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.

I know when i was working 4 days and dd1 was at nursery for 3 of them, I paid nearly £400 a month is childcare and was never entitled to any working ctc, but did use vouchers. Its hard when you spend a high amount of your wages go on childcare, but needs must.

Well presumably you are not working and that is your choice. It's nothing to do with the government unless you're in receipt of benefits.

I think it's great to get mothers back to work presonally - the workplace is better for them.

Juicy, they can try but what job exactly are you going to do, they just laid off 600 from my DH's firm alone, every person we know from Uni is either already redundant or facing it in the next 6 weeks.
That's 27 couples in their mid thirties with a degree education all of whom will take a job in McDonalds if that's what it takes to pay their mortgage, so what job exactly do the DWP think will be available to all these single mums, young people ?

Agreed JuicyJolly. Just because I believe there is adequate financial help available doesn't mean I think it should be forced on people. Since when did being a mother stop being a valuable job in its own right? For single mothers I can kind of see the argument, but a staged programme of training and preparation for work when it's the right time would be much better than the current heavy handed attitude IMO.

As for trying to encourage partners back to work - well the Government should butt out. If a family decides that one parent should stay at home to look after the children that is their decision, no one else's.

And currently for us, as DH is looking after DS 3 days a week and working 2 days a week (less than 16 hours so no help with childcare) we are costing the taxpayer much less than we would if he worked an extra day. This must be the same in many many families. I hate how looking after children has become so devalued in this society.

Yes, I realise this, they do not.

I am a stay at home mum and enjoy it.

Once a month I have to go to the local jobcentre for an interview on my prospects in the job market.

If I do not attend, I have 40% of my benefits stopped.

They haven't got a bloody clue!

Would it be uneconomic for you to work Juicy?

I think people don't realise that what they call 'the government's money' is actually 'OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY' and that of millions of women might like not to work but feel a responsibility to pay their way, and don't really enjoy paying their taxes to subsidise women who CHOOSE not to work.

Devoutsceptic - when you talk about people "choosing" not to work, are you including stay at home parents generally or just single parents? It isn't clear from your post. Because the job of a SAHP is equally as valuable as the job of the working parent, and I speak as a working parent myself. If DH was the working parent and taxpayer, I would feel my first responsibility was towards DS, not towards the Government and other tax payers.

Quattro..Actually, I would be 50p better off

But that is not the point, the money I mean.

I do not want to go back to work. I want to stay at home with the kids.

Why try to force a 47yrs old mother of two back to work? Its bloody ludicrous!

Devout...Why the hell force mothers back to work when so many of our young are unemployed, and yes I CHOOSE to stay at home with my kids! I SUBSIDISED women for 20yrs before I had my kids and would do it again.
So mothers can have a CHOICE!

JJ - so what you're confirming is that there are many other factors at work alongside who pays for the childcare. Factors that the Government is completely failing to address amidst all the posturing.

Twinkle..Yes

The Government really dont know their arse from their elbow...as I am sure the next govement wont either...not yet anyway. As far as I can see, their isn't much difference between the parties, which only prolongs the 'agony'.

juicy - how old are your DC? I thought they didn't try to make people go back to work until the youngest child was 12?

Personally I think a 40 year old is a lot more value to a company than a 17 yo- they have more qualifications, skills and experience- all that is lost if older people stay out of the workplace.

They are not forcing all mothers back though, only those who rely on the state benefits.

After a child reaches 7, or goes to school even, there is no justification in expecting the government pay you to stay home al day.

Why should it be a lifestyle choice not to support yourself or family? The new proposals make sense and will hopefully install the work ethic back in this country. It will also help break the cycle of children just going straight onto benefits as they have been bought up on them.

As for wanting everyone to get their childcare costs paid, why should they? The pot is not bottomless and CTC is designed to help those on low wages not subsidise the life of higher earners.

