To want to sink to my knees and cry?

[tessofthedurbervilles]

When my baby is born I would be better off not working than returning to my well paid respectable job....that is just the most stupid thing ever. All I want to do is pay my way but the system is making it easier to live on handouts.....

Yes, I had children in my thirties rather than my twenties, when I had been qualified for 6 years or so and was earning enough to pay for childcare.

Women actually are percolating up into the senior grades more nowadays in my profession but many of those women are childfree - which means that they are not wrestling with the same sort of issues that we are.

Obviously I would encourage my children to be sensible in their career choices, but they will be THEIR choices at the end of the day. My parents didn't need to tell me not to party through my 20s- they simply brought me up with a work ethic, which meant that when I qualified at 22 I went straight into a job, worked bloody hard, long long hours, to the point where I crashed my car through exhaustion and nearly killed myself. As it is, I do still have a career, and I am forunate enough to still make some profit after paying childcare. I have no aspiration to be a high-flier. I don't particularly admire people/ women who earn a lot, tbh. Nor do I want my kids growing up obsessed with money and how to make it. I would just like them to be able to grow up in a society that enables more choice for families (nothing to do with men/ women/ who earns what) Maybe in the future there could be government provided childcare, paid for on a proportion-of-your-wages basis, like tax. I'd like to see my dd's AND my ds benefit from a society which values the family unit and the skills of parents which could be better utilized.

It does depress me that several people seem to think doing anything other than working really hard/buying a house/starting a family in your 20s is a "waste". I tend to think of them as your freedom years when you should be doing as much as possible and experiencing as much as possible without any ties to hold you back. If you choose to immerse yourself in a career or family then fair enough but I think many people are still finding their feet at that age and it's a good time to make some mistakes (mostly) free of consequences.

LLL, in some ways I agree, but in other ways I don't.

We live in a society, like all societies, in which there are elderly people, children, and people who are too disabled to work. Our productive working lives are around about 40 -50 years, and we at out fittest and strongest in our 20s. For me personally, those are the years in which we are most obliged to contribute to society, not just through work, but by a commitment to helping others in wider society.

I find it hard to see things from another perspective because I was brought up to believe that paying my own way was an absolute minimum contribution; on top of that you have to help others who cannot help themselves.

I agree paying one's way is a priority but that doesn't necessarily mean settling down into your career-for-life or your partner-for-life. If you want to try out a few different jobs/men, then surely that should be the time you do it. If you want to temp and save up to backpack around Latin America then, yes, do it before you have children/property to worry about.

Yes I agree with you lala but Milly's point was that if you do have a gadfly period in your twenties, then you cannot really complain about not being able to afford childcare and mortgages in your thirties ...

LLL, but who are you helping by backpacking around South America? It just seems self indulgent. It is good that you have got what you want out of life, but this thread is about people who are often struggling financially, and I doubt that backpacking around South America will help in any way. I also doubt that the government is going to be convinced that it should tax people more to provide universal childcare as parents spent their savings on backpacking.

I think it is good that you have a childcare solution that works and things seem to have gone really well for you, but what is your opinion on the backpacker types who have no house, savings or pension and now expect the government to pay their childcare and a reasonable pension?

I know I am being a bit OTT and in fact I know I am being unreasonable, but since my partner became disabled it has really started to wind me up that I work full time and he works full time and we have two kids and we don't ask for or get any help from the state; yet everywhere I look (not on MN), other people seem to be jumping around shouting 'I'm the victim!' and demanding more help and more money that they haven't earned. I don't want our taxes reduced, but I want that money to go to people less fortunate than my family, and there are many, many people who are less fortunate. I do not want to pay the pension or childcare of backpackers.

I do see your point but just feel sorry for people who have not had the same advantages as me and that boils down to not having to pay for my higher education (no fees when I was studying - loans only just coming in) and being able to get on the property ladder when houses were still affordable and trade up accordingly. I really resent that the cost of housing and education has skewed people's lives to such an extent that they now enter adulthood with a huge burden of debt and will have to become responsible for even more if they wish to own their own home. It just seems so bloody joyless.

You're right that backpacking around South America won't help anyone but it might be interesting for the person backpacking. More interesting at that point in their life than inching their way up the corporate ladder or studying in preparation to do that. Once they get back they can busy themselves being more useful to society, getting a bit of direction.

But I think I have allowed myself to get away from the original debate which was about childcare. I'm not sure free universal childcare is ever going to achievable but if they could make childcare completely tax deductable and then they would reward people who work. I don't resent paying any taxes except for the fact that I can't offset my childcare costs (thankfully fairly minimal) against my income when it is my childcare that allows me to work.

So have we decided then that it's socially necessary to reward people working, and it's a step in the right direction if they make childcare fully tax-deductible for everyone??

Will the SAHMs have a fit at that, or does it seem sufficiently fair?

Hello you lot.

I've just returned to MN after some time away and have found this thread fascinating.

