Sign in to follow this  
rik2304

Yes Or Naw?

  

181 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

So you want something for nothing then, cos if it's a low paying job you're either not earning enough to pay tax or just paying a small amount not near enough to cover the cost of the free childcare you are getting. By you I don't mean you personally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you'd rather folk like that didn't work at all, if your wages are just going to cover childcare what's the point in working. i think i typed that a while ago. we all get taxed acording to our wages so low wage, low tax and vice versa. If you were taxed to cover costs you wouldn't need a taxsystem cos you pay it out of your wages direct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you'd rather folk like that didn't work at all, if your wages are just going to cover childcare what's the point in working. i think i typed that a while ago. we all get taxed acording to our wages so low wage, low tax and vice versa. If you were taxed to cover costs you wouldn't need a taxsystem cos you pay it out of your wages direct.

on the face of it they are taking more than they are giving. You have to earn a certain amount before you pay tax. How much do you reckon 30 hours of childcare costs? Perhaps jamie can answer that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think the tax you pay covers the cost of everything you recieve in benefit etc But you pay tax according to your wages its not 'something for nothing' . but we''ll go with your idea and anybody whose job doesn't cover all their housing childminding needs etc should give up working right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's part of the problem jamie they still claim tax credits etc and get the free childcare. As you rightly pointed out childcare is bloody expensive all the more reason it should come out of the pocket of the parents whose child is being looked after. Maybe would be a good idea for your wife to stay at home til your child is is school age then she could get a job to fit round school hours and you wouldn't need childcare

Great idea. I'll strip her salary out of our household income, lose our home because we can't pay the mortgage without her salary, then when she does go back she can only work a small time frame in a small number of jobs that will be vanishingly rare due to the sheer volume of people trying to get them as they have kids and there's no childcare!

Alternatively we can encourage families to work and pay their way, use the skills of all of our workforce-not just half- and not force women to take four years out of work for each child they have.

If 30 hours a week free is cost neutral or even a net boost to the treasury I fail to see any negative. There will no doubt be a tiny fraction of scroungers who work the system and sit on their arses watching Jeremy Kyle-but why punish the 99% who contribute to society for the misdeeds of the few?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea. I'll strip her salary out of our household income, lose our home because we can't pay the mortgage without her salary, then when she does go back she can only work a small time frame in a small number of jobs that will be vanishingly rare due to the sheer volume of people trying to get them as they have kids and there's no childcare!

Alternatively we can encourage families to work and pay their way, use the skills of all of our workforce-not just half- and not force women to take four years out of work for each child they have.

If 30 hours a week free is cost neutral or even a net boost to the treasury I fail to see any negative. There will no doubt be a tiny fraction of scroungers who work the system and sit on their arses watching Jeremy Kyle-but why punish the 99% who contribute to society for the misdeeds of the few?

you could argue though jamie that you shouldve looked ahead and asked will we be able to pay this mortgage off one wage if we have a child do we have savings to sustain the same level of lifestyle or will we be living beyond our means to keep up with the joneses. Can we afford to have our child looked after while we both work and have the child looked after for free then when we do get home at night we're both too tired to interact with the child and in effect that self same child barely gets to know it's parents because they both have to work to pay the oversize mortgage. Don't take that personally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S4L don't want to sound patronising but human female fertility is limited so there is a time constraint on when people can have children. Also we want more people in the work force so maybe someone has done the sums and think it is a worthwhile move.

We already provide a form of free child care from the age of 5 to 16 because it is felt that it is a good thing to educate the population.

My personal view is that it is better for a parent to stay at home with the child for the preschool years. However our democratically elected government thinks this is the way to go so if we disagree we have to suck it up just like the referendum result for some of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok :laugh:

Pelosi we could go on all night about this, we both have our different views and believe in them and you along with denzil and Wendy Saints are very good posters to debate with and I have much respect for your opinions and writings. I just think childare should be paid for, 16hrs I can just about live with but 30? No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you could argue though jamie that you shouldve looked ahead and asked will we be able to pay this mortgage off one wage if we have a child do we have savings to sustain the same level of lifestyle or will we be living beyond our means to keep up with the joneses. Can we afford to have our child looked after while we both work and have the child looked after for free then when we do get home at night we're both too tired to interact with the child and in effect that self same child barely gets to know it's parents because they both have to work to pay the oversize mortgage. Don't take that personally

To be clear, we do pay for his childcare as it is. £400+ a month. For 21 hours a week. We will get some of it covered when he hits three which is fine. If it's 16 hours that will save us a lot, if it's 30 we'll be totally clear of it and much better off. My wife's just gone back full time last week now he's 19 months and I've paid the mortgage off the earnings from my business by myself for almost all of that period. Sensible people are capable of sensible planning.

