New childcare tax break to be announced by the Government today - what do you think?

For truly productive and creative people a few years out of paid work is no barrier to long term success.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you're going to have children, you should give them the best start you can, no matter what.

Anairofhope, surely after 9- 12 months maternity leave, most babies are no longer EBF - nutritional needs met by solids at that age. No reason to stay at home just because of BF - I bf my twins until 10 months and by then it was just morning and evening

It is if you breastfeed on demand. I need to be with my child 24/7 day and night and so far work does not allow women to take their babies or toddler to work.

The more the child feeds the more milk supply is stable and at the right levels when you introduce long abcences from the child and pumping and the full night sleep to be productive at work bf and work come in to conflict.

The benefits of bf get better the longer the child is bf it lows adult obsety cancer heart problems hightens IQ improves the immune system saving the NHS money and paying more taxs as a higher earner.

Breastfeeding and work aren't mutually exclusive.

I disagree i have two under five and im fighting to stay at home and raise them myself. I bf them this benefits everyone my health theirs and the tax pay because of the health benefits bf provides. I could not bf ob demand if i was at work.

I provide them with a stable emotionally responsive main cearer so they will form healthy long term relationships when adults.

bf and emotional stubility provide the foundation for learning and increased IQ so that they will be more productive and higher earming adults.

I can target learning more to their needs and interest to incearse yheir learning protential.

Children are our future tax payer and decision makers they have more value than you are giving them Xena.

SAHM are influancing the future population and need investing in and respect.

For truly productive and creative people a few years out of paid work is no barrier to long term success.

I totally agree that there should be more visibility of what a salary of 50k actually gives you to take home.

And I think the comparison with the benefits cap of 26k is a useful one. Remember that the 26k is tax free. Person on 50k, after tax, has about 35k.

But. Then there are the extras. If we assume 4 kids, as I know those figures from personal experience...

3k child benefit for each - so 29k, and 38k.

Free school dinners - for 4 children this is about £44 a week, which is equal to about £1500 a year, so 30.5k against 38k.

Free bus passes - for 4 children in our area this is equivalent to £600 a year - for 4 kids, that's another £2400 a year - so 33k against 38k.

Council Tax benefit - let's say another 1k a year (that is less than many bands in our area) - 34k against 38k.

Plus many school trips are subsidised for 'low incomes'

And then the person on the supposed 50k salary has to pay for transport to work, clothes for work, possibly child care etc etc

Do you see what I mean? I am not for one SECOND suggesting that life is 'easy' on benefits. What I am saying is that the difference between the figures that the public say is 'difficult to manage on' (26k benefits) and the figure that is portrayed as a 'top income' (50k) is vanishingly small or even non-existent.

You do indeed give the impression that you think of most people as fools, Xenia.

People can't flock back into work if the jobs aren't there, and they don't get to be choosy about what salary they'll accept nowadays, either.

I always say what I mean. I think the poor have no idea how little of £50k full time workers keep after tax and that should be made much clearer.

If women rely more on benefits that is more fool them isn' t it? They don't have a lower IQ. They can pass exams so why be the idiot who picks low paid work or panders to a man cleaning at home whilst he earns more? Be the individualist - look after yourself, work hard, don't rely on men to earn and don't clean up after men.

One thing this recession is doing very well is giving a very good kick up the bottom of some women and indeed plenty of them are now flocking back to full time work , those with under 5s and that is hugely good for children, for women, for equality within couples and for the nation. Win win all round.

the mother subject to the new benefits cap of the ridiculously high sum of £26,000 a year who for that will have her housing paid for and not have to do a day's work in her life...The benefit cap? Far far too high - £26k a year for doing absolutely nothing! What has this country come to.

Thank you Xenia, for finally saying what you mean. Please, in future why not just say this instead of dressing up your "scrounger-bashing" as some kind of cod feminist philosophy.

I'm sure a high-flyer such as yourself understands perfectly well the points I am making. Feigning ignorance whenever you're challenged is silly, and may I say it's getting more than a little tedious.

