Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

263 replies

spottyoldzebra · 04/12/2008 19:59

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

OP posts:
Tee2072 · 05/12/2008 15:13

You (general you, not anyone specificity) really can't say that SAHP don't contribute. As someone already said, they do contribute through the things they buy. We all pay VAT.

And I think there is more to contributing than earning a living so that you pay taxes. There is also the contributions a SAHP makes by raising their children to be tax paying citizens some day. I'm not saying WPs don't do the same, but there is more to factor in contribution than just money.

Being from the States I don't really get the whole benefits thing the way it is done here. US citizens get tax breaks for having children. But of course, right now I don't pay any US taxes anyway. I'd have to be making much more money than I do right now here in the UK to have to do that.

KatieDD · 05/12/2008 15:17

Tee you've hit the nail on the head we've all been so brain washed into thinking we must buy as much stuff as possible and have the right house, the right car etc etc that value isn't placed on anything else.
My plan of action is to get rid of my mortgage as fast as possible and then we'll both retire at 50 and have 30 years of living the high life at least and not paying taxes or NI but still using the facilities.

imaginewittynamehere · 05/12/2008 15:19

brunettemum "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"

I strongly disagree. I am a SAHM & have paid far more in taxes since being an adult than I have taken out in services - that's not counting the massive contribution in tax my dh makes each month. The few years I am at home whilst my children are small will make no difference to the fact that Iexpect over my lifetime to pay far more n tax than I receive in benefits as a member of society.

I desided to stay at home because the amount we as a family would be better off with me working was negligable & I felt that my time for these few years would be better spent with the children - I'm certain that this is something every family looks at & then change their lifestyle accordingly.

Having said that when you decide to have children you decide that you can support them emotionally & financially until they are adults - I do not agree that the government should be supporting everyone in rhis & an automatic right to free childcare is completely unrealistic.

georgimama · 05/12/2008 15:22

"when you decide to have children you decide that you can support them emotionally & financially until they are adults"

Oh, if only that were true, you might have done, I did, most people we know probably gave the idea more than two minutes thought, but so so so many people gave procreation and the consequences no consideration whatsoever.

EachPeachPearMum · 05/12/2008 15:37

erm- speak for yourself please Katie! I am not a 'consumer'.
Personally I would say there is more to earning a living than contributing taxes- it gives your children a role-model, a work ethic.
It means you do not lose the skills you have trained or studied hard for, it means you maintain professional contact with other adults.

Tee2072 · 05/12/2008 15:42

That's not what I was saying at all, Katie. You don't have to have all the latest things in order to pay VAT, you pay it just keeping yourself in food and clothes.

KatieDD · 05/12/2008 15:48

Well Tee as food and kids clothes are VAT exempt actually you don't really.
Turn the heating up a bit and pay your share.

Tee2072 · 05/12/2008 15:51

But I don't think that kids clothes are the only clothes that are necessary. So are towels and duvets and sheets and pots and pans. None of those are luxuries, ffs.

And why should I turn the heating up when I can buy a jumper instead and pay my share that way?

kitbit · 05/12/2008 16:06

Nobody is owed anything. Try living elsewhere in Europe and see how much "help" is available. Zero. No child ben, no mat ben, no free healthcare, no nhs dentists, no housing benefit, no income support or whatever it's called these days. Certainly no help with childcare. You have children, you pay for them. Financial help is not a given right, it is an extra and people are bloody lucky that it's available.

Sorry, but this thread has been the straw that broke the camel's back - I seem to have come across so many whingey threads of late and I'm fed up.

This rant is directed at nobody in particular.
Ignore me I'm going back under my stone.

lulabellarama · 05/12/2008 16:12

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

EachPeachPearMum · 05/12/2008 16:55

kitbit forgive me- but you may want to revise the geographical area a little.
The benefits in scandinavian countries- mat leave, childcare etc are truly excellent, and in the Baltic countries.
I believe France has child benefit too?- they certainly have social housing, and good quality healthcare, the majority of costs of which can be claimed back.
Oh yes, and these nations have higher tax regimes than us too,a nd are much more 'socialist' in their ideals.

imaginewittynamehere · 05/12/2008 17:00

Lulubellarama really, have you ever thought about how much you actually pay in tax in a lifetime? How does that work then given that 1 in 3 of us is likely to get cancer at some point in our lives?? I am well aware that some treatments are very expensive however I still maintain that the likelyhood is that I will put in far more than I take out. At todays prices I estimate I will hve paid on average wellover £1000 per month in tax, working for 42 years (21 to 70 minus 7 years as SAHM) I make that more than 1/2 million pounds tax & that's just me not counting DH too..

pamelat · 05/12/2008 21:20

Isn't our maternity leave particulary generous though?

