To think the UK unfairly taxes families?

Hmm. I see that you chose to ignore the other response where you had made incorrect assumptions and jumped on this one instead!
The other poster is quite right that there was less discretionary spending previously. Of course that is true. I responded in jest because I have seen so many competitive moaning type posts from Boomers which are incredibly tiresome and foolish (that didn't apply to hers). I also wrote in my response to her, where I admitted that her point, when clarified was fair, that I think this is a huge disadvantage for today's young rather than the reverse.
Believe it or not, I'm middle aged and also grew up with no foreign holidays (okay, we went to France once!), one car, ate out very rarely, less clothes, etc but we could also afford a SAHP and a very decent home! Anyone with sense would certainly rather sacrifice the former than the latter. I have absolutely no resentment about 'missing out' on such things. I feel very sorry for my DC's generation, who have a far worse time.

I have no real issue with there being a separate tax (NI) which pensioners are exempt from. That being said, I also don't mind if they change the system. Young families on low income do get a fair bit of support through UC which your/our parents never benefited from though and look at the uproar when they talked about scrapping the winter fuel allowance for pensioners not in receipt of pension credits. It's just shuffling and taking money from one demographic or another to give to another many of whom are struggling in both camps.

I am with Zak - tax the billionnaires!

@rainingsnoring, it's easy to mock when you can't really respond sensibly to the poster, who actually was talking complete sense.
PPs are keen to point out that there were more SAHMs in the past (were there?) but the fact is that a lot of things that are considered basic and essential today were just not back then.
Yes, there were no computers/nail bars/smartphones etc, but life really was not as extravagant as it is now. I well remember posters during the winter when energy costs shot up declaring they 'refuse' to let their children 'freeze' by not heating the house when we had no central heating at all growing up in the 1970s. I didn't know leaving the heating on overnight was even a thing until that winter.
I am not saying don't heat your house, clearly, but that is a good example of how expectations and norms have shifted in just one generation.
Today women say they can't afford to stay at home but what they mean is they can't afford a lifestyle that is far in excess of the lifestyle I was familiar with. Very few families had two cars, eating out was pretty rare, mostly just for birthdays and special occasions. We had fewer clothes and they were passed down from family members or friends. Holidays for us were in a caravan in the UK. Soft play - if it existed - would have been very much a birthday treat and new toys were really just for Christmas and birthdays.
Yes house prices are a lot higher relative to income today, but although I would never say young people should ditch a coffee to enable them to buy an house, the fact is all these 'basic' expenses add up, so expenditure is a lot higher now for a 'normal' family than it used to be.
I'm sure you will trot out that video again because I am saying things you don't want to hear, but hey ho.

Okay, fair point. There were certainly many women working in the 70s/80s, just a lot less than nowadays, as basic essentials such as housing have become unaffordable, even on two incomes.

I see the massive increase in consumerism and debt as a huge disadvantage for today's young, rather than an advantage. I therefore can never understand the moaning posts that I've seen about how OAPs never had mobile phones or Netflix. Obviously, that does not apply to you.

No of course I am not resentful. I was just pointing out that not all mums could afford to stay at home in the 1970's and 80's anymore than they can now despite not paying for half the shit we do now.

I think that's hard to argue with but many are trying, although not one has presented a sensible argument. It's mostly been accusations of ageism, statements that pensioners had it very hard when they were small, statements about how low the UK state pension is, etc.

You don't seriously feel resentful because you didn't have a mobile phone, Netflix of get your nails done do you? I honestly can't believe anyone would complain about this, especially as neither of the first two things existed!

I think you need the Four Yorkshire Man sketch too:

I don't know what you mean by 'presumably because it affects her age group'.
CM has nothing to do with age and everything to do with children! I am not a single mother in case you presume that too. I just don't think either parent's income should be double taxed before it is available to their own child.
I do think it's reasonable that CM is taken into account when calculating any UC payable but it is very unreasonable to take CM payments imo.

They could only afford for one parent to stay at home if they went without. We were poor and my mum worked part time from me being about 3. We mostly didn't have holidays and when we did they were in the UK (often at the end of season when half the place was shut). There were 3 (then 4) channels on the telly and no-one had a mobile phone, internet, ate out, went for coffee, had netflix etc. We didn't have a VCR until I started work and then we rented one and I paid half. Loads of people rented a telly. Most families had only one car. No one got their nails done or went for beauty treatments. They didn't have loads of clothes or shop for fun. All my school friends mums worked when I was growing up (except the ones with 3 or more kids), as did my son's friends when he was at school. The mums I know are just as likely to work part time now especially through the primary school years as they ever were. I was the exception working full time from DC being about 9. I am 53.

Most families on 25K will be getting UC and/or childcare vouchers. If both parents work and are on 25K they are arguably not a low income household.

Pensioners are more likely to be on their own through no choice of their own. Working age singletons are more likely to be on their own through choice.

You simply can’t compare the two. Funding childcare allows parents to work and pay income tax. So it’s a positive for the economy.

Do you mean qualifying for pension credit or attendance allowance? Because attendance allowance is not means tested, it's determined by the state of your health - usually the bar is quite low and requires little evidence and pension credit brings you pension up to just below state pension - so no one "just misses" anything. Can you explain what you mean?

No. I don’t know any pensioners on pension credit either, but if they claim attendance allowance they’re wealthier than those pensioners who just miss qualifying.

For the record, I don't think attendance allowance should be taken into account when awarding pension credit (I don't know any pensioners on pension credit - and it's not on the cards for me - so I have no skin in the game) but it's interesting that the pensioners on here think it should, do any of you receive pension credit?

I agree, NI should be abolished and we have a single income tax rate… much fairer.

Think we need as many people working as we can - we need to pull in those taxes and one of the reasons we are struggling with tax revenues is that increasing numbers of people are not working due to an aging population and increasing levels of ill health. Keep the Mums at home and it only gets much worse - especially if they are out of the work force for 5 years and become deskilled.

I'm afraid we can. There are quite a number of people who couldn't afford for one parent to stay at home before free childcare hours kicked in. Millions, in fact. So let's make pensioners pay NI and scrap free child care. Fair's fair.

Agree. CMS should definitely be factored in.

Not directed at me, but yes, I would do that too. Income is income, regardless of where it comes from.

Absolutely. We’re all supposed to pay the same, aren’t we?

Agreed. Savings are taken into account by not CMS, which is additional income. It's crazy.

Yes, if the recipient's total income is over the tax-free threshold. That's what has been discussed on this thread. No exceptions should be made for any particular group of people

Attendance allowance isn't taken into account when working out pension credit, so you'd start to do that too?

I can’t see any reason why not. I also fail to see why child maintenance is ignored in universal credit assessment. It seems bonkers to me.

Do you think attendance allowance should be taxed and the winter fuel payment too?