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.

Juicy if you're 47, did you work before having children because if not how are you planning to pay for your retirement ?

Just wondering because you may have another 30 years left on this mortal world.

Really that 50p now could and should turn into a lot more over the next 13 years at least you have before retirement age and you won't be paying childcare all that time.

JJ stop claiming benefits then and go and work

EPPM - I agree that benefits should be available in the situation you mention. They were designed to be a safety net to help people who are, for whatever reason,unable to provide for themselves or who need a bit of assistance.

If there weren't so many people out there taking the p*ss, the Govt would have more money to improve education and childcare services, and provide extra help to those genuinely in need of it. (Or at least I like to think this is how they would spend it )

Eg free full time education from 2.5 plus tax deductible and cheap childcare from 3mths old like we have here.

Energies do need to be put into the childcare/afterschool/holiday schemes to even stand a chance of getting these parents back into the workplace.

My childcare costs are outragiously high (2 in full time nursery). We get the 5 x 2.5 days during term time for DS1 and then both DH and I do salary sacrifice - ie lose £243 a month each, which effectively saves us £80 tax. For completeness yes we get child benefit.

But we chose to have children and we're fortunate that we earn enough to make the nursery fees affordable (still scarey - just about every colleague chokes when I tell them the cost).

Sometimes I think I would like a 3rd DC, but I think about the cost...can we (DH and me) afford it...it is our responsibility not the government's - which as someone very correctly pointed out isn't a bottomless pit of money. The reason why my taxes are so high (well one of) is because there are a lot of people out there who aren't contributing. some have very good reasons...and some do not.

Standing by with fire extinguisher now.

Bonkerz:

You said "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! "

The person on 18K a year will also be paying tax, so will have less than 18K in their hand.

I know that but at 18k income i would be able to go back to college and get all fees paid for me and would also be entitled to help with childcare etc, with DH on £25K we cannot afford to do those things. My sister Dh is on 18K and they are better off than we are, it has reached the point where DH is actually looking to go into a lower paid job so we can get more help. (DS is ASD and we have been refused some help through social services as they say DH earns enough to pay ofr the extra things DS needs like a specialist play scheme etc )

The government doesn't have any money. That is taxpayers money. If everyone gets childcare and everyone has children then you're back to paying for your own in effect because of how much tax you'd have to pay to cover it.

I agree that children are a choice. I only have one and we had to think about whether we could afford her. We make sacrifices because we chose to have children. Its not the Government's decicion.

I would imagine that we are fairly lucky?

maybe eachpeach but if that is so then how do you decide?
in my time of being a sahm dh's income has gone up and down, he runs a business. during that time we have had 3 children and have recieved some tax credit varying between £zero and £80 per week. if we hadn't had the tax credit we would have made do during the realy hard times, it would have been jolly hard but we would have had to manage somehow.
we are a very frugle family, we don't have holidays or any luxuries and that suits us.
but I don't understand how anyone can say I should be out to work rather than geting tax credits at times when dh doesn't earn very much.
we aim to make ourselves lots of money but in some finacial climates we don't make as much.... I have good earning potential, I have earnt good money in te past and will work in and around my childrens school when they are all at that stage.
would you say I was wrong to have my children?
(very interested btw, please don't read with an arsy tone!)

not taken in any arsey way!
My family are actually v v similar- DH runs own business, and yes, times are lean atm.
We have done the work 7 days a week, 3 different jobs thing, and gone without what most people consider essentials, because when you work for yourself (and more importantly- when 8 other families rely on your business to employ their bread-winner...) that is what you do!
We made a conscious decision not to start a family until we could afford it- by which I mean we could afford one of us to give up working, rather than we could afford to 'decorate the nursery' or whatever.
I think that people do not actually take stock of the real costs of raising a child- ie loss of income and the costs of childcare, and when it hits them, they expect taxpayers to bail them out- hence the OP being in a state of shock and wanting 80% of her childcare costs met.
I have been raised to believe that if you want something, you earn it- the world does not owe you a living or a free-ride.
The world is over-populated for the resources we are using- having children (in plural) is becoming a luxury not a right- and therefore I believe it is a life-style choice.
We certainly should not expect other taxpayers to fund our life-style choices.