If you can't understand the points I'm making then I'm sure, as a feminist, you will perhaps understand what the Fawcett Society are saying about benefit cuts:

Women rely more on benefits and tax credits than men, in particular due to their caring responsibilities and their relative economic inequality and poverty. In fact, on average, one-fifth of women?s income is made up of welfare payments and tax credits compared to one-tenth for men. Put another way, benefits make up twice as much of women?s income than men?s.

I'm not quite sure what the pionts being made are. Mine is accurate and it was simply that a single mother on that sum has not that much more and in some cases less than the mother subject to the new benefits cap of the ridiculously high sum of £26,000 a year who for that will have her housing paid for and not have to do a day's work in her life whereas her twin sister working for £50k day in day out perhaps has less money whilst the benefits claimants on look on with green eyed jealousy because they think the £50k is some kind of rich person.

The benefit cap? Far far too high - £26k a year for doing absolutely nothing! What has this country come to.

My daughter got an interest only mortgage with a lower % than 35% last month but arguing these details is not my point.

My point stands that you would have to have a deposit for such a mortgage well out of the reach of most single people.

I would rather concern myself with the vast majority of people who earn a lot less than £50,000pa, singles and couples, who are set to be hit hard with the combination of the benefit cap and the housing benefit/room tax changes.

Let's hope your single mum on £50,000pa manages to keep her job, otherwise she will find out just how hard it is for everyone else.

You're always telling us that if only girls had more ambition than working in a nail bar they could discover that there are tons of jobs for them on £50,000pa, ignoring the fact that there are comparatively very few jobs in the employment market which pay that kind of salary either for women or men - and most of them in any case are in London.

Yes I agree that ideally, all women would be educated to a high level and become ambitious, independent, upper-decile workers whose long-term economic circumstances are unaffected by childbirth.

But that is so far from the reality for most women it remains a philosophy rather than a reality.

You also ignore market forces. A salary of £50,000 or above represents the upper decile of the labour market. That means you can strive all you like, but only one in ten people will ever have a chance of earning that kind of money.

Your example is so extreme, it is completely meaningless. So why don't you just say what you really mean, Xenia, about single mothers on benefits?

Also I really feel for single mothers who are dependent on ex for maintenance and help with childcare costs as men often use this as power over the mother. Sad but true. Would hate to be in that situation rather be poor and independent.

Also sometimes you don't "pick" the father of your child eg when you are an impressionable 18 year old! What a silly thing to say. Also circs around fathers not paying maintenance cane be complex.

I am "middle income" working mum. Receive no maintenance or help with childcare costs from the father of my child. Pay £1100 childcare per month from my own net salary. My partner does not contribute as father of child does not and also I earn a lot more than my partner so don't feel he should.

However we are flat broke like many on similar incomes who pay out a huge % in tax and childcare. I can't afford a tube travel card and we eat basic meals and spend all our evenings and weekends doing housework as can't afford help. we both work long hours but is only way we can see to perhaps have a chance of getting a better standard of living in the future - but if we have a baby this is unlikely to happen

The single mum who's a high earner is also hopefully likely to have her head screwed on about picking a father for her child who isn't a knob and pays maintence voluntarily or if not how to go about extracting it.
You'd hope do at least.

I think the wider point about how costs as well as income need to be considered when looking at how various measures affect various people is sound.

However, this is a vastly more pressing problem for poor families than it is for anyone earning £50,000 pa - single parent or not.

The Government?s claim that work will pay for the UK?s most disadvantaged families under Universal Credit is simply wrong. (Barnardo's)

I'm not denying that things have changed, but they could have changed for Xenia's single mum as well (partner deserted after property was acquired, property acquired pre-2008 etc).

Anyway, I think the wider point about how costs as well as income need to be considered when looking at how various measures affect various people is sound.

My daughter got an interest only mortgage with a lower % than 35% last month but arguing these details is not my point.

I just want those on low incomes to know that families or single mothers on £50,000 probably have exactly the same net disposable income as someone on £20k or state benefits. That is the really interesting bit about our welfare state. As benefits are a reasonable living there is not a huge difference between many people working very hard and those who do nothing.

