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.

Don't be outraged Seeker

Truth be told I am not sure that having children is anything other than self-indulgent. I love children and wanted them but ecologically, it's insane to carry on over-populating the planet.

Oh why not. I like a good outrage on a Tuesday morning!

Children are no crime. But I do think they are and should be seen as a luxury - to the extent that you should not plan to have them if that would push the existing family finances into below subsidence poverty. I feel it is unreasonable to expect taxpayers (or use taxmoney, if you prefer) to pay a living wage for one parent to stay at home to look after them.

Fiofio, I believe you you are reading too much into the word 'luxury'. I mean 'luxury' as contrasted with 'entitlement' in terms of expecting to have children whose upbringing is paid for by taxpayers.

Children are not possessions. They don't belong to their parents. They are their own people.

I think that's it really. I just dislike anyone saying they are entitled to things in life. Especially when that entitlement comes from the contributions of other people. If you have children, surely part of good parenting is actively providing for them? I am very glad to have grown up in a society that considers supporting those who have fallen onto hard times, for whatever reason a social good (especially now I live in Canada, where homelessness is common, and the major Christmas charity is a food bank for local families). But the system was not intended to allow anyone to simply opt out of working.

'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.'

• you see, this is the kind of attitude that really gets up people's noses. Parents who work do bring up the next generation. Please can we get rid of this pretence that if you have paid employment outside the home, then you are somehow not able to be a parent and raise your own kids. According to this logic, everyone should stop working as soon as they have a child - mums and dads - because otherwise they are obviously not being a parent!!! Not sure who would be working to support all these stay-at-home-families

Some people may not like to admit it, but the evidence shows that children of parents who work, are more likely to be educated to a higher level, achieve more qualifications etc. If you choose to stay at home with your children, then be honest about your motives. It may be because you enjoy it, but it isn't going to be 'better' for them.

Good point, findariver. It is perfectly possible to be in paid employment AND raise secure well adjusted children. I am doing 2 valuable jobs.

Good post findtheriver

It's also been found that children who start school having been to nursery have better social and communication skills than those that haven't so maybe us working parents are doing something right when we put our children into nurseries and go to work.

Oh, and children aren't a luxury, they're a blessing but also a responsibility. If you choose to have children you should be the one feeding, clothing and housing them, not expecting the state to bankroll you. The benefits system is a safety net for those who can't work, not an entitlement for those who can't be arsed to work!

I'm sorry if I got up anyone's nose - I expressed myself badly.

I just think it's extraordinary that no one expects a person to be a lawyer and a teacher. oR a taxi driver and a shop assistant, but they do expect them to be a lawyer and a mother, or a shop assistant and a mother. Lip service is given to parenting being a valuable job, but somehow you are considered at best a light weight and at worst a scrounger if you choose to have it as your only job for part of your life.

"It's also been found that children who start school having been to nursery have better social and communication skills than those that haven't"

Found by whom?

Found by independent researchers at the University of London (so no 'Government agenda') For more info see
here

It also found that the children of SAHM who don't go to nursery school or playgroup are five times less popular and are less good at making friends.

Wow - a 10 year old study of 187 children! Very convincing!

Having children is neither a lifestyle choice nor a luxury. It is an essential part of life if the human race is to continue and there's no point denying it. On the other hand having two parents working full time IS a lifestyle choice. In many cases, and many places, it is perfectly possible to live on one average, or below average, income - I know because we do, and we don't receive a huge amount of tax credit by the way. It would be possible everywhere if double incomes hadn't become the norm.

As for not wanting to pay parents to look after their own children. You all seem perfectly happy for your taxes to be used to pay somebody else a lot more to look after those children. Doesn't that strike any of you as somewhat perverse?

It makes absolutely no sense to me to pay parents to SAHM. Paying others to do so does make sense though as it allows the parents to work and to contribute financially to society.

And yes having children is necessary for the survival of the human race but it isn't necessary for everyone to have them to continue the species, we(the world) has a population problem and we're unlikely to go extinct soon because of a lack of people.

It isn't necessary to stay at home to raise one's child, people who work are also raising their children.

Do you people really only care about money? What a sad way to be.

I work full time and I don't kid myself that I'm really and truly raising my son - my husband is. If he was in nursery full time then his key worker would be. Sorry if that's not what some people want to hear, but it's the truth.

Well if you want more robust research evidence see here

I don't only care about money but the NHS is struggling, social services are struggling, people with disabilities or who have children with disabilities are having to fight desparately for even the tiniest bit of help.

We can't afford to pay every woman/man to stay at home, who will pay for it if we take out a huge number of potential tax payers?I'd rather take care of the above issues first.

And yes my mother did raise me, I went to a nursey they looked after me for the afternoon but my mother certainly raised me and I was never in any doubt about that.

I'm curious to know if you believe that school age children are being raised by their schools and not the parents?

"Having children is neither a lifestyle choice nor a luxury."

Having children IS a lifestyle choice unless you happen to belong to particular religions (which in themselves are probably lifestyle choices as well). Can you really argue that bringing more children into this overcrowded planet is anything other than self-indulgent? Really?

I've never argued that childcare should be provided free by governments - that piece of social policy would be pure lunacy.

If this was really thought to be important, and if the Government really wanted to help parents back into employment, then they would be assisting with childcare costs where the second parent works less than 16 hours a week. That would help parents be able to take any job that came up whatever the hours, thus improving their employability in the future. It would also give young children the chance to socialise without becoming institutionalised at a young age. As the Government is not doing this it is clear that it has neither the interests of parents nor children at heart.

Falcon - the early years are some of the most crucial for forming a child's relationships and character and that is why I believe they should spend the majority, not necessarily all, their time with one or other parent.

As for paying people to stay at home. As I said earlier, it is a fact that when a single parent, or both parents, go out to work, the Government will often be spending nearly as much, if not more, taxpayers' money on tax credits, childcare costs etc. than they would if they stayed at home. That is where the argument is flawed IMO.

You know if the basic living costs were controlled like rent controls in europe and USA and house prices not blantently rigged then most mothers wouldn't need to work.
My parents bought a 3 bedroomed house for 3 times dad's salary, there was never any question of Mums income being included because they knew long term she wouldn't be working.
So by including the 2nd partners salary into the calculation when deciding how much money to borrow, women and mothers have basically enslaved themselves to the debt and have nobody to blame but themselves if they can't give up work.
Buyer control any market and if everyone refused to pay, prices would come down, full stop.

Personally my main motivation isn't money - we would be ok on what DH earns - it's that I enjoy my job, I was able to negotiate to work part-time and I like using my brain. I know it's one of those things you're not meant to say, but I'd go out of my mind with boredom if I was at home 24/7. I spend 4 days a week with dd and I love and enjoy the time I spend with her and yes, I do feel I'm raising my daughter jointly with my DH.

Perhaps so, I'd like to get the figures on that. But the difference is that if the parents are out working some of that money will be returned via tax. This isn't the case if the parent is paid to stay at home.