New childcare proposals?

We are a double income family and so benefited from individualisation but I still think it was wrong and bad for society as a whole. The government knew that their policy of encouraging women into the work force (and that is what it was all about) would cause huge problems down the line in the childcare area. They knew it and chose to ignore it. What they should have done was put a comprehensive childcare strategy into place at the same time as bringing in individualisation. IMHO this was a FF policy that had obvious consequences so the mess and hardship that followed for families rests at their door.
 
Why is it down to the Government to provide childcare? They were your choice. Ill health is not a choice, infirmity is not a choice...lets look after our vulnerable citizens first and if there is cash left over provide day care to all on a P/T basis only. Force employers to accept that either Mother OR Father need only work 60 hours a week between them so One parent works full time the other Part time. All that is happening here is the greed factor. A more social family orientated atmosphere would benefit all. Instead of packing Gran off to care home some one stays at home and looks after gran. Its a harder, pooer way all round but more rewarding long term. IMO.
 
Purple said:
We are a double income family and so benefited from individualisation but I still think it was wrong and bad for society as a whole. The government knew that their policy of encouraging women into the work force (and that is what it was all about) would cause huge problems down the line in the childcare area. They knew it and chose to ignore it. What they should have done was put a comprehensive childcare strategy into place at the same time as bringing in individualisation. IMHO this was a FF policy that had obvious consequences so the mess and hardship that followed for families rests at their door.
Click to expand...
What many double income families fail to realise, not referring to you Purple, is that if they find themselves in the situation where they wish or must revert to one income (because of additions to their complement or maybe a chronically sick child) it is made all the more difficult by 'Individualisation'.
 
quarterfloun said:
Why is it down to the Government to provide childcare?
Click to expand...

Why is it down to the Government to let U2 live here without paying income tax, to let John Magnier be subsidised by the State purse, blah, blah, blah ?

There is a period of time in the lives of families where a disproportionate cost of living has to be borne. It is IMHO equitable that something be allowed for the tax system and/or social welfare system to alleviate the burden for as long as it exists.

I have 2 children, 5 & 3, and my wife gave up paid employment to be there for them. She now believes that her IT skills are atrophying by the day, i.e. her chances of getting back to the level of responsibility and respect and, let's be blunt, remuneration that she was at, diminish also by the day.

Being at home all day every day has it's benefits and drawbacks. The biggest drawback is financial, both up-front in the impact of 4 of us living off one salary, and also an opportunity cost in the reduction in future earnings, pension provision, etc.

This government is prone to extravagant wastes of money. Providing a greater level of social provision for children and their parents is not extravagant.
 
quarterfloun said:
Instead of packing Gran off to care home some one stays at home and looks after gran.
Click to expand...
Having gone through the very difficult decision of caring for an infirm elderly parent, this off-the-cuff remark does no justice to that difficult situation. The assumption that gran is naturally better off at home as opposed to getting professional care is flawed.
 
I would agree with you Rainyday on the point above regarding care for the elderly. My grandmother is able to take care of herself in her own home at present but this situation may change in the near future. It is a difficult decision for anyone to decide what is best for their relative when they are no longer able to care for themselves and every circumstance may require a different approach. I think very few people "pack off Gran" without a care in the world.

Childcare is another issue that depends on every families circumstance. One income families,double income families,creches, childminders,nannies etc are all decisions that are made by people assessing their individual circumstances and coming to a decision on what works for them. That is why I think the option to increase child benefit would help all families and wouldn't require any additional admin costs as other proposals would. This would provide SAHM with more money as well as helping those with other childcare arrangements. I know the very top earners would get it too but the costs of means testing would outweigh the extra benefit given IMHO.
 
Rainy, Fobs & Tarf, You are all right of course, packing off Gran was meant to be an illustration of the selfish approach of some of society who view elderly (and some their children) as a burden, not an assault on those who had to make difficult decisions. For me Dad needed 24 hour care - It was a no brainer. For others on the edge - a much more difficult decision.

U2, Magnier et al should pay their way the same as the rest of us. And those with more should pay more. They have the same selfish approach to expecting others to carry the can for them in terms of paying tax as others do in terms of childcare.

To qualify that point if you are going to be an Ubergroup pop star then guess what - you are going to be well off and you should expect to pay your way. Unfortunately corrupt and inept government see fit to let these people off with it.

My core ethos is that we should all care for each other and perhaps instead of packing off gran we can still send her but spend more time with her there. In life we have to make decisions and compromises.

I'm not so starry eyed that I think we all live in a wonderful Socialist country where the common good comes before capitalistic gain but I can hope that though my words and actions somebody might stop and think about where they are going with their lives and realise what their children are before they have grown up and fled the nest.

Look at me for example. I take home less than 400 a week. I have savings and I rent at 700 a month. I dont get rent tax rebate cos I do not pay any tax. My wife and I know our savings will expire on current budget in 2 years however, yesterday, through this site, I found Family Income Supplement. This means we get three years possibly and then our kids will be 8 & 10. Then we start building up savings, paying tax and have a small pension. Instead of buying my boat I might build it instead.

We are doing everything in our power to look after our own for as long as possible and FIS seems a great aid at keeping the family together. I see Childcare benefit(?) as a method of keeping family apart.

It's the system that we work to is the problem. Your wife should be able to work P/T, keep her job and her children (or you could). So instead of "rewarding" greed we should "reward" community. We should concoct schemes that allow family and community to function over family and factory every time. Thus we all get what we want except the people that drain us from the top - U2 & Magnier.
 
quarterfloun

I agree with the sentiment of your last post, but your choice of words doesn't help you make your case.

'selfish approach to expecting others to carry the can for them .. as others do in terms of childcare'

'So instead of "rewarding" greed'

Your situation, as you describe it, is more challenging than my own. Nevertheless it is/should be short-term and getting a hand-up from the Exchequer is not greed. Over the course of your working life, you will donate more to the State coffers than you get back.
 
Last edited:
Your wife should be able to work P/T, keep her job and her children (or you could). So instead of "rewarding" greed we should "reward" community
Click to expand...

The fact that I choose to work full-time doesn't make me greedy. A lot of professions/employers do not facilitate part-time work and if i were to do so would have at least an hours commute as opposed to 10 minutes in my present full-time role. People shouldn't make sweeping statements that all double income families are greedy. Everyone's circumstances are different and every family has there OWN reasons for the way they decide to run their lives.
THe state benefits from my husbands and my taxes and so some tax relief in order to facilitate us to participate in the workforce should be encouraged.
If my employer were to introduce some family friendly policies regading part-time/flexi-time then my choices would be different but don't see this changing unless again mandatory.
 
The East German model from the 1950’s gave each stay at home parent a payment per child. If both parents worked they could allocate any other person who was minding their child to receive the money. There were no social welfare or tax implications for those who got the payment. In effect it meant that a Granny or friend or neighbour who minded a child was paid, or partially paid, by the state.
I always thought it was a good scheme but don’t see how it would work here. That is why I think that children’s allowance should be increased in order to empower parents to be able to make the decision of who is minding their children. A “rent a room” type tax allowance could be provided in order to take unofficial childminding out of the black economy. The only caveat I would have is that very high-income families should not get as much as those on lower incomes (if anything at all), although this may not be financially practical for the government to administer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top