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.

Well it depends how much you earn actually. Personally, I get no tax credits and some childcare vouchers. I spend nearly £500 a month on nursery fees and pay a shedload of tax so the Government makes far more from me in work than it would out of work.

I think the statement that:
'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.' is bollocks and I'd really like to see the evidence to support that 'so called' fact

I've never had any form of child tax credit or working tax credit or vouchers.

My children certainly weren't "institutionalised" by spending a part of their life at nursery, nor did the nursery bring them up. What a load of tosh. Working parents choose to work for a variety of reasons, only one of which is about money. I stayed at work after having children because what I do is worthwhile, I am good at it, I didn't want to give a satisfying career up or take a backwards step by opting out of the workplace for several years, I didn't want to be dependent on dh (my job was also more secure and better paid than his) and I get incredibly bored at home. The money is certainly important, but it is by no means the driving factor for me at least (and I'm sure for at least a few others). I was happy for my children to be looked after by someone I personally chose to look after them, who quite clearly enjoyed babies a great deal more than me (we had a nanny when they were very small). I had no problem employing her to do what she wanted to do, and I was confident that the children were very happy with her. Other families make their own choices, about how to balance work and family life and I have no problem with that, so long as they are not making a long term choice to opt out on the basis that the state will be responsible for their children's welfare.

The government provides a great deal of help to parents, but I agree the policies are not yet flexible enough to help all parents who need it.

KatieDD - precisely. We have organised our life around having one very modest salary. My view was that by doing this, any second income would be a bonus and we wouldn't go under if we didn't have it. But boy was it a struggle and it continues to be so - life is designed for double incomes and I agree that people who have subscribed to that way of life only have themselves to blame.

That's exactly what we did too, we can afford our mortgage (and we were first time buyers last year at the age of 32 and 39 due to divorces and moving country), but we still weren't going to be trapped into a situation where I had to work.
When I do go back full time, I intend to clear the mortgage in 10 years but I'll be doing that between the age of 40 and 50 not whilst my babies are growing up and need me, not a nanny or nursery or child minder.

That's exactly what we did too, we can afford our mortgage (and we were first time buyers last year at the age of 32 and 39 due to divorces and moving country), but we still weren't going to be trapped into a situation where I had to work.
When I do go back full time, I intend to clear the mortgage in 10 years but I'll be doing that between the age of 40 and 50 not whilst my babies are growing up and need me, not a nanny or nursery or child minder.

The only subsidy we have had is nursery costs when dd hit 3 or so. I don't think that defrayed much of mine and dh's tax burden. Our mortgage was calculated on my income alone. When I was planning to buy a house as a student, the bank refused to allow my mother to be the guarantor. The bank manager made it very clear that was because she was a woman. Sexist prig. We went elsewhere. "Rigging" occurs when prices are controlled btw, not in a free market, where house prices might be ridiculous, but they are not set by anyone, just by the expectations of buyers and sellers. No one is obliged to buy a house at all.

Well given that it's likely to cost as much to keep a child in childcare as the Government will pay in income support to a single parent I think it's pretty obvious. And there ain't going to be a lot of tax from a minimum wage salary to offset those costs.

I'm not going to waste my time doing any more research on that. You're all intelligent enough to go work it out for yourselves. If I'm wrong, that's fine. I still stand by the principle that a parent should look after their own child.

Quattro - from seeing what you've said on other threads I doubt you need tax credits. We're not all as fortunate as you.

The posters on the thread are looking after their own child, they haven't farmed them out you know because they actually get to see a few extra faces each day. They're obviously so disinterested in their own children that they're posting on a parenting site.

And again are schools raising school age children?

It's fine for people to say they have other motivations for working. I get that - I enjoy working as well. The reason I am focussing on the monetary aspect is because that is the argument being made for single parents/SAHP's (which I still can't quite believe) going out to work. I have never denied there are other reasons why it might be desirable for them to do so.

Twinklemegan - you're talking rubbish! You can't just make things up and then call them facts Pathetic!

As for a parent looking after their own child, working to provide financially for your child IS looking after your child. Sitting on your arse claiming benefits isn't!

Twinklemegan - you're talking rubbish! You can't just make things up and then call them facts Pathetic!

As for a parent looking after their own child, working to provide financially for your child IS looking after your child. Sitting on your arse claiming benefits isn't!

Also I really don't understand why there is this sentiment that only babies need their primary carer around them. My experience of older children is that they need you more as they grow up, not less. I worked to get senior enough to be able to be very flexible as the children hit junior school, when they need help with homework, friendships and the general complexities of life. Not taking a big break meant I didn't have to start again with my career and play catch up. But I have also taken the choice not to move to a high pressure environment at least until the children are well into secondary school, and possibly at university. Most of us attempt to plan our lives for the best balance, I think it is foolish to think there is a one size fits all solution.

