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.

It's worth remembering that the benefits system is meant to be a safety net for those that need it, it's not an 'entitlement' and therefore those of us who spend hours at work (away from our dcs) are going to resent people we perceive to be 'scrounging'. Tax credits are meant to help people move into work by topping up their income but as Lou's example shows, it doesn't always work perfectly.

The real reason I wanted to post on this thread is that if you're a SAHM on benefits and your children are growing up in a home where no adult works you're not doing the best thing for them. There's masses of research that shows children do better later in life(educational achievement, employment etc) if they grow up in a home with at least 1 working adult. You are your dcs role model and if they see you living off benefits and not working the message they absorb is that that's ok. And it isn't ok to sponge off other people if you can work.

Hear hear Yadda

Lou I think it's simply that if you are a SAHP with a well-earning partner you are not supplementing your income from the taxpayer. If you are a SAHP with a low earning partner you are supplementing your income via the taxpayer, and that is what some people have issue with.

"I can understand why people choose to be SAHMs but no one has the right to do so at the expense of the taxpayers". Says who? There are many types of tax in this country. Just because some people don't pay two kinds of it, doesn't mean they are not taxpayers. In fact I reckon it's impossible NOT to be a taxpayer these days.

For a single mother, approaching middle age (sorry JJ!) with health not great, who's been out of the labour market for several years, who is looking for school hours employment, term-time only - how many barriers to employment does that make? I don't know where JJ lives, but around here you'd be doing the proverbial in the wind trying to find a job in those circumstances. Whatever the rights and wrongs of a situation like JJ's, none of us on here can possibly know the whole story, and the intensely judgmental nature of some of the posts on this thread is very unpleasant.

There are so many high horses around here I feel like I'm at the Spanish Riding School!

EachPeachPearMum - that is an illogical and unfair position to take. Like I said earlier, in my particular situation if my DH was able to work even 2 more hours a week we'd be getting a load more money from the taxpayer, not less. It is not cut and dried by any means.

Let's not forget, please, that marriage (and these days living together) is a partnership. On the whole a couple living together costs "the taxpayer" a lot less than two single households. That used to be recognised in the marriage couple's tax allowance - oh how the hounds would be baying if that was still in force. And I for one am very happy for my son to grow up knowing that the drive for ever more money is not the most important thing in life.

OK - we may not know the full story but then that goes for all of us doesn't it? We can't possibly know all the intricacies and stress factors in each others lives. The point people have been making is that some people are prepared to work harder to overcome the barriers than others. What if we all sat around waiting for a school hours, term time only job that paid what we consider a 'good enough' amount to make it worth our while? A lot of us would be sitting here waiting for an awfully long time!

Exactly. These term time only, school hours jobs just do not exist!

It is very admirable that so many people on this thread are putting the needs of "the UK taxpayer" before the needs of yourselves and your families. Unfortunately many of the rest of us have been crapped on from a great height by the UK government in various ways, financially and otherwise, and have a less altruistic approach to life.

I work, DH stays at home and works when he can. We do this for selfish reasons - because DH, who is not well, needs a break from looking after DS (2), and because we don't want to remove DS from a nursery that he is thriving at. DH's work pays the childcare and very little else. He doesn't earn enough to pay tax, so sorry folks he's still a sponger.

No doubt when DS goes to school DH will get more work - we hope. But shit happens, and DH has had enough difficulty in the past finding a sensible (or any) job following redundancy from management that we're not holding our breath. Too many people make too many assumptions and it really pees me off.

I would add that if DS was NOT thriving at nursery or was in any way unhappy, we would have no problem whatsoever with removing him and having DH look after him full time. The wellbeing of my son comes first - always.

What I don't understand is that I could get help to have someone else looking after my children, but not to look after them myself!

Precisely Seeker - it's a crazy world.

'It is very admirable that so many people on this thread are putting the needs of "the UK taxpayer" before the needs of yourselves and your families.'

• I think what you're forgetting is that that great amorphous 'UK taxpayer' is other parents, mums and dads who have children, mums and dads who love their children just as much as you love yours, who nurture them and want the best for them.

I think a huge part of the problem here is that too many people think of the 'taxpayer' as some bottomless purse, money that is generated out of nowhere. Tax is money that is earned. Most tax payers I know totally accept that taxes need to be paid to fund education, the health service, and people who literally cannot support themselves. What they object to is funding people who choose not to work because they think they have an entitlement to wait around for years for a job that is from 10 to 2 term time only.

I do pay tax you know. Quite a lot of it. But tax is NOT just money that is earned. That is simply one type of tax - two if you count NI. And as I'm sure you know, people on low incomes actually receive more back in tax credits than they pay - but then I suppose they're scrounging as well?

Tax is duty on fuel, alcohol and cigarettes, VAT on goods, inheritance tax, corporation tax, pension funds tax, etc. etc. People who work to earn money, and earn enough to pay income tax, do not have a monopoly on paying tax.

