To think this misses the point about costs of childcare?

[adsy]

"Critics have complained that homes where one parent stays at home to look after children will not benefit."

This is in response to the new scheme where parents will get 20% of childcare costs paid for by the government.
I'm a CM and all for subsidies of any sort to help out parents, but other than the odd day when you might need to go for an interview etc. I can't see why a stay at home parent needs to get childcare subsidies or am I missing a major point here?!

I don't know, Arsenic, companies that have received backing from institutional investors tend to create jobs and wealth, enabling themselves others to spend. On stuff like er, goods and services.

It is the same. The invested money will be lent to a business which will use it to buy goods and services. How is the different from your husband giving you money to spend on goods and services. The only difference is the business will pay it back with interest. And will use the goods and services it buys to make further goods and services.

And snape is right. Each individual who works puts their money into the economy. Staying at home puts your husbands money into the economy.

Oh dear, Morethan!

Maybe you are a millionaire. But if you then also went out and worked you'd be a millionaire with extra £30K or whatever.

It's about individual family circumstances, not comparing two different families. My family has more money to spend in the economy with both of us working than we would have with only one of us working - a whole salary extra. Your family would have more money to spend if both parents were working than if just one of you works. Of course you may well have a much lower disposable income once you'd paid for childcare, but the economy doesn't really care if you spend it on a nanny or 37 cake stands from Cath Kidston - it's still money spent in the economy.

Nope, guess again. I've got a great, sought-after job and I'm pretty great at it.

Why do you ask if my job is really boring? Because I'm asking if you're basing your rather silly statements on facts, rather than just inventing? Gosh, how dull of me, wanting to know about facts.

So, do you have those facts? Or is personal attack just an attempt at diversion in the hopes that people won't notice your argument is based on air? You need to try much harder than that.

No personal attack Jazzy I don't do those anymore, was trying to inject some sarcy humour, apologies. I'm sure your work is very interesting to you.
I don't think my argument is based on air.

permanently
That was my point that it is based on circumstances.
I don't agree there is necessarily more money with two working than one.
I also don't agree that you need an income from a job to have money to spend to boost the economy.
I just went to put a pizza in the oven as dh is home from work and Bingo £135 in my account as I'm putting the cooker on. Not bad for a couple of minutes.
Anyway, I'm going to see my dh now, so laters.

So explain it to me? And explain to me why you think my job must be boring, while you're at it? I'm struggling to see how it's not a personal attack to respond to someone's questions about your argument with 'your job must be boring'. I'm definitely finding it hard to find the humour.

Because at the moment, none of it makes any sense and it seems you don't mind about that. Why should anyone believe 'I don't think my argument is based on air' over statistical evidence?

I assume you're joking about the 'bingo £135' line. Or do you think of yourself as your DH's employee?

It was a personal attack, a pretty snotty one.

I don't care what you believe and not interested in facts of other people but facts of my own life.
When people make sweeping statements that aren't true, I will say so.

As for the personal attack you feel I gave you, all I can do is continue to profess my innocence and to reiterate that I find your request for facts and the questioning that sounded like a solicitor as boring.
I can't help what I find boring. I did apologise and explain I was trying to inject some sarcy humour but you failed to see this. This is also not my fault.

Yes, facts are so terribly boring when they get in the way of unsubstantiated arguments, I quite agree!

Only a solicitor or something would care about whether a statement was actually true. So very unimaginative!

No I'm not joking, I turned the oven on and came back and the money was there in my account I believe.
I receive money, but I don't work. I told you that you didn't need to be employed or have a job or a regular income even to have money.
This is my point, everybody is different and you can't go around making blanket comments about who contributes to the economy when you don't know the individual facts.
You may be able to say well sometimes or generally speaking this tends to happen.
Anyway, I hope you'll accept my apology as no harm was intended, just humour.
I am going to see my dh now as he's just home from work.

If you're not interested in the 'facts of other people' then why should they care about yours, which seem quite unusual if we are to accept everything you say? This is a discussion about a particular public policy decision. If you don't care about other people's circumstances - well, first I find that shockingly insular, and second, whether you care about them or not, the situation of the majority is what public policy tends to be based around.

I continue to say I don't know individual facts. I continue to say that public policy is made based on what is generally the case for most people. There will always be exceptions and outliers, but public policy should not be made on that basis, which would then disadvantage the majority.

Can you point to where I've made blanket comments? I've tried to be quite careful.

I'm sorry you find facts boring, particularly when facts are being sought to test whether blanket assertions are based on anything, such as some of your more sweeping statements. Fortunately others don't, or the country would be monumentally fucked.

But I'm glad you clarified that you didn't mean it as humour, but as a statement of the quality of my argument. As it happens, I'm ok with people accusing me of trying to make sure that I understand the basis of other people's arguments. It makes me a more rounded thinker.

its basic economics. If help with childcare makes it possible for people to go back to work:

• they pay income tax (therefore at 36.50 per week probably immediately cancelling out the 'benefit' or at least partially)
• they have more money so therefore spend more. pay more vat, the money they spend is spent over again.
• It stops decline in human capital meaning we have a more skilled workforce.

