What's the single biggest thing the government could do to help parents?

Free Childcare, whatever option a parent may choose, nanny, childminder, nursery, after school clubs, holiday camps etc.

BUt I'm not saying we should just pay SAHM - we should pay all parents. SAHP would be compensated for loss of earnings from having to give up work, and WOHP would be compensated for cost of childcare. And maybe those who don't have a choice about working because they need to finacially would be able to SAH.

Obv. govt shouldn't be telling people what to do, and obv. atm they kind of are, but rather than compounding the wrong by making it even more beneficial for parents to work and therefore less beneficial to SAH they shoudl reverse the original mistaken encouragement

Never said the gov. should be telling people what to do prufrock but that doesn't seem to stop them trying.
The q was about what gov could do to help parents and I still think more 'parents' would be helped by tax deductible childcare than by paying mothers who stay at home to do so.
In most of those cases there has been some calculation leading to the conclusion that it is affordable for them to stay at home whereas most mothers who work do so because there is some element of 'needing' to financially (am I right? not sure I'm expressing myself v.well) therefore the ones going out to work 'need' the taxpayers largesse more. Obv. gross generalisation.
Also I think the gov. aim is to get us out to work after first year therefore whatever they do has to fit in with that aim if they are ever going to do it.
Oh and I don't remotely think they will. Gordie didn't even increase the voucher sum this year.
Twinset on what was just about my one and only foray onto netmums they were being surveyed about 'what the gov. could do for them' so I think that was what she was referring to. I just thought huh they're asking the wrong people!! SO maybe now they are asking the right ones?
Maybe the answer should be pass tha law allowing breastfeeding has anyone said that yet?

Do something to replace tax credits which are incomprehsible to many of us, and other people are too scared to apply for because of the history of cockups, adn people then being told to pay back thousands of pounds which they can't afford. I want tax deductible childcare.
Proper funding for special needs and really good specialist schools for children with special needs. Inclusion simply does not and cannot work for a lot of children with special needs.

tessa Jowell was talking about issues raised by netmums this morning, did she mean netmums or is this thread to do with her.

Agree with everything prufrock is saying

Go prufrock go!

Actually 1dilemma, bottom ine is that govt should not be dictating how parents manage their lives, so should be giving them a benefit for being a parent, not for comforming to an ideal that they shouldn't even be promoting.

If you weren't working youjr childcare expenses would be a big fat 0, but then so would your income.

you're right bozza - i don't think i am typical - i was just feeling a bit got at (elsewhere) about what sahm's do not being valued at all (which when I practically have a full time job atm chairing our pre-school committee really really p's me off)

But I do maintain that childcare costs are because you have children. If you didn't have kids you could work and keep all your wages. Or you could not work and get no wages and sit on your butt all day. When you have them, you can work for less wages, or not WOHM and get no wages, and run around all day.

Option 1 - (working) - it's the kids that cause the difference. Option2 (not working), it's still the kids that cause the difference.

MOH - you're right, it's different for single parents. But giving you a tax allowance for your child would mean that you could use that saving to pay for childcare

I don't think you are a typical case though prufrock. Because I only work 3 days I have a bit of both, I am earning less and helping support DH's career by being around two days a week, so he knows that he can do whatever on those days, also a lot of the housework/cooking/errands get sorted on those days, but I am also helping to ensure we have the standard of living we want by working 3 days/week. There is no way that if I didn't work DH would be earning anything like enough to cover what I earn even after childcare. And as time goes on we will be paying less childcare - DD will be eligible for nursery grant in September, she will go to school the year after and I may request a change to my hours, so I will be earning more after childcare costs.

You're right NN

in answer to the op
Bring house prices down
Bring house prices down
Bring house prices down

But I disagree prufrock I have childcare expenses because I work not because I have children. Bottom line is gov. wants Mothers to work (imho after first year -see below) therefore it has to take costs of childcare into mind. It would be way way easier for me not to. (sorry if this is argumentative I'm feeling cranky tonight!)