If someone goes out to work and manages to find a minimum wage job that pays say £10k a year. They could easily receive £7k a year from the taxpayer to pay for full time childcare. Plus other tax credits, housing benefit, etc. That's probably as much, if not more, than they are already receiving in benefits.

There are many reasons for going out to work, don't get me wrong. But doing it for the good of "the taxpayer" is not one of them.

twinkle- that isn't my position, it's a position.
You have a 2 yo- of course one of his parents should be caring for hi wherever possible. JJ stated that she was definitely not going to work, yet her children are not little, so I am trying to understand her position.

And moondancer - have you ever thought of working in a school ? Term-time and school hours abound.

I wasn't assuming that you don't pay tax twinklemegan! I was making a general point really. And yes, there are all sorts of other taxes, but as we were talking in terms of employment, I was referring to income tax.
Again, I think you have highlighted the issue here. There is not a big enough gap between living on benefits and being in employment, and therefore there can be very little incentive to work, for some people. And yes, I agree that there are many reasons for going to work, reasons to do with self esteem, career progression, being a role model for your kids etc, which is why I worked and spent all my income on child care for a few years. But at the end of the day there will always be people who aren't motivated by career progression, or setting a good example to their kids, and who need the financial incentive only to get off their backside and work. And for as long as benefits can pay as much, or almost as much, as earning a wage (when you take into account all the 'extras' that come with benefits - housing costs, free prescriptions, childcare etc) then we will continue to live in a society where some people will live off the tax payer as a life style choice. How much was it Shannon Matthews's mother was claiming in benefits? £1600 a month. Is it any wonder that some people are going to see that as the easier option than going to work?

I think it is an attitude issue. It gets up people's backs when someone says that they have chosen not to work, indeed where they are actively rejecting the idea of working, when the other person feels that this it is not a choice open to them, and that they are contributing to someone else having a lifestyle they themselves cannot afford, or feel is ethically wrong. There are of course areas where getting work is very difficult, and some people have many more advantages than others when it comes to finding work, due to education etc. However many people do put in a lot of effort to get into better positions, through accessing training, college courses etc. This is what the welfare state should be for IMO, tiding over anyone in a tricky position (the safety net) and supporting those who are trying to improve their lot. I think it is taking the piss to claim benefits for years without making any effort to reach a state where you can support yourself. I also think it is unwise to move out of the labour market even if your partner brings in a lot of money, because you never know what may happen in the future.

Point taken EPPM.

I tell you what though, and I know this won't be a popular view. I think it is highly unreasonable to expect a single mother, against her will, to take a job that is NOT school hours and term time only. I know the expectation is there, but I don't agree with it. Why should a child have to spend most of the school holidays in childcare (assuming the parent can find holiday childcare)? And latch key kids are a very bad thing IMO.

I actually have no problem at all with some of my tax going to support single parents in bringing up their own children. I don't wish my own child to be in full time childcare, or holiday childcare - why should I expect it of someone else's child to avoid "wasting" my taxes?

I've only skimmed the thread. I am a higher rate tax payer and my thoughts re child benefit/maternity leave etc is that the families having children now are raising the next generation of potential hedge fund managers/lawyers/doctors/teachers/whatever. So to me, employers have a duty to recognise that their employees who are on maternity leave are raising their potential recruits in 18 or 20 or 25 years time.

My dh and I both (mostly) work full time, like many other families. I don't like my children having to use childcare much either, it's always difficult to make sure they have care that they and we are happy with. But for many many families that's part of life. The idea of having a SAHP in the long term (we have had periods when one or the other of us has been at home) is not something we can afford. I would regard it as a luxury, hence not feeling OK about supporting other families not to work in the long term.

Absolutely totally agree nooka. There is no logical reason to make lone parents a 'special case'. If you believe, as Twinklemegan suggests, that a lone parent shouldn't have to work outside school hours, then what about all the couples who both have to work because they cannot afford to live on one income, and aren't entitled to benefits? They don't have the luxury of working a short day, school hours only, and never having to use childcare.

It seems that some people are saying it's ok for a mother who happens to have stayed with her partner to have to go out to work, but not a mother who has split from her partner. Totally illogical.

I'm with Twinklemegan here. I see no reason why a single parent - or any other parent for that matter - should be obliged to go out to work in order to earn a pittance so that they can pay another woman a pittance to look after her children! It's insane!

Agree with Seeker - totally barmy.

There was a programme on "the underlass" though the programme-makers didn't use the term. One of the people featured on it had never worked, and lived on benefits throughout her life. Her parents were the same. Her argument for a lifetime of entitlement was that her grandfather had paid taxes ...

I am outraged that the the vast majority of people thing that looking after children and bringing up the next generation to be secure and worthwhile members of society is not a valuable job. Oh, unless you are being paid to do it to other people's children!

And single families should gat more help because they are statistically more likely to be living in poverty.

And people without children should contribute to the bringing up of children because they have a vested interest in ensuring that there are enough well balanced, well educated, healthy people in the future to loo after them in their old age!