The fact my £50k single mother may be a rarity does not change my figures or analysis. I have not plucked my figures out of thin air. there are single mothers on £50k getting no support from a father or single by choice who work full time and have a net income around benefits level. Yes they may well own a house when they are nearly old but that does not put extra food on their table now. I agree that if we make her a housewife and her husband works and earns £50k on my sums they save about £14k a year on childcare so they do have more - £22k after mortgage and tax. But we need to take travel to work, suits, work clothes off that for the husband. Say another £5k which leaves them with not a huge amount. So those thinking £50k wow those people are rich just need to get out their calculators.

My advice is women should pick careers much better paid than £50k. We need to return to the women who earn £1000 a day thread really and ensure daughters are fullly aware what they might earn and seize the day and have a great high paid career not go into beauty therapy or work down the local Tescos.

Doctrine you say we only had a 15% deposit. I'm guessing you're not a single mum.

I invite you to read this. Things may have moved on since you got your mortgage agreement. You now need at least 35% equity. Many providers have now withdrawn IO mortgages completely. NatWest, Nationwide, RBS, Co-op, Santander have all withdrawn IO mortgages completely, along with other smaller building societies too - Newcastle, Coventry, Leek. Lloyds have now blocked IO mortgages for anyone who thinks they can pay off their loan through savings and ISAs. Virgin have substantially amended their criteria. You have to have a big wedge of LTV deposit, a guaranteed pension lump sum, a large amount of savings or investments or own other property/properties to get approval for IO.

Regardless of that - you are not a single mum earning £50,000pa with no maintenance coming in, and solely responsible for paying for childcare are you? So your experience doesn't actually compare with the example Xenia has plucked out of thin air.

The point I'm making is, there are vanishingly few people in the position Xenia describes.

And the point I would make to you is, I hope you have a clear repayment strategy - because you may well need it.

Olgaga, I'm paying an interest only mortgage and we only had a 15% deposit (and could have had much less)

Xenia you are the one who is always pointing out that childcare is a joint cost and that women should expect the fathers to pay half. Presumably your high-earning woman would too? That's why I mention it. Yes obviously a lot of women receive nothing from their children's fathers (doh) - I'm just saying you haven't accounted for the possibility that this woman would receive child maintenance - as most do.

If you want an interest only mortgage, you have to have 35-50% deposit, so you are talking about someone who has substantial equity to start with, plus a means of paying off the loan (such as a pension lump sum) if capital gains aren't enough. It's called "affordability criteria". However, like everyone else on an interest-only mortgage, your single parent is banking on the capital gains to pay off the loan plus a reasonable return on her investment.

You have acknowledged yourself that only the top 5% of all workers earn over £50,000. The average wage is half that, and the median is £18,500.

So only 5 in every 100 workers earn £50,000. How many of them will be women? Well women's earnings are still on average 20% below men's. I wouldn't put it higher than 1% of all workers earning over £50,000 being your mythical well-off female single parents.

However, if you can find me the figures which say otherwise I'll happily accept that I am wrong.

olg, many iof we single parents are not paid a penny by an ex and have no contribution to childcare from them. Don't think we live in clover with masses of child support. Many men sadly just disappear and don't pay a penny so my example is not that rare.

Also plenty of those single mothers take out interest only mortgages so will never be free of the debt so much the same as the single parent not working whose rent is paid by the state but yes I agree if it is a repayment mortgage of £14k a year after 25 - 30 y ears she might indeed then when she's about 55 be better off than the single parent in rented place who does not work.

I agree there should be more publication of people's pay at various levels after they pay typical housing costs for that area, childcare costs, travel to work and of course tax and national insurance. I don't think those in areas like Wales where very few people pay more tax than they get back from the system have any idea that the £50k single mothers or even families are no better off than a Welsh £20k worker with cheaper house prices. They think the Londoner on £50k has gold cars and expensive holidays.

I think media need to avertise net figures for the 40-60k year groups and highlight how much tax they do pay. That kind of salary more common in london .southeast where living costs and childcares higher.

People seem to this this group are rich when in reality they worse off than benefit claimants whos low income topped up or unemployed and all their money is net so 26k cap they literally get 26k combined benefits.