This may be controversial, but the fact is that SAHMs are being subsidised by the taxpayer whether they are claiming benefits or not. SAHMs still use the NHS, police etc, but by not working aren't paying any taxes to contribute to the cost of these services. That is why the government wants more mums to work; plus it stimulates more tax from the childcare industry, as they get more work, make more money and therefore pay more tax. It's a win win for them (if not for the mums and children).

I agree with Blueshoes, childcare vouchers don't go far enough - the government still benefits from the extra tax I pay by going back to work, the fact that I get £243 per month tax free is irrelevant to them; as they still get the surplus that they wouldn't have had if I stayed at home (if I had had a choice). Some would say that I am also subsidising SAHMs for their choice too... is this fair?

Back to the OP - there is a budget to balance (in theory - you wouldn't think so recently!); and the NHS, armed forces, education all need to be paid for. Childcare is part of that long list unfortunately.

If you can not afford to stay at home without taking handouts from the tax payer then you should go to work and support your children yourself. Since when did it become a right to have children and expect others to pay for you to stay home and look after them?

There are choices. Have children in a stable partnership and share work and childcare between you. Have the number of children you can afford to look after. Work or stay at home as long as you are supporting your family yourself.

Of course, unexpected things happen but with only a few exceptions it is your responsibility to provide for your children.

okay now flame me!

what are the few exceptions newpup?

how about if the mum actually wants to care for her own children? should she have not had them if she knew she would need a bit of tax credit for a few years?

newpup, I agree with you. I've said on another post recently that I believe benefits should be for people who CAN'T work, not for people who don't want to.

And that even if you are no better off working than not working, you should still work.

I am a stay at home mum, i gave up work as i have a DS who at the time (last year) needed me around full time and childminding did not agree with him and was causing stress in family. Since i gave up work in AUG 2007 i have sorted out DS and things are alot calmer in my family and finances are now a bit stretched and i would like to go back to work..... have looked into dinner lady, evening work, etc and i cannot find anything that fits in with DHs job and also fits with DD at playschool without needing childcare, if i did go back to work i would be paying out for childcare and cancelling out my wages!!!! We are not entitled to help with chidlcare (DD will get the 2.5 hours free playschool but would need to be picked up at 12 and looked after by childminder!)
What i find hard to understand is that DH is on £25k a year BUt after tax this is more like £18k a year but we are not entitled to the benefits and help of someone on £18k!

'And that even if you are no better off working than not working, you should still work. '

SO SAHM's aren't 'working' then

No dustyteddy they aren't. They are not economically active, they don't pay tax, they don't earn money to spend. No one is saying there is no value in what they do, but they aren't working.

I love the turn this thread has taken, I'm so tired of people choosing not to work and living on benefits (I'm not talking about SAHP whose partners support them). Why should they be allowed to make that choice? How about some self respect? And what are they going to do when the kids hit 18 and the benefits which make it doable (WTC, CTC etc) stop?

does the OP think that taxpayers should pay for my dd to go to nursery when i don't 'need' her to?

i work evenings, dh works days. dd goes to nursery 2 afternoons so i get a bit of a rest. dh gets his rest when dd is asleep.

we don't need this, we pay for it. and as it is, when she's 3 the taxpayer will pay.

so does the OP really think EVERYONE should get it free or just those who need it? what about mr and mrs who earn £300k between them and have a nanny, should that be free to them?

basically OP...you haven't really thought it through.

Surely flibberty- you should not have children if you cannot provide for them?

We are very fortunate in the UK- most people who are destitute do not actually starve to death, however difficult their life may be.

However surely there is a responsibility to your children- if you are not in a position to feed and clothe them, how can you possibly have them?

As newpup mentions- there are exceptions- I would say that having a child with a disability is one of those- you can never plan for that, and rightly should receive support to care for your child in that case. A child with high needs may be a 24hour a day job for the whole of their life- something no parent can manage alone, nor should they be expected to.

a proportion is free for everyone once the child is 3, isn't it?