both are of the same opinion that staying at home and bringing up children is preferable to working 50-60 hours a week (as I do). Besides, there are plenty of benefits for parents already. Tax breaks, discounted/free heatlthcare etc.

I work my arse off, and get bugger all from the state for it. Why should someone who has a baby and wants to stay at home (therefore not financially contributing) get a better deal than me? When I have chosen not to have a baby simply only because I know I cannot afford to it myself? I am not as ease with sponging off the state, and I have the greatest contempt for those that are.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Perhaps it was unplanned? Perhaps the mother had a particular ailment where she was advised that her chances of conception were reducing as time went on and if she wanted a child she should have one at that time?

This is not about paying someone to stay at home - it's about renumerating someone for the hard work they go through in bring up a child, which does not have any "sitting on their backsides" involved.

the problem is russ when you have a child its yours, you dont expect someone else to pay for your child for you to stay off work for a year, if your eligble for family credit or tax credits then thats fine, when you get in to the realm of paying people to stay at home because they are having a child is unfair on the tax payer, i know the person who is off work pays taxes but its just creating a burden on the tax system, where is this extra funding coming from ?

[Russ]

Who says people who have children want to stay at home? Surely they stay at home because they have to? What about those who contributed to the state before the pregnancy? And I don't understand why someone claiming a benefit is considered to be 'sponging' off the state when all they are doing (as would be the case if this plan goes through) is claiming what they are entitled to.

Originally Posted by orangebird

Russ, my sister has four children. And we both are of the same opinion that staying at home and bringing up children is preferable to working 50-60 hours a week (as I do). Besides, there are plenty of benefits for parents already. Tax breaks, discounted/free heatlthcare etc.

I work my arse off, and get bugger all from the state for it. Why should someone who has a baby and wants to stay at home (therefore not financially contributing) get a better deal than me? When I have chosen not to have a baby simply only because I know I cannot afford to it myself? I am not as ease with sponging off the state, and I have the greatest contempt for those that are.

But we all sponge off the state ... you 'sponge' every time you go to see your GP, for example (unless you go private?). Yes, I know you pay tax for the privilege, but then so would most of the people we're talking about here. After I graduated, I spent six months on the dole. While being on the dole was depressing and a little degrading, I didn't feel guilty about taking the money as I knew that in my lifetime I'd pay a lot more in than I'd ever get out! Unless, of course, you or I became chronically ill and ended up costing the NHS a fortune while no longer paying tax. I don't think that's really sponging, though, and I'm sure you don't either.

Every society has to find the right balance between the individual's responsibility to look after him/herself and the community's responsibility to look after each other. If we as a nation decide to support families in this way, it's because we believe that giving them the freedom to decide whether or not to stay home with young children rather than being forced to send them to nursery due to financial pressures relieves stress on the family and is therefore good for everyone, and therefore for society as a whole.

Originally Posted by orangebird

This really annoys me - why should my taxes go towards paying for someone else to sit at home on their backsides because they had a baby they couldn't afford?

Because our population is aging and as a result the pension funds are dwindling. You need births to ensure you dont have an aging population

After all its only a 30% increase on whats available for the first 6 months anyway. However i can see the chavs taking advantage and we will be over run by little chavs

[Graham F]

Originally Posted by kronas

where is this extra funding coming from ?

you and me my dear boy

the biggest load of rubbish i have heard in my life....a vote loser for the tories i think

Originally Posted by orangebird

When I have chosen not to have a baby simply only because I know I cannot afford to it myself?

Depends on your priorities in life and at the end of the day you cant really survive on £150 a week

Originally Posted by kronas

if your eligble for family credit or tax credits then thats fine

Its no differnet really, its still giving money to people to encourage them to have children

Originally Posted by Russ D

Who says people who have children want to stay at home? Surely they stay at home because they have to? What about those who contributed to the state before the pregnancy? And I don't understand why someone claiming a benefit is considered to be 'sponging' off the state when all they are doing (as would be the case if this plan goes through) is claiming what they are entitled to.

Spot on. I know ive paid enough to the state and even with a child birth im still going to get much back in comparison

Originally Posted by Scooby

you and me my dear boy

the biggest load of rubbish i have heard in my life....a vote loser for the tories i think

Coming from Kronas how exactly?