to think that 20 grand on benefits a year is loads

[MrsBucketxx]

considering they dont pay any income tax.

just watching we pay your benefits program and worked out that this is over 30 grand if it was a normal tax paying salary.

why was this not mentioned.

Preschool funding has been in for ages peanut My older 2 dc got in for 2 1/2 hours and they are older than yours. Although maybe your nursery didn't do it.

And peanut prescription are free until baby is one so more than 9 nine months.

^^ I think you've confused me with JessicaBeatriceFletcher, PBM.

I disagree with (much of) what she's said on this thread about the childless.

parsing - I'd be interested to know what you disagree with and why. Not to get into an argument, just genuinely.

The stuff about childless people not contributing so much towards other people's children, JBF.

I really, genuinely, don't have a problem with the idea that I get taxed according to my income, and a family with children receive benefit according to their needs. Including education, healthcare (not just prescriptions), etc.

As PBM agrees, we ourselves all benefitted from this when we were children. In fact I got more than the current generation because I had a free university education on top of everything else.

BTW, every model has anomalies. Either you restrict payouts to the desperately poor, and then the less poor complain that they're getting nothing despite paying in. Or you pay more to those in work, when they don't "need" it.

And whichever way you do it, there's always a cut off point and the people just over it will whine 'Snot Fair.

It's unavoidable that someone, somewhere will feel unhappy.

My personal preference is for the "all put in all take out" model, again in agreement with some on here, where there are very few people who end up never putting in or never taking out.

According to the calculator even with 3 dc our family unit put in 5k more than we take out. Not sure how accurate this is. However, that is the way it should be. Benefits should be paid according to need.

Nothing wrong with disagreement! It's healthy.

My stand is, as I said, that I have no problem paying my whack towards schools and education because I will, assuming I live to be old and unhealthy, benefit from those kids who go into the NHS when I am older.

However it is generally the case that single people and those people who choose not to have kids do end up paying in more than they get out. That's a fact, rather than a complaint. They are often, as I said earlier, clobbered in the workplace, too.

Personally, I think it was right to introduce university fees. I think it is fair to pay for education to a certain point but not ad infinitum. Whether the current system is the fairest, possibly not, but then other taxes and benefits will always penalise some section of the population. Would means testing be better?

I DO think that there are certain degrees and courses that perhaps could be state funded in their entirety, such as medicine, IF the student signs a contract that in return they will work for X years in the NHS before potentially going into a private practice.

Oh agreed, childless people do get clobbered. It's never bothered me. I reckoned I didn't have to do the wailing toddler or teenage sulks, so it was a fair trade.

martini84 - i am not sure i follow what you mean about pre-school funding? I said i paid full childcare until the preschool funding from the term after my dc turned 3.

Taxes don't just go towards helping families though. Everyone benefits from the tax pot in many different ways, even if you don't claim anything for yourself you still benefit from it's spenditure overall.

Alot of people do seem to dislike children and parents nowadays though. People seem to be getting less and less tolorant of them and less tolorant of parents in general. I don't know what changed?

"Personally, I think it was right to introduce university fees. I think it is fair to pay for education to a certain point but not ad infinitum. Whether the current system is the fairest, possibly not, but then other taxes and benefits will always penalise some section of the population. Would means testing be better?"

I think the problem was too many people were going to Uni doing too many coarses which weren't worth the paper they were written on and too many people were graduating but not getting jobs because they either studied a field with little work, changed their mind or the degree was pointless in the first place.

As a result millions was being spent and degrees were becoming less of something to be proud of and more of "everyone has a degree these days."

So i think the fees were right in some respects because it cuts out the micky mouse coarses and the "i may as well go to uni" crowd. Now hopefully people will be more careful in chosing what they want to study, make sure there is actually work in the field they want to do and take the whole thing more seriously. One time of day people if someone had a degree it meant they were very smart and wanted to progress into a career. Up until the fees came in people were just going for the sake of going and not bringing much of out it and degrees became 2 a penny.

I think the fees are very steep and with some thought a way could be found around the harshness of it but something needed to be done in some respect.

peanut - oh that's easily. Entitlement and behaviour. Seriously. I work somewhere where I see mothers and toddlers on a weekly basis and it scares me to see how a lot of mothers behave and allow their children to behave. Don't get me wrong, I do not for one minute think we should go back to being "seen and not heard" but I think the pendulum, in some cases, may have swung too far in terms of centring so much around children.

Peanutbuttermum - You must be pretty well off to get no help at all.

I see that too but surely that is some parents and not all parents? I certainly don't let mine behave in such a way and i don't think i am entitled to anything.

I don't know about the centring around children bit - i mean there are again extremes with that too. Some parents let their kids run around the streets causing mayham, often leading to crime and anti social behaviour when those kids are teens whilst others molly cuddle and go the other way. Many are inbetween and let their kids be kids without causing mayham and without wrapping them up in cotton wool.

There is a balance but now it seems no matter who you are or how your kids behave people are just not tolorant or call kids and their parents horrible things like no one should have children anymore.

What is "pretty well off?"

Also I think people are living in much smaller properties nowadays peanutbuttermum most children off my generation grew up in houses, but now most children I know are in 1/2 bed flats.

I mean you said you didnt have high flying jobs, but you must be on a higher wage than most people not to get help at all.

pete i am very curious to know what you consider pretty well off?

Apolies peanut. Misread your post. Feeding at the same time.

There is a sense of entitlement from some people, on this thread, people have claimed to be comfortably off staying at home.

Someone even claimed that men were ripping out women's IUD's to force them to have more children and keep them at the beck and call of men (how many women are suffering this way??) - sorry not sure whether that comment was on this thread or not....but we are really scraping the barrel here to justify why some women have child after child. Some do see it as a choice. They have no qualifications and no real incentive to get any, the only jobs available to them are low paid, so therefore having children gets them out of taking these low paid jobs.

There shouldnt be a choice to have more children and expect others to pick up the bill. Of course now - someone will come along and say there are few teenage mothers. Few women who are not planning to go back to work (or even start work). Why can we not limit child benefit to 2 children and a council house to 2 beds....

If you dont get help then well off. I would say 40k + household income would be classified as well off.

Peanut and Jessica did either of you go to uni.

IF the student signs a contract that in return they will work for X years in the NHS before potentially going into a private practice.

This would be a breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.