Cost of living out of control

Funding free child care to help women to work perpetuates childcare as womens responsibility rather than a change in attitudes to offset the cost of care against household income, starting with pl instead of ml. We do already invest in childrens welfare and education. The solution cannot always be 'the state provides'. most people need to be responsible for their own lives and those of their children, most of the time.

Is it not expensive to administer tax credits? would it be better to pay child care workers and invest in children's education and welfare or would it be better to pay tax bods?

The answer really is universal childcare, children can not be means tested and it should be on the basis that high quality nursery education is beneficial to the child.

In principle I agree with you. It would be lovely to see childcare be universally available and for all who want to use it.

The problem of course is where such a pot of money would come from? We already provide up to 70% childcare via tax credits to people earning up to a certain amount. To make that 100% for all people would make it eye wateringly expensive.

Taxes no doubt would have to rise or cuts found elsewhere.

Think it is hard to afford staying at home with current house prices and I think good child care and flexible working hours should become more available.

True, parents who stay at home aren't really valued in our currently driven society which is a shame and for many people an unaffordable choice anyway.

I want to deviate slightly. I'm a professional mum who has chosen to work part - time for 14 years which has been a good balance for me. For a long time, I could not get permanent contacts part - time as part-time posts were less available a decade and a half ago and now promotion is not really available for me. I have a good fulfilling job and am well respected but not fully invested in as a part-timer and job shares non- existent.

Shouldn't parents be given consideration to develop in the workplace alongside raising a family? It seems there is no real middle ground, maybe our children will get this sorted out.

Much as I think that the cost of child care in the UK is criminal I just can't realistically see tax payer funded child care being sold to the general public right now. There is a slow burning realisation that unless taxes rise massively, public spending is now a zero sum game. Raise child care funding - decrease funding for elderly care/transport/cancer research etc.

People have come to expect European public service quality and yet still pay 20% income tax. No politician has the balls to explain that this isn't actually possible. Not in the long term anyway.

As for "sorting out" the cost of living - any ideas OP? It's unfair to everyone and I do think that this and future generations, male or female, parents or not, have a harsh deal compared to the baby boomers. I can't however, see an easy answer.

Time and again you hear women saying that they need to work through necessity but can not afford to do so. Some women would like to return to work even if their work isn't particularly rewarding financially.

Women who have highly paid jobs are often more likely to return because they can afford childcare. Although some of my friends who had brilliant jobs have opted to stay at home because having met equally well paid men, they have that choice available to them.

So again, it is often women from the most disadvantaged circs in lower paid work who both need to work because their partner earns very little but can't work because childcare is prohibitively exp.

The answer really is universal childcare, children can not be means tested and it should be on the basis that high quality nursery education is beneficial to the child. Work needs to pay, some women's organisations are calling for well paid part time work for mothers. No one can create these fantasy jobs but we do need to address poor wages and inequality. It isn't just two wages driving up costs, its the fact that the wealth at the top stimulates rising costs too.

Unfortunately, working as a nursery worker or cleaner, or other low paid work often done by women through economic necessity, requires you to turn up to your place of work. Flexible working and working from home can't be a reality for everyone.

And yes it's nice to not have to worry about covering for sickness, delivery and the tradespeople! My last job allows a lot of working from home. It's very handy.

Mini, you don't have to be so defensive about it. It's a genuine question. Rabbitstew is right about me not keeping receipts etc. i just have all the bills and mortgage come out automatically from the account . I do shop for deals but not on a weekly grocery shop basis. More on things like insurance. We arent rich, aren't even higher rate tax payers, have a large mortgage. We seldom eat out, buy new clothes, always amazed by how friends can afford all those holidays. But I feel lucky in this climate that our income can at least cover our outgoing comfortably.

And another huge benefit of staying at home is that you are at home to fix the leak, or the broken boiler, or deal with the sick child, without having to piss off your boss.

And at the other end of the spectrum, some people have to worry about how to avoid the stamp duty on their latest purchase.

Maybe, OneLittleBabyTerror, you have enough money just to shove everything onto direct debit and not look for the best deal or save up for anything, or worry about how you will cover all your costs in a particular month, particularly if your partner's income is not a fixed amount each month, or look at the price of food before you decide what to buy, but not everyone has a life like that. Some people actually have to keep all their receipts and those of their partner and go through their finances carefully.

A little bit of condescension, why? does that prove that women who choose to stay at home are less respected, esp by working mothers.

