Support for working parents?

[Bullett]

Parents 'to be able reclaim up to £1,200 of childcare costs'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21833929

It appears that they will abolish the childcare vouchers to pay for this. Now, my first view is that this is a great idea. It only applies to families with both parents working and appears to be supportive of exactly the high earners who would pay for this.

I do wonder where they got their figures from though. £6000 average cost? try closer to £12k (per child) for full time, and that's not even that expensive.

I suspect they will drop the assisted places scheme though. That's worth 15 hours a week to the over 3's (about £300 a month per child).

[Sir Bagalot]

This really does make my piss boil. It really fking does. They wonder why families are getting destroyed?

So. Both parents work and we'll help you. You can reclaim £1,200pa (but only if you earn less than £150K pa)

One parent stays at home to bring up their children and you can fk right off! Yep, because you choose to stay at home to bring up your own kids then you will get absolutely fk all help.

How on earth is this helping the family develope?

Edited by Sir Bagalot on Monday 18th March 19:05

[singlecoil]

I wonder if there will be any money for those people who choose not to have children?

[Bill]

singlecoil said:

I wonder if there will be any money for those people who choose not to have children?

I can't see that they'd need help with childcare...

[Caulkhead]

Sir Bagalot said:

This really does make my piss boil.

Me too. If you can't afford kids without expecting help of other taxpayers, don't have them.

[singlecoil]

Bill said:

singlecoil said:

I wonder if there will be any money for those people who choose not to have children?

I can't see that they'd need help with childcare...

I meant in more general terms. People who have children get quite a lot of subsidies of one sort or another, so to be fair people who don't have children ought to get some support for their own lifestyle choices

[anonymous-user]

Those who choose not to have kids choose not to contribute to the workers of tomorrow who will power the economy in the future and will serve us when we are old and decrepit!
Those who choose to stay at home to look after their kids are investing in our country's future but choose not to contribute to our current economic output.
Those who choose to contribute now by working and choose to invest (a lot of money) in their children and our future get a little assistance towards their investment. Just like governments offer incentives to nurture new business and investment in industry, education and research.
So why the negativity/envy?

[Bill]

singlecoil said:

People who have children get quite a lot of subsidies of one sort or another,

Apart from child benefit, I can't think of any.

We do need children, so they can grow into adults to keep society ticking over. Helping both parents stay in work is beneficial to the economy so this is win win IMO.

[TKF]

Bullett said:

It appears that they will abolish the childcare vouchers to pay for this. Now, my first view is that this is a great idea. It only applies to families with both parents working and appears to be supportive of exactly the high earners who would pay for this

That is supposedly the theory. To help out the squeezed middle. The sums don't add up though.

Currently my wife and I each pay the maximum £243/mth into childcare vouchers and we save £2100/yr in tax.

In this new scheme we'd be able to claim back a maximum of £1200/yr.

[TKF]

Bill said:

Helping both parents stay in work is beneficial to the economy so this is win win IMO.

They also pay for childcare and the nursery/childminder/nanny/whoever then pays tax on earnings. So win win win.

[eccles]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How does that stack up when the money you invest in your little darlings is benefits because you can't be arsed to work, and then the little darling follow your lead and stay at home dreaming up ways of appearing on Jeremy Kyle? The people serving you whilst you are old and decrepit will be the economic migrants of whichever country is the latest to flock to our shores.

I get sick of politicians pandering to families, the families then whining when the latest lot announce cuts with one hand and then announce tax breaks with the other.

[Gareth1974]

This is being portrayed as a generous move by the Government, but given that they are dropping Childcare vouchers at the same time, which offer between 20 and 40% savings to parents, capped at £2880 in vouchers per year, it's not going to make much difference for many people.

[anonymous-user]

eccles said:

How does that stack up when the money you invest in your little darlings is benefits because you can't be arsed to work, and then the little darling follow your lead and stay at home dreaming up ways of appearing on Jeremy Kyle? The people serving you whilst you are old and decrepit will be the economic migrants of whichever country is the latest to flock to our shores.

I get sick of politicians pandering to families, the families then whining when the latest lot announce cuts with one hand and then announce tax breaks with the other.

WORKING PARENTS.

[MrBrightSi]

Bill said:

singlecoil said:

People who have children get quite a lot of subsidies of one sort or another,

Apart from child benefit, I can't think of any.

We do need children, so they can grow into adults to keep society ticking over. Helping both parents stay in work is beneficial to the economy so this is win win IMO.

We're a lost cause lol.

I watched that film Idiocracy, i now refuse to have kids, i know its entirely over the top, but i feel that mongs will over populate the schools and the bullying i suffered will pale in comparison to the st kids will get in the future, id rather people just abort more often.

[singlecoil]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The responsibilities of individuals, in my opinion, is to their children, not to their parents.

[plasticpig]

Bill said:

Apart from child benefit, I can't think of any.

We do need children, so they can grow into adults to keep society ticking over. Helping both parents stay in work is beneficial to the economy so this is win win IMO.

Family tax credits for one.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

The responsibilities of individuals, in my opinion, is to their children, not to their parents.

It isn't just one way and never has been.
I am at the stage in life where my responsibility is to offer back some of that which my parents invested in me and to invest in my son's upbringing. I don't think you should ever stop serving your parents.

[singlecoil]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well that's not the way I see it. I would hate my children to feel obliged to 'serve' me, the thought of it makes me shudder.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Well that's not the way I see it. I would hate my children to feel obliged to 'serve' me, the thought of it makes me shudder.

Well yes maybe the term 'serve' is a bit slave like! Feeling obliged is one thing, actually wanting to is another. It's just returning a favour I guess.

[don4l]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that children should "serve" their parents.

My recently bereaved mother-in-law is regularily visited by her children. She was married for 61 years, and we were all worried about her ability to cope with the single life.

You wouldn't put in any extra effort to support her. However, I am really pleased by the fact that my in-laws are visiting her on regular basis.

Don
--