It is entirely different though Prufrock if you are a single parent working. I don't have a spouse to look after my dd so I pay childcare, I'll get almost 0 tax credit this year as they don't know their arse from their elbow. I have no choice but to work the only relief I get is 20% off my council tax as I'm the only adult over 18 living at my address.

And on a seperate note.. I pay tax and NI and yet I can't get my DD into an NHS dentist so although I can't afford private health and dental I am forced to pay ~£8 a month just so my dd can have 2 check-ups a year.. that works out that I'm paying ~£50 a check up for my 4YO.

Oh and before somebody brings out the arguement that working parents contribute more to teh economy because tehy pay taxes, tosh. The only reason my dh is able to work so hard, and therefore earn so much, and therefore pay so much tax (which I reiterate I do not begrudge) is because I am at home organising his life. Having just done our tax returns I know that our joint tax bill last year was considerably more than in the 2 years that we had kids and both worked

OK - you work, you get paid your wage.

You have children, you either no longer work, and therefore no longer get paid, or you work and pay some of your wages out in childcare. The extra expense is caused by you having children, not by you continuing to work. And whilst I do completely appreciate that childcare expenses are high (it's one of the many reasons I am a SAHM), and there should be more, good quality, reasonably priced provision; I think it's just part and parcel of the costs of having children which should be taken into account when you make a decision to have them.

I lose money by having given up work, you lose money by paying for childcare. So we should both be compensated by state funding for the having children bit, not for the working whilst having them bit.

prufrock I don't quite get your last para about childcare is an expense caused by having children rather than by working I know if I wasn't working my childcare expenses would be a big fat zero!
Do people not feel that the gov is pretty clear on what it thinks we 'should' be doing, Mother stay at home until child is 1 then return to work (perhaps claiming our 'right' for flexible working!)if we refuse to work then the children 'MUST' go to nursery at 3 so that any ill effects of their parents parenting can be neutralisd before it's too late!! I certainly feel this gov.prefers both parents to work (with the exception of the tax credit system at the higher end) most other things seem to be saying 'work' to me.

Pay effin child benefit to a 1/2 British child ( registered in the UK but living abroad) Where mum has paid into the Uk system for 20 years and gets a fat ZERO back . ( debatable if she will get a pension either)

sorry, had to go last night - an unpleasant indcident happened in car park near our house - heard woman screaming and man shouting madly. called police (typical was here alone as dh out)... basically was some sort of alcohol-fuelled domestic - horrible.

anyway, yes - stealth taxes - I really meant things like council tax going up, VAT, NI, indirect taxation, I suppose. our council tax is 2k a year for a small-ish blooming cottage. unbelieveable. oh, and keeping the 40% tax threshold low so more and more people are earning over it but yet are by no means earning a huge salary.

Expat - sorry, should have said that rent is cheap relatively to house prices. we are renting atm and our place would prob sell for about 380-ish yet we rent it for under 1,000 pcm.

expat - you have such good sarcastic tone in your posts!

Pension?

Haahaaa.

Can't afford to save a bean.

But that's okay because I'm pretty well resigned to the fact that I will have to work until I am physically or mentally completely incapable of doing so.

Oh, yes, renting is SO cheap! Especially here in Edinburgh. It's beans! Especially when you get turfed out every 6 months and have to stump up another deposit which you'll never get back, fees and moving costs.

Dirt cheap, yeah. Poor BTL landlords. My heart bleeds for them and for the hypocritical government which pays lip service to the working poor whilst not only shoving a dagger in their backs to the hilt but also twisting it round.

Actually I found it incredibly difficult to afford my dds childcare prior to school as a single parent working full time.

yes - flipping queen mother giving things to william and harry before she died. I was outraged.

lots of rich people do pay IT though: that's how the national gallery gets most of its new stuff I believe.

and agree on pensions too. the problems started a long time ago.

The issue with pension surpluses is around one of valuation primarily. Because of the overoptimistic ways in which pension funds were valued, companies took pension contribution holidays which lasted for years in some cases ...