To disagree with 3/4 year old children having more childcare paid for

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24199711

I feel the goverment should pay for education rather than childcare. 15 hours a week is enough to meet a child's educational needs for pre school. At a time of austerity, I feel there are bigger spending priorities. (Providing enough school places for children who are of complusory school age!)

If you choose to have chidlren then you should pay to look after them. I feel that labour's set of proposals are totally unaffordable and making the "banks" pay will damage the UK financial sector long term.

All these election bribes do not help the UK in the long term.

passedgo - I must have misread your post then, sorry.

Lalunya Retropear would have you without cb. Now that would be a disgraced.

I don't think a family income of 50k with two adults and 3 children is much to be honest. We are in that bracket ourselves. We rent as can't afford to buy. I buy second clothes all the time and games and toys and books are all second hand. We have no spare cash at the end of month and are arguing about cheques that need to written for school trips, lunches, etc. It really isn't the mega bucks some on here think it is. I dread opening the book bags at night as I know there will be a demand for money from one of the dc. It just never ends.

What Ihate said

Retrospear

The Sure Start system was child-focussed but was not really consistent.

There is no child-focussed or needs based system any more. People just muddle through and children have to put up with it. I agree that we should be supporting what works best for the family rather than forcing parents out of the home. Many SAHPs do other valuable community work and care for relatives - who is going to take up the slack?

It's true that having a lot of parents looking after individual children is costly, but it's a cost that is worth bearing, it pays to get it right, it costs the taxpayer more to get it wrong and deal with the consequences of young people having been brought up in an unhappy environment.

I agree the whole thing is disingenuous because nobody actually lives on under about 30k due to government subsidies and 50 isn't much more especially as you won't qualify for any help. When I returned to work after Ds our joint income was £500 too much for working tax credits (I believe the cut off was 46k).

WEALTHY?

Just thought I would try and put a value on this.

The top 1% of earners average £450,000 per annum declared income (for tax purposes), average Tax avoidance and evasion ads about another £350,000.

Hope this put's some perspective on those who feel £60,000 makes you rich, it doesn't, but of course near 3 times more than the average minimum wage family (both working).

If pay had been fairer across the spectrum over the last decade or so, we wouldn't have the economic collapse and benefit burden problems we have now.

The economy would be much stronger because every one could take part.

Currently about half the working population can't afford to engage in the economy, thus the dead High Streets.

Applauds Passed

wishibabs - a lot of single parents live on about 12k.

jasminerose, but that isn't strictly true is it? On this salary you will have WFTC, tax credits, CB, housing benefit, council tax benefit. I'm not sure what this will all add up to, but I bet it's not massively far off 50k less tax and travel expenses for work.

Cause it is. Single parents with 1 kid everything in including school dinners get 13.5k.

in my area anyway. Im down south

Applauds Childrenstoriesnet

Jasmine I agree, take a look at any jobsearch and wages are around £15k in reality. Yes there are benefits added, but that's so that people can eat and don't end up on the streets. It's not really a benefit, it's a subsidy to keep you alive in work.

Jasmine you don't get JSA as a single parent, unless you are constantly looking for work and showing evidence of that. If you don't you are penalised (swiftly) and lose your benefits and go onto income support. That means all the allowances are taken away without notice, this leaves many people in deep trouble financially.

Out of interest, what does the £13.5k include?

Housing benefit, school dinners, council tax, income support and tax credits.

I also agree passedgo getting 25k as a one person wage is very high so 50k is ridiculously high. Dont often meet people on that sort of money.

I can tell you as a single mum (financially), I total £20,440pa. £10,080 tax credits, £8,280 wages, £1,040 housing benefit, £1,040 CB, I don't get ctb.

I also have travel expenses, £5 per day parking £780, daily toll bridge and petrol £5 per day another £780. Poor people have expenses too! My childcare takes £5,928pa.

50k after tax is about 36k. To earn this sort of money, you are probably in the south with higher commuter costs. Dh spends around 6k on the trains. So, that leaves 30k, which is only 4k higher than the benefit cap. If you are a single mother earning in the fifties with 5 kids, and they do exist. You will lose a lot of money from CB cuts. It actually makes earning that sort of money seem a lot less worth while.

The fact is that it simply costs too much to live. House prices are way to high, as is fuel, food and travel costs. This is what needs to be addressed. My worry is that government subsidise things like child care, housing costs etc and all it does it put prices even higher. It doesn't address the fact that costs are way too high in the first place.

The typical wage (not average - which is artificially inflated by high salaries in the City) in the UK is apparently £21,000.

75% of people earn less than £35,000.

Less than 10% of people earn more than £46,000.

That should put things in some sort of perspective.

But I agree totally that CB changes are unfair. We should have all taxes and benefits based either on households or on individuals, but not a mish-mash of the two.

The benefit cap is £500 per week, that is a total of £26k per year, after tax this is around £20k. Monthly £1650. In London housing benefit is capped at £1200 for a 2-bed, leaves the claimant with £450 a month to spend on food, fuel and transport. Not a great deal.

Dahlen I agree this inconsistency is bizarre - why base some taxes on individuals and others on households?

It is far too complicated and designed to confuse the electorate. Thank goodness for forums like this where we can compare notes and find out the truth. Patronising arses the lot of them, thinking we can't do our sums.

I'm not saying life is easy for lower earners, but it really isn't a jolly for families on 50k either. Dh and I argue about money all the time. We honestly never buy clothes or go out. Our car is knackered and our house is rented. We really are not rich, but I agree that there are many worse off. Should we not collectively be trying to fight the cost of living for an improvement in all our lives and our children?

Agree with you too Dahlen and passedgo. They're so arrogant, that they really think we don't know what they're doing. I hate the lot of them.

I do think its easy to be fair. We are on 32k and very well off compared to most of the people I know