Housewife 'wage'

[Graham F]

Originally Posted by gary_580

Coming from Kronas how exactly?

i am not aware of kronas's employment status, but it was meant in general terms and i am sure that at some point he will be in full time employment then this will come from him as well

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

I can`t see any validity in this assertion. With the amount of National Insurance I've paid while working, if I was permitted to not make that contribution and to use it all to pay for private health care I'd probably benefit. I cannot see how it can be considered as "sponging" if you pay in more than you take out.

[SMHarman]

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.

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.

How's it to be paid for? Reducing the 80% increase in governmental cost in the last 7 years would go someway to achieving this.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ost+government

Votewinning, it gets mine.

The simplist thing to do in my opinion would be to be able to share / donate personal allowances. If the non working mum could give her £4500 of freepay and £2000 of 20% pay to the working partner this would be a great boost to the family income pot and be quicker and easier to administer than this new payment, all it would require is an adjustment line in both of the couples tax codes.

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?

Your taxes are not going to someone sitting on their backside. Bringing up a 0 year old is not a 30 hr a week job (as your sister will testify), hopefully it was planned, and hopefully it is rewarding, but all children are expensive.

These children (and yours) will in time be contributing to the economy to support you in later life, the bulk of the UK benefits system works on a current funding process, so if the working population reduces, the cash for benefits reduces. Children are usually good for the economy and should be encouraged.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I can`t see any validity in this assertion. With the amount of National Insurance I've paid while working, if I was permitted to not make that contribution and to use it all to pay for private health care I'd probably benefit. I cannot see how it can be considered as "sponging" if you pay in more than you take out.

Hence the use of inverted commas ... I agree with you, it's not sponging when you pay in more than you get out. I was trying to illustrate that some of what we decry as sponging is nothing of the sort. IMO, there are plenty of cases in which people may get more from the welfare state than they ever pay in, and yet are still not sponging.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Hence the use of inverted commas ... I agree with you, it's not sponging when you pay in more than you get out. I was trying to illustrate that some of what we decry as sponging is nothing of the sort. IMO, there are plenty of cases in which people may get more from the welfare state than they ever pay in, and yet are still not sponging.

On the same basis you are sponging off an insurance company if your house burns down and they have to rebuild it. After all it is not likely that you have paid in more than the rebuild cost in premiums.

Or... If you get expensive medical treatment on Bupa, it only takes one big claim (hip replacement / heart bypass) to cover the premiums paid in.

Perhaps we are all sponging off the NHS by letting them deliver our babies, those maternity wards are expensive places to run, you can't schedule effectivly nature does not seem to have an exact plan over deliveries.

The Right come up with a good idea, that probably will not cost much and will probably help business as they can plan maternity absence with a greater degree of certainty as more women are likely to want a 6-9-12 month absence and a temp can be brought in and trained properly, one of the biggest problems for eers in the UK is the fact that women can come back at any time from 6 weeks to 12 months and have their old job (or an equivilant) back and they only need to give 4 weeks notice of their intention to return. Makes resource planning a nightmare. This must be a good idea as Tone took time to offer more post partum care before he jumped on BlairForce One to the US.

Originally Posted by Chris T

Hence the use of inverted commas ... I agree with you, it's not sponging when you pay in more than you get out. I was trying to illustrate that some of what we decry as sponging is nothing of the sort. IMO, there are plenty of cases in which people may get more from the welfare state than they ever pay in, and yet are still not sponging.

Ah, ok, I have a blind spot when it comes to inverted commas on a Thursday. Well, that's the excuse I`m going to use for my foolishness.

[Pierre]

These children (and yours) will in time be contributing to the economy to support you in later life, the bulk of the UK benefits system works on a current funding process, so if the working population reduces, the cash for benefits reduces. Children are usually good for the economy and should be encouraged.

That is what you would hope from society.

Unfortunately, some young members of society see getting pregnant as a career move. Get pregnant, get a council house + benefits (with option to buy after two years) have more kids and get more benefits. Her kids then grow up and at 13,14 aspire the same.

It is these leaches that OB is complaining about and me too. These are the Council estate trash/ Chavs, call 'em what you want, that do nothing to contribute to society.

On the other hand, a working couple that have a child getting a £150 a week. I don't have a problem with that, but would prefer it if was given towards child care after company maternity payments run out.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

<snip> Children are usually good for the economy and should be encouraged.

Unfortunately, Children are only good for the economy when the government isn't passively encouraging UK companies to outsource their operations to other countries (by "passively" I mean they are making it easier, but not actively encouraging it), but that is a topic for another thread.


Regarding the government paying mothers. I think they should. As other people have said, if the birth rate goes down (which it will do if people can't afford children), then as the population gets older, there will be fewer people to support the elderly (and anyone that think their National Insurance even begins to cover the benefits and pension needed as they get older is badly mistaken).

I think we are starting to feel the effects of reduced child birth now (pensions not going up with inflation etc), but it will get a lot worse over the next 30 - 40 years unless we start actively encouraging people to have kids.

