ED Mum Carves Clegg New One

[El Pibe]

"certainly suggest that institutional care can be harmful to young children"

certainly suggest that [most words in the dictionary] can be harmful to young children

food, water, medicine, dogs, sun, you get my drift.

[lightweight]

Maybe the mum in the article is looking for a career in the media as a commentator on parenting issues and whatnot - that would fit well around looking after kids. Has she been on Loose Women yet? If it's a publicity stunt, then it's worked pretty well!

[Magpie]

Getting back on topic - the removal of child benefit, combined with this new tax credit for working mothers, leaves a number of stay at home mothers disadvantaged (ie they are getting less money from the state than before, and less than other parents on higher incomes are getting), as it has been implemented on an inequitable basis. Opposition is perfectly understandable and logical.

Should the state support families with children? Well it did until recently when it decided to introduce means testing for child benefits. I doubt any other political party would seriously consider removing child benefit altogether so lets assume that society agrees that having children should be supported by the state.

The current mix of child benefit and tax credits for childcare penalise single earner families relative to dual earners. I don't disagree that a childcare tax break should only be available for those who need childcare, but what about a transferrable married couples tax allowance?

[LondonMix]

I think support for families (whatever form it takes) should be means-tested. Household income would be a fairer test but would require the fundamentals of the UK tax system (i.e. the principal of individual only tax affairs) to be changed. Is that really worth doing for a inequity that in truth will only affect a small number of families on a relatively small benefit?

Personally, I think the upper income limit for this new child care voucher scheme is ridiculously high and should be lowered?and I say this as someone who under all circumstances won?t qualify for any of it. It?s a poor use of government funds in my view and disproportionately helps the well-off who would of course like it but certainly don?t need it. Childcare costs are never going to prevent someone earning 150k from returning to work so what?s the point of giving them vouchers?

[Huguenot]

I don't think it's helpful to bandy aroun terms like 'disadvantage' and 'penalize' in this debate - it destroys rational thought by deliberately inflaming base human emotions regarding 'loss'.

Twinset mum did the same thing in the telephone call by describing the system as an 'attack' on stay at home mothers.

As LM pointed out, the only sensible discussion lies in 'who is supported by tax payers and why'?

Since the advantages accrued by parents from their children vastly outweigh those derived by complete strangers, I see no logic in why complete strangers should pay for them to have kids (unless we're on a baby drive).

Conversely I think that complete strangers will benefit from thriving economies, and well adjusted and socialised kids, so I can form a perfectly reasonable case for supporting childcare and education fees.

I'm guessing there's a biological imperative from young parents that creates delusions about entitlements.

[El Pibe]

"I'm guessing there's a biological imperative from young parents that creates delusions about entitlements."

Yeah, I mean, you wouldn't want to deliberately inflame would you ;-P

[Huguenot]

Haha, only because it broke the 'taboo' that elevates young parents into martyrdom. They're having kids for themselves, not for anybody else.

I think they should be approached like any other needy social zealots group - no special treatment should be accrued!

[El Pibe]

I'd imagine young parents are just looking for a bit of help, it sounds to me like it's the older ones with the sense of entitlement, at least the working from home barristers.

With no support network we have to pay 2k a month for childcare if we want to continue being productive, economically speaking, harldy a great incentive not to smoosh at home nursing a burgeoning sense of entitlement.

Still it was indeed our selfish desire to sow yet more unsupportable human filth on this disease wracked planet that got us here, so shouldn't complain I guess.

[Pickle]

Admittedly I haven't read the whole thread, but surely through all of this, those "in need" are still getting the help from the state that they require. Stay at home parents with low or no income will be receiving various benefits, those in work will qualify for childcare allowance, those with an income below the threshold will still be receiving child benefit.

To me, this seems like an embarrassing case of middle class Mummies who stay at home wanting what their middle class Mummy mates get by going to work, and shouting to the media about it.

I haven't seen (for arguments sake) an interview with 17 year old stay at home unemployed parents Sheila and John moaning that they don't get the allowance.

I'm a stay at home Mum, I guess a "middle class" one, we don't qualify for any state help, and I wouldn't ever expect it.

['bout now]

Wot Pickle said.

[csaddleton]

yes, nicely said pickle.

[Voyageur]

csaddleton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> yes, nicely said pickle.

Seconded!

[Ridgley]

It?s a tough one in regards to childcare as parents we need to spend more time with our children not just when they are toddlers, as work tends to consume so much of our time these days . There is a culture of kids where there is no parental guidance or the parent or parents are working thee jobs or they just don?t care where there children is. We just need a balance of family life and work life.

[titch juicy]

I'm far too selfish to have children. Life is just too good.