Childcare costs- someone talk me through the outrage

[Suzietwo]

Is it just me or does it seem a bit grabby of mothers to be getting cross about the change to child care rules?

I thought the rules were being changed to try and encourage people to work. Ie to give them more choice and be option generating aka A. Good. Thing.

But the stay at home mums voice in the media just sounds a bit self important.

Don't misunderstand me, I am entirely on favour of people and families making decisions which suit them. This isn't about that. It's about people being a bit....indulged? Make a choice, stick with it. The more choices which are available the better so if the gvnt can help (a different argument about whether they should) by offering money to assist people go to work, then fab. But don't demand it for making the choice to stay at home.

LittlechickPea

I have always been at home and never modicodled any of my dc . I find it strange that you suppose you would have done this yourself.
I don't think any life choice is more important than any other tbh, but find it strange there are so many wohp's who don't see it as a life choice.

I agree with that last point morethan, because I don't think it's being a SAH or a WOH which makes a parent mollycoddle their kids. You're either going to be that sort of parent or not. I've known some parents - WOH and SAH who are terribly precious about their little darlings, so I think if youre going to be like that you'll do it anyway.

Wasn't aimed at you potato.

"Mollycoddling" ah being at home with a sahp is being mollycoddled now.

Sorry little you're still being hypocritical if being a sahp is a lifestyle choice so is being a wp and in case you're unaware families with a sahp pay tax,often shed loads of it and in some cases more than those on an equal or less joint salary.

Many also sahp enable another parent to do the job they do whether it be forces families,those who have to do nights or strange shifts,those that have long week day hours etc,etc.Many parents simply have kids that would never enjoy childcare(kids and circumstances vary),some parents are carers or have SEN children,some live in shit areas with shit schools so need to make up the shortfall which long hours in daycare don't allow,some parents do it to help minimise family stress and help relationships etc,etc.

There are 101 reasons why parents are sahp but the over riding reason is simply because it is best for their children end of.The last I heard the needs of children(pre con dems)are pretty important so really as a society we should be supporting those that put the needs of their children first.

Now I think I'll go and mollycoddle my dc some more by taking them out for a ramble in the sun.

Oh and Janey you don't speak for all wp and your children don't speak for all children in daycare.

morethan why would you find it strange? I consider been there 24/7 modiculed. I guess it's interpretation of modiculed...

No one is asking you to justify the reasons people may want to stay at home. Just pointing out that an economy in crisis cannot afford to financially reward you for doing so. It's a simple case of
Economics.

And no- I speak for MY children just as you should speak for yours square pebbles. With all due respect, YOU are the one carping on about all these millions of unhappy kids who you don't even know. The rest of us are bothered about our own.

square is absolutely right.

If this is a tax break to reward those who work and help the UK to recover its crippled economy (which is what I understand littlechick to be saying) then it should apply to those couples where one stays at home to allow the other to do long/unpredictable hours/work away/ work on short notice and (quite possibly) make an enormous contribution to the economy.

This is a genuine situation for many. Not just what some SAHM 'claim' littlechick!

So. tax break for the wealthy or benefit? Which is it?

But its amazing what an economy in crisis can afford janey... Tax breaks for those on £150k each.

Littlechick did you really just say that you consider SAHP to be mollycoddling?!!

LittleChick

perhaps you are right, maybe being in the same house as your child 24/7 could be seen as being mollycoddled. To me its raising a child, being there for them, supporting, nurturing, educating, socialising. That doesn't make you over protective at all.
Not that I think a parent shouldn't outsource this and choose to work if they want to Its each to their own and a personal choice.