However, for the majority of people, no childcare provision means no work. It's that simple. Jobs anywhere below about £7.50 an hour are basically not worth it for a mum who wants to work but who also has to pay childcare for that as almost their entire wage post tax will be taken up by nursery fees.

If you want to exclude women from the workplace for four years after they give birth then fair enough. I personally think we should allow them to use their abilities and skills to improve our nation's productivity and contribute to the net tax take. The state contributing to childcare obviously goes against your belief system but so does paying people benefits and tax credits that they don't deserve. Surely, surely you'd rather they worked rather than just being given cash handouts?

This strikes me as a fairly progressive tax break more than anything else-those who are ok lower incomes can get back into work, better themselves and use that extra income to improve their own and their children's' standard of living all the while knowing their children are well cared for in a nurturing environment. Better off families will save money where they'd otherwise lose out-something that breeds contempt of "scroungers" who get something for nothing that middle income earners don't get.

Plus you've got the fact that going to nursery and socialising/taking part in structured play with other kids is very, very good for young kids as well and can only benefit them in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, we do pay for his childcare as it is. £400+ a month. For 21 hours a week. We will get some of it covered when he hits three which is fine. If it's 16 hours that will save us a lot, if it's 30 we'll be totally clear of it and much better off. My wife's just gone back full time last week now he's 19 months and I've paid the mortgage off the earnings from my business by myself for almost all of that period. Sensible people are capable of sensible planning.

However, for the majority of people, no childcare provision means no work. It's that simple. Jobs anywhere below about £7.50 an hour are basically not worth it for a mum who wants to work but who also has to pay childcare for that as almost their entire wage post tax will be taken up by nursery fees.

If you want to exclude women from the workplace for four years after they give birth then fair enough. I personally think we should allow them to use their abilities and skills to improve our nation's productivity and contribute to the net tax take. The state contributing to childcare obviously goes against your belief system but so does paying people benefits and tax credits that they don't deserve. Surely, surely you'd rather they worked rather than just being given cash handouts?

This strikes me as a fairly progressive tax break more than anything else-those who are ok lower incomes can get back into work, better themselves and use that extra income to improve their own and their children's' standard of living all the while knowing their children are well cared for in a nurturing environment. Better off families will save money where they'd otherwise lose out-something that breeds contempt of "scroungers" who get something for nothing that middle income earners don't get.

Plus you've got the fact that going to nursery and socialising/taking part in structured play with other kids is very, very good for young kids as well and can only benefit them in the long run.

well written and thought out post jamie, i prefer your next one though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus you've got the fact that going to nursery and socialising/taking part in structured play with other kids is very, very good for young kids as well and can only benefit them in the long run.

 

>>

>> Stoked a sleeping giant with my last post. Would love to see some scientific backup of whats best for kids , rather than some mumsnet heresay. Let forth the TommySHeridan deluge begin .............

Noone has said women should be discounted from the workplace. But if you , as a family, choose to have kids you must accept that you make sacrifices elsewhere. Whether thats economically, socially, or in your employment - noone can have it al.. To expect tax payers to pick up shortfall, is the equivalent of asking george osborne to buy me the ferrari i cant afford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus you've got the fact that going to nursery and socialising/taking part in structured play with other kids is very, very good for young kids as well and can only benefit them in the long run.

>>

>> Stoked a sleeping giant with my last post. Would love to see some scientific backup of whats best for kids , rather than some mumsnet heresay. Let forth the TommySHeridan deluge begin .............

Noone has said women should be discounted from the workplace. But if you , as a family, choose to have kids you must accept that you make sacrifices elsewhere. Whether thats economically, socially, or in your employment - noone can have it al.. To expect tax payers to pick up shortfall, is the equivalent of asking george osborne to buy me the ferrari i cant afford

No one has said women should be excluded from the workplace but that's the I intended consequence. The difference between paying for childcare and paying for your Ferrari is that having children is a benefit to society that, believe it or not, needs to be encouraged giving our falling birth rate. It's either that or we encourage mass immigration.

I'm actually on your side re: people should pay their way. I'm in the situation where I qualify for no assistance with anything-which is fine, I can perfectly afford it. But it frustrates you when you see people getting it for nothing without putting the work in.

My real issue is that people would oppose something progressive, that helps business and that let's women back into the workplace if it was a net cost saving/cost neutral. That's bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My real issue is that people would oppose something progressive, that helps business and that let's women back into the workplace if it was a net cost saving/cost neutral. That's bizarre.

Id argue that anything that was progressive for big business, would be in direct contrast to the empowerment of the workforce (jeez im starting to sound like abernethy:)  )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already decided.

As soon as it's 'leaked' in the papers you know it's on the way. The government tested the water by means testing the Employment Support Allowance paid to the sick & disabled, if they are fair game then the state pension had no chance staying universal?!? A NO vote not looking quite so cute now?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this