I was able to take a full year off.

I think we are very well off as a country (financially, or otherwise).

I can appreciate that its annoying when the G harp on about "getting single mums back to work" but don't enable provision for this. I think that the G is guilty of massively stereotyping about single mums in this way.

MollyCherry · 05/12/2008 22:54

Ditto Georgie!

I was made redundant in June, and apart from a slight increase in child tax credit (and jobseekers which finishes this month) we get bugger all. DH can't even claim working tax credit, cos when you add child benefit to his earning it takes us just over the threshold. Come January we will have a about £200 a month to live on after paying all our essentials (and I'm not including food and petrol in essentials either)

Meanwhile I know various people who have never done a days work in their lives and yet get everything handed to them on a plate.

I am all for anyone who genuinely needs help getting whatever they need, but I know someone who graduated from uni 4 months pregnant (father didn't want to know), has sat on her arse for the last two years, and even though she has been entitled to free childcare for the last year refuses to find any kind of work as 'she wants to be at home with her child.'

I wanted to be at home with my child too, not handing her over to my parents and in-laws to raise 3 days a week and all the aggro that involved, but I had to go back to work when she was 18 weeks, cos by the time my husband paid his taxes to support the likes of the above, we wouldn't have had enough to live on.

Rant over grrrr

Quattrocento · 05/12/2008 22:59

I must be old because my maternity leaves were for 12 weeks each (DD is 10 and DS is 8)

MollyCherry · 05/12/2008 23:02

I'm probably going to get flamed now aren't I...?

But think logically about it from the governments point of view.

All mums out to work - earning money - paying taxes.

Children all having to be in child care, so more people employed in child care - earning money, paying taxes.

The bottom line is cold hard cash as far as the politicians are concerned, what's best for us/our children/society is neither here nor there cos at the end of the day the majority of them can choose to shut themselves away from our reality and not give stuff.

expatinscotland · 05/12/2008 23:05

I'm definitely old.

I'm fucking Victor Mildrew around here.

Jehzu Christo and I'm not even a fucking Tory like my folks.

Whinge, moan, complain.

The government owes me this and I'm entitled to that and blah blah blah.

We're on our last legs.

One foot in the hole and one foot digging deeper to keep the heat running to keep a 4-week-old baby warm and I still don't see what the government has to do with it all other than keeping the peace.

I'd rather go under than ask for help.

I already have.

Stoic to a fault.

FGS, take some responsibility for yourself.

expatinscotland · 05/12/2008 23:06

I've been made redundant 3 times in my life.

It sucks.

It happens.

Even to good folks.

expatinscotland · 05/12/2008 23:06

I've been made redundant 3 times in my life.

It sucks.

It happens.

Even to good folks.

kitbit · 05/12/2008 23:13

Fair enough, I have no direct experience of Scandinavian countries. However I know that in Spain and many other EU countries who are meant to have "reciprocal agreements with the UK", the criteria for qualifying for any of the very few benefits available is so narrow that most people don't. I am fairly "run of the mill" and don't qualify for anything. Not that I feel I "ought" to because I don't, but my point is that many people do feel they are owed. So the attitude that the government (or whoever) should help instead of taking responsibility themselves really irks me.

YaddaYaddaYadda · 05/12/2008 23:17

C'mon ladies, SAHM pay taxes by spending DH's salary in starbucks, boden M&S etc... plus they pay the cleaner but that doesn't count cos it's cash in hand....