MmeT - I said earlier, I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the cut off point for tax breaks.... But I do know that running the economy is a fine balancing act because really high earners need incentivising to do those really high pressure job (particularly when they do it as a dual earner couple without the advantages of a partner at home to facilitate it )

If you go down the route of not giving such people incentives, they'll end not doing it or taking their business elsewhere- which backfires because if disadvantages the economy. Look at what happens when tax rates are pushed ridiculously high, at times when really high earners or
business which generate lots of money end up paying practically Everything to the taxman. It doesn't make the country better off because these individuals and companies simply get pissed off with it and move elsewhere.
It's all a balancing act. We've seen policies for quite a few years now fwhich act as a DIS incentive to work -look where that's for us.

Look where that's GOT us

Mmmm I think if you read my note you will see that I did acknowledge that been a WOHP is a lifestyle choice..

I am aware that one person in a relationship with a SAHP does pay tax not both of them. It also stacks that those joint incomes that earn more than a family with one SAHP will pay even more taxes. This argument has been had before on here so many times its becoming almost comic genius when it's raised over and over again. And those with both parents working also support each other thus enabling each other to work.. They too may both work away or one of them has to work away, work long hours, have stressful position in high pressure roles etc. But they make it work and find solutions so it works for their family. DF and I are one of those couples.

Regardless of whether the children enjoy childcare or not the point is, it is the parents responsibility to ensure they can financially provide/support their family before they start planning and having DC. It's parental responsibility and not Gov/society's responsibility..

Again I have already acknowledge that those parents with low income or unforeseen circumstances should get support (carers etc.)

And no i said I didn't say SAHP was modicodling, if you read my note...

Anyway, I'm off now to spend a fortune in town.
I've saved up my millions in benefit and going to relieve Wallis and Debenhams of much of their stock. I will be paying VAT and helping the economy.
I will then go down the pub, few drinks and a meal followed by a few cigs.
OMG you wohp's don't pay half as much tax, VAT and contribute to the economy half as much as us sahp's do.

'Mollycoddling'? Yes choosing to continue to care for my 9 month old baby, in person, full time, definitely led to him being mollycoddled?? Sarcasm aside I would imagine in some circumstances say when you have adopted children, that it might be important to 'over indulge' them in this way.

Oh and morerthan- I agree that saying being at home all the time is mollycoddling is a sweeping generalisation. Though it's no more ridiculous than saying that those of us who outsource some aspects of childcare and domestic stuff are breeding a generation of miserable children- which has also been stated on here (not by you I hasten to add!)

It's a shame a small number of posters seem unable to debate a serious economic issue without degenerating into slagging off and belittling others choices

Enjoy your spree more than

Goldenbear I assume you are having a pop at me as you well know I have adopted childran. As I have said to you on other threads "sometimes silence is golden".. So as I have said to you on other threads I will now be avoiding any further debate with you...

Christ littlechick I didn't realise the context of that comment re adopted children. That was way below the belt- plain nastiness

I think from other threads we all know that goldbear can get like that when she has nothing else to say.

Yes it was a pop at me..

Now I shall see how this debate has developed later because I have to go and meet with a client (work) so our company can carrying on making profits and employing people across the country in a difficult trading environment... Paying those wages that support families purchase those goods and pay VAT

I suppose I'm trying to establish who I'm debating with here. As I really take issue with someone who is so egotistical that they are arguing essentially people should emulate their lifestyle choices as their way is the right way and at the same time not actually be genuinely living this way. I am really confused by someone who on other threads has contradicted themselves with regards to having DC.

And this happened in the last thread I was on and Littlechickpea was on. She/he claimed they made it all work, I.e having a 'family' and both worked in demanding jobs by all accounts. I asked Little how exactly she/he did this, the details. LittleChickpea, won't divulge any of that info and says she is not debating with me anymore. Are her experiences relatable at all, does he/she have a nanny, is she/he talking about SAH with babies very young children and making that work with you both working in demanding, time consuming jobs or is she/he talking about older children which is a different thing to manage. I'm not going to listen to this preaching if it's largely removed from the truth. Conveniently Little has to disappear for her/his hugely demanding job when these tricky questions come up!

She said she's ttcing 1st child, aren't adopted DC your first?

come ON

don't drag rucks and disagreements all around the boards fgs