What could the Government do to support families where one parents wants to stay at home?

[puddle]

This has been mentioned on the thread about 'wraparound' school hours. Many posters are saying it's a good idea as long as it is coupled with Government support for families that want to have one person working and the other at home.

What kind of support do people mean and how would it make a difference? What can the Government really do to make being at home a viable option for families?

[Tortington]

i think that would have a lot to do with the goodwill of the employer - whether you could cut your hours down - and not a lot of people would be able to access it.

[horseshoe]

I'll probably get blasted for saying this but IMO people who chose to have kids should be aware of their finacial state before making the decision to have them.

Dont get me wrong...I completely back plans to give extra maternity pay, leave etc but at what cost to women??? Employers especially small businesses will be very choosy about women that they employ and how can a interviewee prove that the reason they were turned down was because they were of child bearing age?

Tax credits to me only seem to benefit people on lower incomes where only one or even both parents do not work and yet many people on reasonable incomes still cannot afford to drop half their incomes.

therefore I think affordable housing is the key as it seems to be the brunt of many issues. Other than if the individual is fairly debt free and housing is affordable than that should help.

[Caligula]

The problem with that, horseshoe, is that people's financial situation can change. And also, they make decisions based on future expectations which may not be fulfilled. Most of us take out mortgages expecting our income to get better over the years. Not many couples take out mortgages anticipating a fall in income (although perhaps they should).

I agree with you on housing though - I really think for most people, housing costs are the single biggest factor in their decision making. (For most people, the mortgage is the single biggest outgoing.)

[horseshoe]

I agree with you there and I think unforseen situations do arise.

I guess my point is aimed more at the people who do not consider financial situations at all. I know one too many people that worry about what they are going to do on maternity leave for 3 months. To me that shows no financial awareness what so ever.

A friend of mine for example does not work, her DH works when bothered and yet she suprised me in how much she received in benefits such as council tax and rent benefits and tax credits. There is absolutely no desire for her to go out and work and as long as the government keep giving. She will stay at home.

My local council also provide housing and free childcare to mothers under 19 so that they can attend college or school and whilst I do not disagree with young mothers I laughed when the council reported that we have one of the highest teen rate pregnancies in the UK. Of course we do!!

I think the govenrment are very eager to improve mothers incomes so that they have more choice. However, I dont see how they are currently going about it helps. The childcare voucher is automatically the childs at 18! What if my child heavens forbid is experimenting with drugs at that age. Do I really want them to get instant access to cash?? Wouldn't the government of been better off investing it into universities and making places more affordable for youngsters?

[Tortington]

i think if your thinking is that you will have a baby who you will be solely responsible for for the rest of your life so you can get a house and free childcare to got o college - then you have seriously low life standard expectations which is a larger question in itself. thats why the TPU's educate teenagers into having a greater hope and career choice than having a baby.

and anyone wanting a baby who comes from a poorer background will realise that having a child will be more likely to keep you in poverty than not.

i have always told my kids, that if they want money - dont have kids. that doesn't mean you can't raise children on a low income.

however my argument is exactly this.

when is it ok to pay mums to be good little laura ashlyites and colour with their kids - and when are you paying scoungers who can't be arsed getting a job? how does one sort the wheat from the chaff?

[TwinSetAndPearls]

I live in an area with a very high teenage mum rate and work in family support so deal with these issues on a daily basis.

As custardo said, teenagers who get pregnant soley to get a council house, or more often a room in a hostel have very low expectations in life. If they keep these expectations they will go on to have more children. By giving them somewhere to live, perhaps out of the environment which led them to think being a teenage mum would be a good life choice, and an education we are raising their life chances and giving them an oppurtunity to succeed in a way other than having sex and babies. This must be a good thing, it may not work in every case, but surely it is worth it for the cases it does work in.

AS for mothers being at home on benefits I work with many women in this situation and see them being approached/pressuerd to going back to work. Many of these women are very vulnerable and are barely coping with the stresses of their life as it is, adding employment into the equation will not help. By being out of work they are able to access services which build their confidence, become better parents and build skills so eventually they can enter the job market. My main concern here is for the children, in many cases they are better of with a parent at home accessing services which will result in an improved home environment which will in turn result in a happy well adjusted adults twenty years down the line. Hopefully then the chain of deprivation will be broken and these young sdults will be contributing to the state purse rather than taking.

[Caligula]

Custardo I don't think you can ever sort the wheat from the chaff. There will always be arseholes in society; the reason why we don't have perfect societies, after centuries of philosophical discussion on how to construct a perfect society, is because human beings are imperfect. There will always be bad people around ready to play the system, whatever system you have. But that's no reason we should construct the system (whichever one) around those people.

[Tortington]

whilst i wholeheartedly agree with you caligula - thats not how society is constructed. its constructed to force people to work, its constructed towards consumersim to the detriment of others. the myth that money = good, better, superior. the shiny car, the mortgage, the laura ashley furniture, the designer clothes and the highly expensive seeweed wraps, whole industries around "pampering", forever cheaper supermarkets who force closure of local shops, the 20p teatowel at the expense of some kid in columbia, investments, stocks shares, get more buy more spend more.

if you do not participate in this society as per the above rules - you are already rich enough to do so or poor enough to be in receipt of benefits.

we cannot change a whole society and its capitalist ethos - the govt is not about to say " hold n a minute - i have ust bought some buddha beads and it got me thinking....stay at home and look after yourkids if you want - free josh sticks and sandles all round"

in a capitalist society you must make money - hence whole govt industires to help with childcare after school care,breakfast clubs, sure start clubs. the govt isn't in the business of encouraging people to do otherwise