As for why the government doesn't pay more towards childcare, it's because this country is near bankrupt, the government has had to borrow loads to bailout Northern Rock, the banks etc so there's no money left to help ordinary people...

nooka · 05/12/2008 23:42

I think that childcare support is pretty good in the UK, and certainly has got better over the last ten years or so. When we were in the UK we earned too high an income to qualify for any of the latest benefits, but we got help towards nursery costs when the children were littler, maternity pay (topped up very generously by my employer) and could have claimed cild benefit too.

When I returned to work when ds was tiny I think the difference between me staying at home and going out to work was about 100 pounds, once I had paid the travel costs etc (and obviously after childcare), but the effect of staying in the workforce has meant that my career continued to progress, and by the time we left the UK I earned very good money. There are significant costs to having children, especially in the early years, and they should be part of any families calculations.

The government encourages parents to return to work because of the taxes received, and the movement of money, but also because of trying to get families out of poverty, and hopefully to encourage the ambitions of both the parents and subsequent children. I can't see why this should be considered a bad thing.

The only problem with this approach is for those at the margins, where the balance between pay and benefits does not work well, and where the tax and benefits system has got more and more complicated because the government tinkers rather than trying full scale reform.

I have no problem with other families pursuing other ways to manage their ear;y years, but I do think in the UK we are totally oblivious to the benefits and support we receive. One of my relatives recently claimed that he had never received any benefits, and why should he pay so much tax. He had five children, but did not see the NHS or education as benefits.

Finally, we moved from London to NYC, and dh paid more taxes there than in the UK, on a similar income. When you include the healthcare insurance we were significantly worse off.

flippityjibbet · 06/12/2008 09:10

hear hear mollycherry.

I am trying to understand the difference between having children being a human right and a lifestyle choice, but I don't get it.... please call me thick!

I have always thought that having children was the 'meaning of life' the reason for being here etc. Not everyone will agree, but I don't know how anybody could choose not to have children yet, or at all even beacause they 'can't afford' to.

we are all so very different, and 'can't afford' to is a different thing for everyone.

for some 'can't afford' is having to live on k100 and not k200

for others it will mean moving home to reduce mortgage?

for others it will mean they have to keep working after the baby is here even if they don't want to

for some it will mean not taking holidays and selling the car

for others it will mean having a hand to mouth exsistance

and for a few it will mean relying on benefits for a few years.

and for a small few benefits are simply a way of life.

I don't feel like I have a right to judge anyone in this country for having a child or children at any point in their lives.

I am greatful for fantastic services we have in this country. I feel sad for the people who don't know anything other than the benefits system but it is not just a case of calling them spongers and judging them. If the gov were interested in undoing everything that has created this type of person and improving their lives it would cost the tax payer some serious cash. but they won't because it is easier to hand out the doll.

Bramshott · 06/12/2008 11:26

How on earth have we managed to turn this into the same old SAHM vs WOHM debate?!?!

FWIW I think that some of the sentiment in the OP may well be justified - the govt does seem to be obsessed with "getting mothers back to work" without really thinking through the issues or making it attractive for employers to offer more flexible jobs or subsidised childcare. I also think a lot of the stuff in the media recently about forcing "single parents" back to work is very emotive and designed for us to read "single parents" as "feckless single mothers by choice". If you try replacing "single parents" with "widows" in a lot of the headlines (and let's face it, widows are one section of those who find themselves single parents) then they come across as a whole lot more unreasonable.

Okay I'm ranting now, but I get really fed up when people go on about how they pay more in in taxes than they "get out". FFS, please can we get away from this idea of tax as being a payment exchanged for a personal financial entitlement! It's the same about council tax when people point out that they don't use local services so why should they pay such a high council tax? Surely we pay taxes for the good of society, and so that we can maintain a civilised level of public services for the benefit of all and particularly those in greatest need?

Acinonyx · 06/12/2008 14:39

Agree MollyCherry. Also agree: ''Surely we pay taxes for the good of society, ''

Society is not a business, surely, and it's goals are not the same. If getting all mothers back to work means getting all children into childcare - is that really the goal of society? I use childcare myself - but I would hardly promote this as an ideal to standardised across society without choice.

I can't believe some posters even think a SAHP with a supporting partner is 'a drain on taxes'. Shame on you.