Are we discussing people claiming benefits, I thought the discussion was around people in relationships with their DP/DH thinking they should get additional help towards childcare, they aren't on benefits.

Falcon - a child is at school from, what, 8.45 until 3.30? A toddler might be in nursery from 8.30 in the morning til 5.30 or 6. Therein lies the difference. And yes, once a child goes to school their school life has a massive influence on them - look at the effects of peer pressure and the like. As I said, the early formative years are the most crucial ones for parental contact IMO.

The thread moved on to non working parents a while ago.

So 2 or 3 hours is the difference between a parent raising their child and you considering that they aren't doing so?

That they're there for the child when he has a problem, that they feed them, clothe them, love them, look after them when they are ill, take them out, support and hold them?

They do all of that and more, and because they work they aren't raising their children? What nonsense.

Have a look on www.entitledto.co.uk and put in working 16 hours a week as a single parent and earning £6k a year and paying £150 childcare for one child.
The entitlement is £230 plus the person keeps their wages which is below the tax threshold.
On top of this they would get housing benefit and council tax benefit.
A single parent on income support would get £60 per week + £40 for the child.
They too would get ct and hb.
So there we have it, the reason unemployment was below 2 million, because thousands of people worked a little bit and got paid more than many did working full time.

Sorry Yadda - I thought that was the whole premise of Mumsnet.

It isn't actually the benefits thing that's particularly riling me on this thread (although I think most SAHP's would be at the sitting on their arse bit - that's what I do at work, it is not what DH does at home). What has really pissed me off about this thread and the people on it, is the disgusting claim that my DH and other SAHPs are somehow sponging off the taxpayer.

I'm not going to waste my time on this ridiculous thread any more. If anyone can be bothered to go and find out how the other half lives, do let me know.

So Twinklemum it's those two hours that make the difference is it? My children didn't change when they started to go to nursery, or indeed when they stopped. That's because their main influence was, and remains, their parents (and each other). The peer influence becomes more important as they get older, but in my experience doesn't really become that influential until secondary school (maybe late primary).

After all I work 9-5, but the most important people in my life are not my colleagues, but my husband and children.

Twinklemegan: "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." and "Well given that it's likely to cost as much to keep a child in childcare as the Government will pay in income support to a single parent I think it's pretty obvious. And there ain't going to be a lot of tax from a minimum wage salary to offset those costs."

You are misguided about how the tax system works. It costs taxpayers NOTHING MORE to pay out tax credits, childcare vouchers to a working parent. All that comes out of tax which THAT PARENT parent would pay out of THEIR OWN/HOUSEHOLD INCOME. Even if the tax credits and childcare vouchers equal that parent's income for a very low wage earner, the state is no worse or better off. It just does not collect tax from that parent's paid toil. In reality, that parents' tax is very likely to exceed tax credits/childcare vouchers etc so the government benefits by collecting the excess tax from that parent's income which it would not collect at all if that parent felt priced out of the job market but for the credits/vouchers. Society benefits all round from more working parents through increased tax coffers.

Contrast that with income support or child benefit or the so-called living wage to a SAHP. That SAHP is NOT working. They are not paying tax. To pay that SAHP, the government would have to fund the money out of other taxpayers' money, not that SAHP's tax because of course that SAHP does not pay tax. This will eat into the tax pot.

I totally understand the tax system is not a paying out what you put in system. But from the point of view of the taxman, comparing tax credits and childcare vouchers on one hand with income support etc on the other hand is comparing apples and oranges.

Twinkle: "As I said, the early formative years are the most crucial ones for parental contact IMO."

I don't entirely disagree. The later years are equally if more crucial for parental contact. By that I mean that as a child goes to school, often only a parent will do. My dd 5 wants either me or dh to watch her lunchtime ballet performance and Christmas concert - the aupair will not do. My dd needs my input for her homework and only I can do it (Mandarin). My dd confides things to me (playground issues) that she would not confide to the aupair. I can only imagine my and dh's input becomes even more important as she grows up.

I don't deny early years are important as well. But frankly, my ds 2 would not blink an eye if I was not at his Christmas play.

All I am saying is there is no need to organise your life such that one parent spends the early years at home (to the often catastophic detriment to their career and finances) only to try and catch up later in the mistaken belief that their presence will somehow become less important once their dcs go to school. Instead, opt for a lifestyle that is more sustainable from early years to later years.

Parenting is a long haul game.

I don't entirely agree.

Similar to nooka's experience below.

Because I have kept a firm foothold in paid employment throughout my dcs' early formative years, we have managed to pay down our mortgage massively. This will put us in a somewhat enviable position for me to give up my work in a few years' time should my dcs require.

Masses of overpayments and equity in the house also means that if dh and/or I lose our jobs in this current economic climate, we will do alright.

Having a sound financial plan is also taking dcs' needs and interests into account.