to be shocked, that the goverment do not pay towards chilcare costs for everyone?

[spottyoldzebra]

well they should stop going on about getting mothers back to work then.

Perhaps it's because they don't have a bottomless pit of money.

Well they do. Most people can get childcare vouchers getting large portions of their childcare tax free.

They do don't they, if your income is such that to cover the costs yourself would mean there was no point working?

how about being shocked that more employers don't have creches or on-site nurseries. Why does everything have to be down to the govt and the tax-payer?

And everyone gets a free nursery place for x hours when the child reaches a certain age as well don't they?

Plus the pit of money is getting rapidly smaller at the moment. Thousands more people claiming all sorts of benefits, thousands more people not earning therefore not paying tax, thousands of people spending less therefore paying less tax.

I had to leave my job because the childcare was the same as what I earnt. I qualified for £4 per month to help. Was definitely forced out of work because of it.

Why should the taxpayer pay for childcare for parents who earn enough not to need help?

Kapt. Karvol gets my vote.

well if they don't want to pay, the should stop spouting rubbish about getting mothers back to work.

I don't think it's that they don't want to pay. It's just not remotely possible to do so unless all our taxes go up hugely.

And they do help, as already pointed out.

if they paid for everyone, then there would be bugger all left for education, healthcare etc etc.

Money does not grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is all of us

and the mothers they are encouraging to go back to work are the ones who claim various benefits

well they should stop saying lets get mothers back at work then.

and also leave the single mothers alone so they can decide whats best for themseleves imo

Why should the govt pay childcare costs? I agree with a system like they have here in Belgium, where child care is tax deductible and early care is means tested. And education is free from 2.5. It's great, but I pay nearly 50% in tax on my not huge income.

spotty - depends on circumstances surely? I have a child and have to work to pay the bills. Benefits IMO are there to help people who CAN'T work for whatever reason. Not people who CHOOSE not to, for whatever reason.

I do agree that childcare should be more affordable and more available, and if the govt did that rather than concentrating on these silly iniatives it would make a big difference.

Er - sorry - but everyone gets child benefit. It's not means tested, so everyone who has children gets this.

Or had you conveniently forgotten this?

bohemianmint - your post has reminded me of something I have been meaning to question.

This question doesn't apply to single parent families, but I hear quite a few Mum's saying "most of my income pays for childcare - is it worth me working?" Surely your partner should be paying for half of the childcare costs, sfter all they are his children too and he is also out and work.

Its a question of money.

You can't pay American type income taxes and receive Scandinavian type benefits, doesn't add up. It's one or the other.

Actually it's a myth that the US has low rates of tax. US tax rates are quite high. The UK has a corporation tax rate of 28% whereas the US has a corporate (federal) tax rate of 35% with state and local taxes on top adding up to a whopping 42% plus.

I don't really see why mothers should be subsidised to go back to work, unless they are in need. I think it is perfectly valid choice for some people to want to go back to work, but it is equally valid not to want to.
it is not a universal good to want all mothers in work, so I don't think it should take priority over competing demands like health, education etc.

The government doesn't give a monkey's arse about getting women back to work, unless those women are on benefits. If the woman in question is in a relationship and the couple are just above the tax credits threshold they can go fuck themselves as far as the government is concerned. All they want to do is reduce their outlay on benefits.

It was no different in the early 1990s when the CSA had no interest in helping my mum enforce the order for child support that my father was ignoring, because she was working. If she had been on benefits they would have tried to make him pay.

Why do so many people expect state-handouts as a first course of action for nearly everything (then moan about the nanny state)?

The government should pay for this, I should be entitled to that, the state should subsidise/bail help out that, etc. etc.

Captain Karvol for PM.