While I don`t agree with this idea, and I certainly wouldn`t argue for more to be paid, a sum of £150 a week really isn`t going to make it worthwhile for anyone to take up this offer. It just about equates with minimum wage, assuming a 35 hour working week, but for a large number of people this is going to represent a drop in income that isn`t particularly attractive. Even if you end up paying for child care there will a lot of mothers for whom this isn`t a finanancially viable option.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

While I don`t agree with this idea, and I certainly wouldn`t argue for more to be paid, a sum of £150 a week really isn`t going to make it worthwhile for anyone to take up this offer. It just about equates with minimum wage, assuming a 35 hour working week, but for a large number of people this is going to represent a drop in income that isn`t particularly attractive. Even if you end up paying for child care there will a lot of mothers for whom this isn`t a finanancially viable option.

It would be great for us. Mrs T stopped work for our family as we believe it will be better for our children (one so far, more to come we hope) to have quality time with their parents than more material posessions but less time with parents as we're off earning to pay for it all. Being a single-income family is a challenge however. We get by, and we are comfortable, but only by being careful and constantly making choices. This current Government claims to believe in the family yet it will not do basic family-friendly things like allowing Mrs T's tax-free allowance to be transferred to me. In lieu of something eminently sensible like that, I think the Tory idea of a minimum wage paid to the carer of the child is a great idea. It recognises the economic importance of children to our nation's future.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That is what you would hope from society.

Unfortunately, some young members of society see getting pregnant as a career move. Get pregnant, get a council house + benefits (with option to buy after two years) have more kids and get more benefits. Her kids then grow up and at 13,14 aspire the same.

It is these leaches that OB is complaining about and me too. These are the Council estate trash/ Chavs, call 'em what you want, that do nothing to contribute to society.

On the other hand, a working couple that have a child getting a £150 a week. I don't have a problem with that, but would prefer it if was given towards child care after company maternity payments run out.

Agree Agree Agree.

Council estates are still full of these single mums, there only reason for getting preganant was for a house and meal ticket for the next 16 years.
It's certainly a more stable proposition foir them and more secure than getting a job.

Someone said these hildren will be paying to keep us in older age!

Well I doubt that, there will be no government pension when many of us retire. The current state of employment means there will be less people required by industry in this country as time goes on. We will have more unemployed born in this country and all the children of the foreign imports that we have let in here.

If you cant afford kids then simply dont have them, there's numerous methods such as pill, castration and condoms. The religious can simply follow their faith and not indulge out of marraige.

Theres always abortion, a touchy subject for some I know.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

While I don`t agree with this idea, and I certainly wouldn`t argue for more to be paid, a sum of £150 a week really isn`t going to make it worthwhile for anyone to take up this offer. It just about equates with minimum wage, assuming a 35 hour working week, but for a large number of people this is going to represent a drop in income that isn`t particularly attractive. Even if you end up paying for child care there will a lot of mothers for whom this isn`t a finanancially viable option.

Some basic math (Jerrek RIP) on this one.

£150 a week is effectively a take home/ after tax figure.
£200 a week is about the cost of daycare in the south, but that comes from your after tax income.

Assuming 4 weeks a month 12 months a yearâ₠¬Ã‚¦

So to take home the £150 a week (£600 a month), you would need to earn £900 a month pre deductions.
To pay for the childcare of £200 a week (£800 a month) you would need to earn £1200 a month.

Following this?

Combined, to pay for childcare and still takehome £150 a month you would need a gross monthly income of £2100 a month, after deductions this would leave you with about £1400 which you would give £800 to the childcare provider and £600 for yourself.

Mulitply £2100 by 12 and you get an annual salary of roughly £25,000 .

So for anyone earning under £25,000 you are better off staying at home (however the point of this is to give a lifestyle choice, not a better / worse decision), and realistically anyone earning up to about £40,000 would have a fantastic choice to make as much of that additional £15k will disappear into additional tax, work clothing, travel, lunches etc, so the decision can still be marginal.

The £150 hits the national average income on the button, clever that, this would be financially viable to many parents, it would certainly have made a impact on mine and Mrs Hâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢s lives during the first year of Baby (now Toddler) Hâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢s life. She gave up work to be at home with him, a decision that was financially expensive, but a lifestyle choice, the governments current taxation system means that a couple both earning £25k are significantly better off than one earning £50. As both Mr T and I have said earlier in this thread, sharing of personal allowances (itââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s personal, why canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t I give it to someone else?), would be a good alternative, it would also benefit those who have contributed to the system, wheras this proposal would also benefit chav nation.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Some basic math (Jerrek RIP) on this one.

If you're going to be picky over the figures then I feel I should point out that over here it is "basic maths"

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

If you're going to picky over the figures then I feel I should point out that over here it is "basic maths"

I would have thought that over here it was "some basic calculations", or more coloquially "working it out on the back of a fag packet" but hey who's being picky now.