Of course you weren't wrong to have children if you are prepared to support them , which you are doing. The point is that whether we want to admit it or not having children is a lifestyle choice, not a human right.

My beef isn't really with tax credits anyway (although I don't get any so I have no vested interest), it's with people (not you!) who are on benefits, who don't work, have no intention of working, and say things like "I'd be no better off working so there's no point".

Yes there is an effing point, you'd be self sufficient and not a drain on society, you selfish so and so.

x posted with EachPeach (but great minds clearly think alike).

Hear hear georgimama/EPPM!

I agree with onager - I think a its very easy to forget when you say "the government should pay for this that and the other" that they don't actually have their own money, all the money they have we give them through tax, NI, VAT, business taxes etc. Fair enough if the argument is that we should all pay more tax in order for childcare to be subsidised (actually that's not a bad idea), but I suspect that's not what the OP means.

OP - YABU. You stated on your other thread that as you would "only" be £350 per month better off it wasn't worth it.

£350 a month is not a small amount of money to increase a household income. You come across as spoilt at best.

Why should my single sister who doesn't want children pay more tax to subisdise your childcare ?

That would be a very unpopular policy.
There are more pensioners, single people and childless people than "hardworking families" as Gordon Brown will find out at the next election.

Why should my single sister who doesn't want children pay more tax to subisdise your childcare ?

That would be a very unpopular policy.
There are more pensioners, single people and childless people than "hardworking families" as Gordon Brown will find out at the next election.

I am a SAHM and am lmao about me not contributing yet being a drain on NHS resources etc. DH can ONLY work with me SAH as he works away/long hours, I left my p/t job to do this so he could do his dream job which was more money. Many times, SAHPs enable their partner to work jobs with anti social hours. If I did work, it would be p/t hence no tax being paid anyway so I would still be a drain!! DH pays loads of taxes so we have paid our share. We claim very little, no childcare etc just what everyone gets..CB. I also think I save people money by volunteering in school, there are only about 2 of us that help and without us many things would not take place or paid help would be needed. I think some people who feel they have to work are abit jealous of SAHMs and try to run them down (unsuccessfully if the SAHM is happy with their choice).

'Why should my single sister who doesn't want children pay more tax to subisdise your childcare ?'

That is a good point.

Fio fio - I wasn't being spiteful, just factual. The fact is that you SAH. You use the NHS. Therefore you are being subsidised by taxpayers because you don't contribute yourself - I am also a higher rate taxpayer, as is my husband... who are we paying for? Your argument that your husband pays for you because he pays higher rate tax doesn't stack up. I don't have any issues with SAHMs - but there are good reasons why the government wants more mums to work as per my first post; and this is a big part of it.

Though admittedly, to choose to stay at home and take benefits when you are able to work is a bigger problem for the government (and for mums like me who do go back to work and pay ridiculous levels of tax to subsidise these 'choices'). They cost us even more - not the government, but taxpayers like me. It is completely erroneous to think about it as the 'government's money'. It's OUR money; and if you can work but choose not to AND claim benefits you are effectively stealing from your neighbour who does pay their way. And it's downright wrong.

Now flame me

'Therefore you are being subsidised by taxpayers because you don't contribute yourself '

So my hubby is subsidising me? I am OK with that, so is he. We also pay taxes on things we buy etc remember.

OK so you and your DH BOTH pay tax. So you pay more than us, you may use more than us, who knows. So is someone on minimum wage also a drain? They may well get tax credits which is more than they pay in taxes. You see it is not as black and white as someone works, they contribute.

Me and DH contribute as a family. Yes we use the NHS, shock I had lots of high risk pregnancies but my DH has more than paid back for that and we created several future taxpayers too!!

Also, without me SAH, DH could not contribute so much tax.

The point is as a couple we'd be much better off if we both earnt £25k rather than him earning £50k but life isn't like that at the moment.
The government should stop tax credits and introduce tax reductions if you have children therefore easier to administer and yes there should be bigger breaks for those who are married/civil partnerships/living together because stability is important within a family and that should be rewarded and actively encouraged.
Employers need to be more flexible, that is the key to this issue.

I'm definitely not jealous of SAHMs.

I might be envious, which is what you mean, but I'm not that either.

And to suggest that a tax payer's concern over the ever increasing burden of benefit dependency in this country is due to envy is frankly laughable.