If i had housing benefit paying rent then i would have more disposable income

Takeway 2 we like twins as my rents £725 a year rising for tiny 1reception 3bed semi detached terrace on new build estate.
My coucil tax £153 power about 110 per month and water around 45, phone, internet and tv £60 and £15 house contents.

Food we try keep to 250-300 a month,

only middle child has nursery/preschool which is £160 a month.

School age child does rainbows , gym and cheerleading on average 100 a month. breckfast club opnly once a week £2 so can get child 2 to diffrent school in opposite direction.

School dinners we fused to just do 4days packed lunches and friday school dinners depending on how skint we are this week shes been all packed lunches and whinging about it this morning but school dinners have to be paid weekly lump sum and start of week.
would love to do school dinners all time but when all 3 at school will mean £120 month school dinners.

As for seeing pensioners free bus passes yet child cant get to school. How can we have free education without free transport lea rarly pay and school places not enough so some travel miles and pay more for it.

we live off cupboards shop aldis, lidls buy reduced and value foods and had some interesting creations. Hate week before payday.

on 46k you keep child benefit.

Xenia in part agree with you but

I reckon lost maybe 5grand-8grand off salary whilst taking break.
because wages not rising that fast and retail was crap money.it depends what person does before having a baby.
So if public sector frozen for 3years then they take 3year break providing can get old job back.

You made great sacrafices ie marriage, financial in earl;y days paying half salary to childcare , private schools for 5! But paid off as you have education, skill and sheer dogged determination and ambition not to let knockbacks and others bother you , you have your priciples and stick to them and you offer some good advice and valuable lessons however nopt every mum can earn 100k or even 50k. Most work thats fits in around kids is low paid min wage and unskilled and jobs so competative mums are bottom of pile of applications as they inflexible.

My husbands 40 yes hes made couple bad choices stayed in couple companies too long and on 41k hes take no career breaks but he shoul;d be higher up and earning more than he is, it bother him but find in past sometimes its right place right time, lucky break know some useless over promoted area managers in past who sell their garnny to get ahead.

Also family time is being eroded. whos keeping an eye on the teens? parents working opposite shifts just to get by hard on kids mine cry a lot they miss their daddy some days.

people think will get better when starts school but thats even more incovieniant and now childcare vouchers not availiable to over 5s and 2000 would last 2half months full time nursery.

How will parents afford and find good school age childcare without vouchers?

The ones getting tax credits an what ever else wont care about the middle and ones 100,000 plus wont care either. I guess we squeezed middle as theres so few of us to kick up a fuss we easy targets.

Child benefits never been enough to raise a family but it helps pay uniform, hobbies ect. shoes it was recognition that every child matters an every child treated equally.

If its good enough for oaps.
in 12years i worked fulltime I paid ni and tax. also student loan back.

I only had one lot stat maternity leave as left work before 1st child.

Eldest had pointless child trust and health in pregnancy grant was waste money even midwives admitted it.

I know people on low income who got 500quid maternity grant for each child they had . Now its restricted to 1st child but during labour years they had larger families as meant more money read earlier one woman got 500quid a week in cb a alone.

add in housing benefit. tax credits and child benefit and they dont count maintaince from absent father as income.

I agreed with tax credits scrapped for lower earners even though lost mine but dont agree with cb or getting rid childcare vouchers.

Also whilst im on rant mode discovered new loans for business start ups only 18-30 makes me at 32 too old.

I never planned to be a sahm mum just kind of happened.

we always wanted 3kids
all 3were planned
we could afford the kids without tax credits or any other benefits.
we would adapt if lost cb but would be kids that suffer really.
they would have to give up something or would need to make further cutbacks.

I know it sound terribly old fashioned but if could transfer my tax allowance to hubby whilst im not working I would as family be better off. would give him up to 18tax free then.

Xenia, you are making me well up. I thought you were going to say I should have trained for better paid work! (true)

But what is the benefit of owning a house? We can't afford to move, because we live in a high house price area and would pay £££ in stamp duty (25k+). Then if we need care in old age it is sold and used to pay that bill. If you don't own a house, that is paid for by the state. So a house, although certainly an asset, is not always realisable in cash terms.