Oh, and I'm sure you writing SHAM was in error? After all, people perfectly happy and secure with their own choices are seldom so fucking rude about other people's, no?

I don't do the finances,onelittlebaby.

I am far too busy swanning about, doing lunch and spending my DH's hard earned

Many times I see a thread on mumsnet on SHAM, it said they look after the domestics finances. I'm curious actually how many hours do you do this? I have all my bills on direct debit, so I reckon it's less than an hour a month. Do you all still write cheques?

I do think, if people think it's hard juggling childcare and work, now, a lot of women are going to find it worse in the future for the very reason that an awful lot of women are relying on nearby parents to help make it possible for them to go back to work and not spend their entire earnings on childcare, and with retirement ages creeping up (at a particularly rapid pace for women) there will be fewer available grandparents to help out. I know quite a few women who are only happy with their current arrangements because they feel safe and secure trusting their children to their own parents, but far more stressed by the thought of childminders, nurseries or nannies. I also agree that the current status quo has favoured women pursuing high powered and/or interesting careers who might well now have a choice whether or not to continue working, but not women in less well paid work or less interesting work who don't necessarily have any incentive whatsoever to go back to work after childbirth except for economic necessity (and given that there are now so many households bringing in two incomes, it almost certainly is viewed as an economic necessity for more women than it used to be).

I do also think that there is a lot more pressure now on women to go back to paid work whether they want to or have to or not, as there is less respect for the idea that a woman should actually want to stay at home to care for the house, garden, pets, domestic finances, day-to-day living arrangements and administration, be available to volunteer help in the local community in a big time-commitment sort of way and/or care for her children full time. You have to be quite thick skinned and confident in your choices generally to be able to ignore other peoples' judgments and to be very lucky to have the choices. And you do need to be aware that you are in a more vulnerable position if anything goes wrong with the main wage earner's career, or the relationship breaks up - but to argue that this means you are a fool to take the risk is as silly as saying you should never take risks in business. Life is all about weighing up risk and making decisions that you think are for the best and worth taking at the time, based on your own risk assessment. On that basis, I would say there is a huge lack of respect for women that can and do make the choice to "stay at home" and carve out a fulfilling role for themselves in that way.

OP I don't understand how a teacher's wage only covers the mortgage?! Your mortgage is too big, quite frankly, if that is the case.

OneLittleBabyTerror you have a point, right who is joining my design group for the multifunction zimmer,buggy,comode so that all the old yins can be gainfully employed until they drop dead

My mum who was in her 70s when my DDs were born used to say I hate going shopping an seeing old people using a buggy instead of a zimmer!

But we won't be all working till 70 despite what the state says. Who's going to employ the majority of the elderly? There are only so many B&Q can employ. It is very grim as far as I can see.

Its a grim thought isnt it?

I was wondering in the future when we all have to work till we are 70, who is going to watch the kids then, many younger grandparents currently provide free childcare that source of childcare is going to dry up?

cog I can only speak for myself and my family of course, but I know dh would like to be around more and therefore parent as he would wish to, not the way he has to due to time constraints. He tries his best but he leaves the house before 7am and gets back anytime between 5-6pm. He also has to travel more than he used to. He does lots with them (takes them biking, gardening, building in the back garden etc) but I know he would love to go to more school plays/events/assemblies...he gets to parents evenings and tries to get to sports day but its difficult and actually I do feel guilty at times that I get to see the plays, go to the assemblies, the church services etc and he doesnt.

He does miss out in that respect, but then of course, by the same token I miss out on adult company, having a lunch hour and being able to go to the loo when I need to!

One thing he is glad to have not done is the whole settling into pre school horror...he has seen the state I get in and is (secretly) glad that I have do it.

As I said upthread, parenting is about sacrifice IMO and in a good/healthy relationship both mothers and fathers should make sacrifices and - honestly - I think most do.

I think the principle that a woman should have more rights to a child just because you have a vagina is an incredibly dangerous one. One which if you extend the principle undermines the whole principle of sexual equality between men & women.

How can you seriously demand equality yet at the same time have additional rights based purely on the fact of your sex? Doesn't that completely undermine the very definition of the word?

Personally I think SouthWest's last paragraph are probably nearer the truth. Once a critical mass of families have 2 incomes then the law of supply & demand kicks in and prices go up. Same thing happened when tax credits came in. More people with more money chasing the same goods/services means that prices inevitably go up.