Love the idea of a co-ordinated effort, starting from MNers. to address the issue of middle earners - yeap, totally agree that these are the people who are always overlooked.

Come on ladies - where do we start?

I think Xenia suggested some kind of tax allowance for 1 SAHP in a 2 person family, at least while children are young. That might stop SAHPs feeling overburdened.

Sorry, I meant 2 parent family.

BoffinMum - of course it should be tax-deductible. It is an essential expense incurred through working.

Why should SAHPs have any gripe about it?

Not sure but SAHPs sometimes seem a bit chippy.

How about:

Childcare fully tax-deductible (parents can divide the liability in the most advantageous way for them) PLUS transferable tax allowances between mums and dads in the case of one half of the relationship being non-earning?

Does that sound viable? Would there be any unintended consequences from policies like this? Or additional positive outcomes?

Seems eminently sensible to me.

Why aren't you running the country BoffinMum?

Because I would probably cry all the time at all the nasty men having a go at me in Parliament, if I am going to be brutally honest. I am far too much of a softy.

Plus parliamentary pay for MPs is too low and I wouldn't be able to afford the childcare!

BoffinMum!

It might be good to see if the Tories will take this on as it links to their stated policies on the family (below). Then the other parties will start jostling about this in the run up to the next election and the debate will hot up. What do people think?? Is my instinct about this correct?

--

Family
A strong and stable family provides children with the security and affection they need. By supporting the family, we can increase opportunity and ensure everyone has the best possible start in life. Our ambition is to make Britain the most family-friendly country in the world.

Our efforts to reduce educational inequality, end child poverty and tackle crime will be undermined if we do not support families.

So a Conservative Government will give families the support, flexibility and financial help they need.

Financial help:
Money worries can put a huge strain on relationships ? so we will end the couple penalty in the benefits system and recognise marriage in the tax and benefits system
Flexibility:

We will introduce a new system of flexible parental leave which gives mothers and fathers 12 months' leave to split between them

We will extend the right to request flexible working to all parents with children under the age of 18, and ensure the public sector becomes a world leader in providing flexible working opportunities

Support:
We are committed to introducing a universal home health visiting service to help families through the challenges that come with a new child. The number of health visitors will be raised by 4,200 - and new mothers will be provided with a guaranteed level of support for the first five years
We will support a diverse childcare system, with parents' needs met by a variety of providers, including childminders and private, voluntary and independent nurseries

Sounds good doesn't it?...

I might even break the habit of a lifetime and vote Tory if I can be persuaded they mean it...

SAHP probably sound 'chippy' sometimes because they're sick of feeling like they have to defend their choice to look after their children rather than go and do something really important and beneficial to society, like selling advertising space in magazines while their children are cared for in small herds by teenagers on minimum wage.

Oh gawd, I remember why I left MN for a while when I read posts like titty's.

Since when have working parents NOT looked after their children? Yawn......

ARe you SAHM? Sorry,maybe I should know from the thread if you are. I wish SAHMs would come on the thread and say what would help them, as they will have similar money problems. Of course SAHP is a job; it is childcare. Could the partner of the SAHP not get a tax deduction that was equivalent to the cost of their children being in FT childcare, and then that deduction be paid into the bank account of the SAHP? Would that not be equivalent to fully tax deductible childcare for a 2 parents in FT paid employment?

If society wants tax deductible childcare, then SAHP could be treated as a tax deductible expense?

I'd like to see much lower taxes, flat taxes and no tax allowances or tax credits. Perhaps all those people with children over 1 who are timetables to be forced to work for benefits could be roped in though to provide entirely free child care on rotas for the hard working full time working poor however as that would cost the state nothing.

As for back packing etc it's up to people what htey choose to do in their teens. We really did save very hard and work very hard in our twenties, had a full time nanny for three children who cost more than 50% of each of our wages plus a mortgage which was a big percentage of salary in those days too in the mid 80s. My sister instead after Oxbridge joined a cult, travelled etc etc. We're about the same age. I'm better off but because I earned a lot and then divorced someone much poorer I'm nothing like as better off as I would otherwise have been. Lesson to women is always marry men who earn 10x what they earn rather than earn 10x what their husband earns otherwise they lose out on divorce which always favours lower earners which is the converse of what I was saying above about picking well paid careers.

I have said it before and I will say it again, the Government appears to be full of Titties, violethill ...

there should be affordable subsidised childcare available to anyone who wants it. of the type that private day nurseries charge an arm and a leg for.

i don't know what happened with surestart, but i know that it wasn't enough, because in my area day nurseries still cost £250pw and you would have to be earning way above the national average to afford that.

we have to get rid of the stupid ludicrous tax credits scheme (i am biased - they overpaid me apparently and i am still paying it back so i have not received anything for years - it is so complicated that i can't understand it at all)

and all childcare should be fully tax-deductible.

and maybe there should be a national standard "part time" status, let's say 20 hours per week, and employers would buy into this and it wouldn't have any negative connotations or anything. in my company there are plenty of jobs which could be done on this basis but employers don't tend to think of it.