Smarmy Arab Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 Smarmy, if you think it will only cost 50Bill. then you are seriously deluded, you can treble that figure right away, going by previous capital investments, as you like to call them! That figure was not mine candalan, it was the one being kicked around on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelosi Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 How anyone can argue that spending the amounts quoted on childcare is wrong when looking at the monies involved in HS2 or the London cross rail link is beyond me! It's about time the westminster political parties tackled something like this, then perhaps they would get some respect...instead they agree on an increased pay costing us an additional £4.6million per year! Wendy Saints 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintee4life Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) Ok you Mr Big Business man with the 2 businesses!? I suspect you probably pay the minimum wage. I don't know where you have been recently, but we are talking about the working poor!? You know these tax credits folk claim!? Well they help business men like you! Why pay a living wage when you can pay the minimum & let the tax payer subsidise the rest, so that sort of sponging is ok as long as it benefits you. I like to think of myself as a Social Democrat, someone who thinks of others & not just themselves!? But I suspect you fall in to the category don't do as I do do as I say?!You're away in the wrong direction, there was none of this nonsense when my mother was bringing me up and same goes for most if not all over 40s on here, it was called living within your means. If you were having a child you looked after it, yes there was playgroups n things for a few hours a week but 30 hours a week free that's a ****in joke. I wouldn't insult any worker by paying them the minimum wage. A very socialist post though keep it up Edited November 17, 2014 by saintee4life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintee4life Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 How anyone can argue that spending the amounts quoted on childcare is wrong when looking at the monies involved in HS2 or the London cross rail link is beyond me! It's about time the westminster political parties tackled something like this, then perhaps they would get some respect...instead they agree on an increased pay costing us an additional £4.6million per year!I don't agree with that HS2 shite either, but to give 30 hours childcare a week free is absurd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammsteinally Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 You're away in the wrong direction, there was none of this nonsense when my mother was bringing me up and same goes for most if not all over 40s on here, it was called living within your means. If you were having a child you looked after it, yes there was playgroups n things for a few hours a week but 30 hours a week free that's a ****in joke. I wouldn't insult any worker by paying them the minimum wage. A very socialist post though keep it up That all very well but i doubt many families can cope if only one is working and the other is looking after the weans all day. with any luck the 30 hours childcare you hate so much will enable a person to work those 30 hours so they can contribute to the country Wendy Saints 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendy Saints Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 You're away in the wrong direction, there was none of this nonsense when my mother was bringing me up and same goes for most if not all over 40s on here, it was called living within your means. If you were having a child you looked after it, yes there was playgroups n things for a few hours a week but 30 hours a week free that's a ****in joke. I wouldn't insult any worker by paying them the minimum wage. A very socialist post though keep it up You use Socialist like it was an insult, for the record I am not! Told you already I am a social democrat!? Back in the day, & I fall in to this category! I was brought up on a council scheme, went to school with 99 per cent of children who also lived in council houses!? None of us were well off, I never felt deprived because everyone was in the same boat? Our dads worked full time & our mums if they did work worked mostly part time. Council rents were more affordable, however we still didn't have money for school trips or holidays. Fast forward, there is little or no decent social housing. All the best stock has been bought off! Families are forced in to private rents, filling the coffers of those able to speculate. Maggie Thatcher has a lot to answer for, she has created a society of have & have nots. It is so seriously bad it will never recover and the gap will never lessen. In case you haven't noticed the folk at the bottom are in a vice like grip of austerity, utilities, food,rents all rising & wages static! You don't need to be Adam Smith to realise these economics are never going to work. Perhaps if you started looking around instead of down you may actually see the inequality & injustice going on. Sneering is not something to be proud of. Smarmy Arab, Pelosi, rammsteinally and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintee4life Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 That all very well but i doubt many families can cope if only one is working and the other is looking after the weans all day. with any luck the 30 hours childcare you hate so much will enable a person to work those 30 hours so they can contribute to the countryAye but they should still have to pay for their child to be looked after, or quite simply don't have a child until you are in a position to look after it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintee4life Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 You use Socialist like it was an insult, for the record I am not! Told you already I am a social democrat!? Back in the