'The purpose of Welfare is to help people into work

[AnnieMaybe]

This is what David Cameron just said at the end of the BBC benefit programme

Does he not know what welfare is? Has he forgotten the ethos of where it has evolved from

I know it's been said, but for those who just turned up to benefit bash you should be aware that most people on benefits are working or retired.

I suspect many of the benefit bashers are claiming those in-work benefits too and haven't spotted the connection yet. That will be embarrassing for them when they realise won't it.

truffle how so?

Feminine, if you're speaking of my post re: SAHP - if a SAHP is funded by the "taxpayer", then they're funded by an army of working parents.

Frank Field was a member of the Conservative party when he was younger.

Freud was Labour's advisor of choice before becoming a Tory lord, with no knowledge or expertise in the field of his report.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, prh, but mine is that welfare restructuring is New Labour/Tory crossover. And is ideological.

Yes, I was wondering about that post.

So, my DH works long hours in a manual job. I (for the moment) take care of our children.

My DH is a "tax payer" we also receive tax credits and working tax credits.

Has he cancelled himself out then?

I have investigated childcare for our three children, it would cost more from the "tax payer" to fund that -than 'allowing' me to languish at home all day!

"Do you see the role of SAHP as any value at all"

Not to society no. Its a personal choice and relies on the goodwill of a spouse to support that choice not to work. Its not a role tax payers should be funding.

Childcare is expensive, it takes two minutes to google the cost of childcare so easily done before having a first child or increasing the family. Its like it comes as a surprise to many, realistically its used an an excuse to not work or justify why the state/spouse should pay for that choice.

Paying child tax credits is not a role childless tax payers should play neither Happy

you do make me laugh happy

It is all so black and white in happy's street isn't it?

In numerous threads posters have kindly explained why your simplistic ideals just don't work in the real world -and yet you are still claiming it to as easy as "checking" child care costs before one has children

To not see the value in a SAHP just makes me sad for you actually.

I used to pay a lot of tax. I paid it because that is the law.

what the Government did with it after that mattered not one bit!

To be that consumed by its journey after it leaves you is silly.

It isn't welfare 'trapping' people on benefits

The current system does trap people on benefits. Those on benefits moving into work often face an effective tax rate of close to (or sometimes even over) 100% because benefits are withdrawn as fast as, or faster than, pay goes up. This is a disgrace. It should never have been allowed to be like this.

I would not describe your situation as a lifestyle choice. You have limited options. It is only a lifestyle choice if, like the distant member of my family I referred to, there is no good reason not to work but you simply decide that you would prefer to live on benefits.

YY backonlybriefly!!

Why would you feel sad for me simply because i dont see the value in the state paying a SAHP which basically is an unemployed parent. Strange thing to feel sad over.

There are hundreds of things the money could be better spent on. Presumably thats why UC is ensuring both parents work rather than claim state help. The criteria is not strict enough but its a good start in the right direction.

happy would you like us to return to the days of latchkey kids?

There simply isn't childcare available for all.

What do you mean by The criteria is not strict enough the UC proposals are draconian!

Happy you seem to be missing the point. If you get wtc ctc and cb whilst in work. It is still state help...

would you like us to return to the days of latchkey kids?

most people with children work. also - latchkey kid is quite a pejorative term.

I sort of agree with Happy there is no direct benefit to society in having SAHP - though I'd concede there are possibly indirect benefits.

That there isn't sufficient childcare for all, probably isn't correct. Capacity would increase with demand.

Most net contributors (particulalrly working parents) would likely prefer to subsidise other parents to work, rather than choose not to work.

If a parent wishes to stay at home, they need to have a partner who is prepared to support them. It really is as simple as that.

Lastly, I would stop further state support for anyone who went on to have (more) children whilst in receipt of State help. It's important for working families to feel that those with whom their wages are being shared (that's essentially what's happening) have to consider things in the way that they do.

Contrarian not necessarily. Why should childless tax payers subsidise childbearing taxpayers with ctc wtc etc?... No I'm not Katie Hopkins. I think Happy is under a pseudonym

It doesn't hinge exclusively on the working parter's goodwill. If you work several years full-time before becoming a parent, you can build up a reserve so you can coast a bit financially for the early child years. It doesn't always work out that way, obviously, but it's what I'll be advising my own children to do.

Misspixietrix They shouldn't I suppose (but that was sort of the point) but if you're going to, then you'd rather subsdise working parents, than non-working parents I guess.

Also, who's going to wipe their backsides when they get older?

contrarian Most net contributors (particulalrly working parents) would likely prefer to subsidise other parents to work, rather than choose not to work.

I completely agree with this.

Contrarian if there's huge shortages of workers in the UK they will simply ease immigration laws and people will come flooding into the UK, willing to wipe bottoms for the right price.

Children dont have to be latch key, thousands of parents work and manage.

Miss Pixie i dont agree with tax credits whether working or not as they subiside choices and are nothing to do with welfare. Most on them have an adult not working, work part time or dont work at all. Many moan wages arent high enough yet do few hours or expect one wage to cover many people.

If we need, as a society, to lend a helping hand then its far far better to do it via childcare. Highly subsidise it and scrap all other benefits. That way people self support, can only have children if they can support them and nobody gets a payrise for having another child as those currently claiming benefits do. If they choose to do fewer hours then their salary has to cover that likewise if they choose to have a SAHP the household income has to support that choice.

Less chance of fraud, less paperwork and everyone treated equal.

you if happy has her way every parent will be out at work.

There simply won't be enough child care providers.

Mums/Dads can't even look after each others children any more without a registered childcare qualification.

In a lovely world we'd all have jobs, we'd drop our children at wonderful childcare centres. Latchkey kids will be back, mark my words.

Most of them have an Adult not working . Not true Happy. Both can be working on a low pay and still receive state help..sorry I meant in work benefits I know many who do. It doesn't apply to Working Tax Credits neither. As a single childless person working more than 30hours...can also claim.

highly subsidise it and scrap all other benefits

Now I agree with you there happy.

If this happens though, I'll eat my doormat!