childcare costs

[splashymcsplash]

This is something that has been brought up time and time again.. childcare costs are very expensive, especially in London/SE.

AIBU to ask you to sign this e-petition so maybe, just maybe, something could be done about it?

So basically you want poor people to stop breeding, is what it boils down to.

And only higher rate taxpayers to have children. The man at higher rate, the woman SAHM.

If the woman wants to be a higher rate taxpayer she needs to not have any babies.

Sounds great. Oh wait, sounds familiar as well.

Do you work for the conservative party by any chance?

Mila, I don't think they're more deserving, like I said, I would like to see more help for everyone.

But I just don't agree with your logic. You seem to be saying that working parents should just suck up the cost of childcare, they should have saved that amount before having kids.

But I could turn around and say, well, you knew you wanted to stay home with your kids, you shouldn't have had them until you saved up enough money to stay home with them comfortably.

But I'd rather not say any of that. I'd rather the government stopped spending billions on defence and bloated bureaucracies and bail outs, and instituted some policies to help make life more affordable for all families (whether that's in childcare, transport costs, housing costs, etc.)

Life in the UK is incredibly expensive and I think that instead of fighting amongst ourselves we should be demanding that the government do something about it.

kungfu some political ideologies put having a "progressive" society very high - eg some scandinavian countries - they don't mind what it does to the figures as they believe it is the right thing to do.

I think that there are calculations to be done about that elusive thing "happiness" - if we had more flexibility in work, and people could play to their strengths more (work/life balance) - maybe the bill for depression etc would drop right down. That costs us millions.

So it really is complicated isn't it

I guess you look in detail at a country who you think have it right and see how they are doing it and what the upsides and downsides are.

Mila, should parents have foreseen the severity of the current recession? The massive hikes in utility bills?

It's not possible to plan for every eventuality.

Milamae do you really think that working is a lifestyle choice not worthy of subsidy, while there should be more subsidy for those who choose to stay at home?

That's pretty barking

Don't be so ridiculous Sardine.Re the 36K there have been threads before pointing out that those on the lower higher tax bracket have very little difference in pay than those in receipt of benefits the reason being you're taxed more and get nothing in benefits.By your logic the very rich and the poor should find funding childcare easy but those in the middle can just go hang.

Sorry I don't notice many SAH parents moaning,they just get on with it and accept that there is very little money to go round,they chose to have kids so how they fund raising them either themselves or in childcare is simply down to them and nobody else.

Sorry I don't buy the cut defence logic either,the world is a dangerous place at the moment.I kind of like having a strong army and airforce,I also kind of like the NHS.I don't particularly want either meddled with so working mums get help with their childcare costs.

No widow I don't think that,I think all parents should just get on and pay for their own parenting choices.

"By your logic the very rich and the poor should find funding childcare easy but those in the middle can just go hang."

And that is indeed the case

agree childminders etc are unpaid.. the trouble is that many people need 50 hours of childcare a week which they pay for out of their taxed income. So often ridiculous situation of low-paid woman, paying an even lower-paid woman to take care of her child so she can remain in a job. (Because if you take a five year break from some careers, that's it..Or even if you stay in a job as a working mum your career prospects are seriously hit.) Obviously most people think looking after their children is the most important job and would pay more if they could..
Not sure why people so upset at the thought of govtsubsidised childcare when we have schools, hospitals, wars etc etc.
And I really dislike the argument of don't have children if you can't afford them. Quite frankly, with the cost of living and recession nowadays, if you applied that logic, only the well-off would have children.

No, only the well off wouldn't have children. Just like the present many poor families will continue to have children and get on with it, they just don't moan about it all the time.

"Don't be so ridiculous Sardine.Re the 36K there have been threads before pointing out that those on the lower higher tax bracket have very little difference in pay than those in receipt of benefits the reason being you're taxed more and get nothing in benefits.By your logic the very rich and the poor should find funding childcare easy but those in the middle can just go hang."

You really are trying to get sympathy for higher rate tax payers, while slagging off people for "whinging" that they can't afford childcare so they can work? ie they are earning way less than that?

Totally loopy!

Did you even LOOK at the link I gave you to show how salaries are distributed in the UK? "Average joes" do NOT earn anywhere nnear higher rate tax money!

I think your ideas are totally skewed.

If you genuinely think that the average higher rate tax payer brings home the same amount of money as someone living on benefits then you are quite mad I'm afraid.

When I was in my old job (less than top tax rate still) I brought home hundreds of pounds a week.

Now I am on JSA I get £60 a week.

Mmmmm yes that's exactly the same

So basically you don;t want to enable low income people to work to improve their quality of life and life chances for your children

Because higher rate tax payers should come first

Boo bloody hoo

I am sitting here like this

What people don't seem to get is that 36K earned by single income plus SAHP isn't bad and probably doesn't need help. But if 36K is joint income of two fulltime working parents, then childcare takes such a big chunk out of it, that the family ends up with less than if one of the parents gave up work.

Benefits/help should not be calculated solely on how much the joint income is, but offset against outgoings which are essential in order to actual earn this income in the first place. The means testing in the way it is done at the moment is totally flawed.

It's ridiculous that in a certain income bracket people end up less well if they're working than if they gave up work.