day, & I fall in to this category! I was brought up on a council scheme, went to school with 99 per cent of children who also lived in council houses!? None of us were well off, I never felt deprived because everyone was in the same boat? Our dads worked full time & our mums if they did work worked mostly part time. Council rents were more affordable, however we still didn't have money for school trips or holidays. Fast forward, there is little or no decent social housing. All the best stock has been bought off! Families are forced in to private rents, filling the coffers of those able to speculate. Maggie Thatcher has a lot to answer for, she has created a society of have & have nots. It is so seriously bad it will never recover and the gap will never lessen. In case you haven't noticed the folk at the bottom are in a vice like grip of austerity, utilities, food,rents all rising & wages static! You don't need to be Adam Smith to realise these economics are never going to work. Perhaps if you started looking around instead of down you may actually see the inequality & injustice going on. Sneering is not something to be proud of.I was on that same boat but was taught your hand should always be on rather than out. Just a pity gone are the days when you got nothing for nothing, now it's everything for nothing and the more they get the more they want. Maggie gave everyone the chance to own their own home for an affordable price and those with their priorities right did just that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendy Saints Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 I was on that same boat but was taught your hand should always be on rather than out. Just a pity gone are the days when you got nothing for nothing, now it's everything for nothing and the more they get the more they want. Maggie gave everyone the chance to own their own home for an affordable price and those with their priorities right did just that That was the problem! She didn't help every one. She didn't want the responsibility for social housing, and as a result the haves capitalised at the expense of the have nots. I have not agreed with a lot you have written but at the end of the day I respect you the right to your opinion. However your obvious admiration for Margaret Thatcher is a step too far. I own my own home in spite of her not because of her! In fact interest rates were 15 per cent when I was forced to by a sub standard flat because I could not get access to social housing!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintee4life Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 That was the problem! She didn't help every one. She didn't want the responsibility for social housing, and as a result the haves capitalised at the expense of the have nots. I have not agreed with a lot you have written but at the end of the day I respect you the right to your opinion. However your obvious admiration for Margaret Thatcher is a step too far. I own my own home in spite of her not because of her! In fact interest rates were 15 per cent when I was forced to by a sub standard flat because I could not get access to social housing!?I was the same when I bought my first flat in 1987 interest rate was 15-17% it was bloody hard as you well know but we tightened our belt and got on with it. There was no way I could've thought about bringing a child into the world then simply could not afford it there was no freebies then. My mother who is in her late 70s now when she heard about the 30 hrs free childcare nonsense her words were "that's hellish" and I think that about sums it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendy Saints Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 I was the same when I bought my first flat in 1987 interest rate was 15-17% it was bloody hard as you well know but we tightened our belt and got on with it. There was no way I could've thought about bringing a child into the world then simply could not afford it there was no freebies then. My mother who is in her late 70s now when she heard about the 30 hrs free childcare nonsense her words were "that's hellish" and I think that about sums it up Think we will just have to agree to disagree. Times have changed and we now are in a situation where a big sub class is growing faster than ever. You cannot be hard on a government who at least tries to protect the people at the bottom. I listened to NS speech and she acknowledged welfare is not the answer but also acknowledged a section of society being left behind. Perhaps if your mother was trying to bring up children today she may feel differently. I will add nothing more to this other than to quote the old adage 'there but for the grace etcetera sixties saintee and Pelosi 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammsteinally Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 Aye but they should still have to pay for their child to be looked after, or quite simply don't have a child until you are in a position to look after it Most part time jobs wages won't cover the childcare if that's the case whats the point of working if you're just giving it to childminders etc. Children are expensive and i reckon if everybody waited until they could afford it there wouldn't be any Smarmy Arab 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixties saintee Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 I was on that same boat but was taught your hand should always be on rather than out. Just a pity gone are the days when you got nothing for nothing, now it's everything for nothing and the more they get the more they want. Maggie gave everyone the chance to own their own home for an affordable price and those with their priorities right did just that Why then were no more Council houses built to replace them, why were the sales ring fenced, where is the money now ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cagey Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 Why then were no more Council houses built to replace