You can't work out how much money people have by their income. You also have to earn a lot to be able to have 2 children in nursery at 47 pounds a day.

It isnt just about planning ahead and being able to 'afford' to have children

And those who don't pay income tax or who pay very little?

And those that have their wages topped up by TC?

And the babies and children who don't suit childcare?

And the families that don't thrive on 2x wp?

And the kids who would get a better start at home with more language ops than in a nursery staffed by lower educated poorly paid workers?

Yes Jassy, it's very strange how some people think isn't it? Strangely, our 3 children were always fed and clothed, during the short period I was a SAHM, and when I was a WOHM. And as the years rolled by, and childcare bills reduced and my earnings went up, we spent more, be because things like more meals out and expensive holidays became accessible.

Oh and of course there are numerous variables and no one individuals circumstances are exactly the same as another's. But govt policy is not based on any one person's situation.

And it is really odd the way people want to compare apples and oranges. If you want to raise the issue of a individual earning 35k, compare them with a family where the individuals both earn 35k- don't just pluck a figure out of thin air! I also suspect that increasingly over the years, people partner someone with similar earning potential. Many couples meet at university or work... Very different from back in the day when the man might well have a higher education but his wife was far less likely to have had one

And as for the poster whose own individual circumstances appear to be that she is a SAHM, but has plenty of income and long term financial security of her own- well, that's super, but a quick look at the FACTS should tell her that this is really exceptional. The statistics are scary... Most women who are out of the workplace for any length of time have woefully inadequate pension provision and security.

I find it hard to understand why there are personal attacks on here..'your job must be boring' is a pretty pathetic low.
Look- no one is arguing against someone's right to not work if they don't want to and can afford not to. But let's stick to facts when talking economics.

ok... seagulls:

• those who don't pay income tax are usually on low incomes anyway (so totally different argument) .. If not they still spend the money and pay vat/ others will respend it (multiplier effect)
• to be on tc probably they need the help anyway, no issue with that.
• sahps for whatever the reason are not paying tax so there is nothing to offset. (and they don't need childcare more obviously). If things change its open to them though 'sahp' 'wohp' are not an entirely static group.

My point is purely that this is not going to cost the government as much as it seems. It has the potential to even be tax neutral or not far off, but of course I don't have the exact figures.

And the kids who would get a better start at home with more language ops than in a nursery staffed by lower educated poorly paid workers?

Interesting generalisation. The staff in my son's nursery are all qualified and there are two qualified teachers in his room. I'm better educated than they are, perhaps.

I'm unsure what you're actually asking, Seagulls? Apart from the continued fixation on income tax.

Lines, I know, I somehow manage to find time to spend quite a bit of money. Not sure if people on this thread would consider me a 'high earner' though.

I'm still trying to get my head around 'your job must be boring because you are asking for facts' attempt at insult. It's kind of amusing that people see that as cutting.

Lower educated?!

Really how insulting, my children speak the perfect queens English, that's despite being in FT childcare since 6 months... And some of the girls who looked after them were called Bianca, Jade and Charlie but most of them handsome early years qualification, some in fact had degrees, but all were following a chosen vocation - how very presumptuous to assume they were "thicko's" who were doing their job as they couldn't find better, is that why you are staying at home? Because you can't find a job?

There are families with SAHPs who are also topped up by tax credits. I don't understand why this is relevant. Anyone reading this thread could be forgiven for thinking that all WOHPs in families with a sahp are necessarily high earners. This is not the case, so why do people keep making these comparisons?

My dd speaks a third language fluently thanks to the degree-educated nanny who looked after her in the early years.

Lower educated?!

Really how insulting, my children speak the perfect queens English, that's despite being in FT childcare since 6 months... And some of the girls who looked after them were called Bianca, Jade and Charlie but most of them handsome early years qualification, some in fact had degrees, but all were following a chosen vocation - how very presumptuous to assume they were "thicko's" who were doing their job as they couldn't find better, is that why you are staying at home? Because you can't find a job?

And you are telling us some of the 'girls' were called Bianca, Jade and Charlie because.....?

Oh Arse, don't be such a argument bandit

They had the names they had, not necessarily those, but as some of us seem to think childcare workers are lowly (and that's not me) I was making an example

Using the language opportunities card is ridiculous, us WOHP don't all have late developing mutes with speech difficulties and Seagulls seems to have a bit of an issue with any other childcare than her own being inferior (in general) - bow locks

Next she'll be saying all children in childcare are sat ticking in the corner ala Romanian orphans next

I'm waiting for another poster to tell me we WOHP are breeding the delinquents of the future, or has that not already been done

We've had that already thanks to Morethan. Children of WOHP apparently hang round on street corners causing trouble.