them, why were the sales ring fenced, where is the money now ???Why then were no more Council houses built to replace them, why were the sales ring fenced, where is the money now ??? Yeah but if I remember correctly the sitting tennant was given the house for a low price therefore there would not be enough to replace them but the money should have been used to build some new houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest Saints Fan Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 Childcare care prices have increased so much whilst wages have remained very low. We have an ageing population, we absolutely need as many people having children as possible. As well as mass immigration. I will wait until I have some spare cash before I have children but absolutely, any free childcare would be most welcome to everyone including me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintee4life Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 Most part time jobs wages won't cover the childcare if that's the case whats the point of working if you're just giving it to childminders etc. Children are expensive and i reckon if everybody waited until they could afford it there wouldn't be anythere is another way to do it though, take a part time job at night when your partner is at home, assuming they work during the day then you don't need childcare. Quite frankly a lot of mothers put their kid into childcare because they can't be arsed looking after it all day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cagerf Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) there is another way to do it though, take a part time job at night when your partner is at home, assuming they work during the day then you don't need childcare. Quite frankly a lot of mothers put their kid into childcare because they can't be arsed looking after it all day Work at night. Statistics suggest that night shifts reduce life expectancy significantly or is this a move to reduce pensioners! Edited November 18, 2014 by Cagerf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintee4life Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 Work at night. Statistics suggest that night shifts reduce life expectancy significantly or is this a move to reduce pensioners!and your point is? If a mother feels the need to have a part time job then a few hours at night with their partner looking after the child at home rather than have this free childcare nonsense(which isn't actually free it still has to be paid for)is surely the way to go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck_saint Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 Most part time jobs wages won't cover the childcare if that's the case whats the point of working if you're just giving it to childminders etc. Children are expensive and i reckon if everybody waited until they could afford it there wouldn't be any On a planet that is already vastly overpopulated? Cant believe im siding with s4l. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammsteinally Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 On a planet that is already vastly overpopulated? Cant believe im siding with s4l. no i don't think you are he's saying folk shouldn't have children they can't afford so shouldn't need free childcare to enable them to work, you seem to be saying we shouldn't have children here cos the worlds overpopulated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck_saint Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 no i don't think you are he's saying folk shouldn't have children they can't afford so shouldn't need free childcare to enable them to work, you seem to be saying we shouldn't have children here cos the worlds overpopulated id say the two were connected. if the planet wasnt so overpopulated wed all have more have resources to share per person. there are after all a finite amount - the someone else should pay argument is ostrich like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammsteinally Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 never the less folk will still have kids, i think free childcare will let both parents have at least some sort of job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintee4life Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 On a planet that is already vastly overpopulated? Cant believe im siding with s4l.:-D it's no shame to agree with me I'm not the devil:-D.People don't like the truth but in time will come round to realising it;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelosi Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 What a blinkered attitude!....just how many part-time jobs do you believe there are?...how many jobs have start and end times which fit perfectly into the routine of their partner's job? If your partner is looking after the kids whilst you are out working at night, when exactly is your partner/wife/husband going to get some sleep themselves or would you expect your other half to work a shift at night then come home and cover a day of looking after your child without having had some sleep/rest down time? Just remember if you know of any child whose mother/father can't be bothered looking after them, then it's everyones responsibility to report that parent! These are just some of the reasons for free childcare to be provided, nevermind the fact that low income families need this help. there is another way to do it though, take a part time job at night when your partner is at home, assuming they work during the day then you don't need childcare. Quite frankly a lot of mothers put their kid into childcare because they can't be arsed looking after it all day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cagerf Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Free child care is also an indirect subsidy for firms otherwise they would have to pay more to get some workers. It helps offset the cost of the minimum wage. Pelosi and Wendy Saints 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.