ED Mum Carves Clegg New One

[Alex K]

Rowr!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297228/BUDGET-2013-Stay-home-mother-mauls-Clegg-One-woman-speaks-mums-stop-work-raise-family--feel-Coalition-thinks-theyre-worthless.html

[Earl Aelfheah]

Her arguement is extremely weak.

[LadyDeliah]

I agree with the GDP point, but not sure why I should pay something towards the child care costs of a stay at home mother whose partner is a higher rate tax payer.

[sillywoman]

Lady Delilah, it looks like she's ahead of you;

'It's a cultural thing. It's a general feeling that we are starting to get from the Government. People now feel they can say ?why should I pay for you to stay at home?"

clearly you're buying the governments message & feel you can say that. :D

[csaddleton]

child care costs for a "stay at home" mother - isn't that a contradiction in terms?

[simonethebeaver]

There are lots of reasons a non-'working' parent might need childcare. They could be a full time student. They could have health problems that mean they need childcare support. They might be volunteering or training to make themselves more employable.

[LadyDeliah]

Or hanging out in Cafe Nero.

[Penguin68]

If you go to work and employ someone to look after your child, two people are in work and the government (that is us, the tax payer) is getting NICS and Tax from two people's contributions. From that income we can help support families who need additional money to support working mothers and working childcare people

If you stay at home to look after your child, you are depriving us (the tax payer) of tax revenue and NICS from your earning potential and that of someone who could offer childcare. So we have no income to support you in your (lack of) career choice.

Whilst childcare is clearly onerous (otherwise it wouldn't be someone's living) many parents relish (take personal benefit from) their contact with their own children. And would chose to sacrifice income for that benefit, particularly where it also saves them, as a family, the cost of buying-in childcare.

That's also why some people chose to garden, rather than employing a gardener - they enjoy it and it saves them money. Or does she also think the government should be paying an allowance to those of us lucky enough to have gardens and who chose to do our own gardening?

There are those who see having children as a blessing, not a valid income steam.

[LadyDeliah]

If its for training, college etc, then there should be an obligation on the college to provide a cr?che/nursery. Ditto sports facilities etc, but I don't see why hard working single parents should subsidise someone in a relationship who can afford to stay at home to pay for their child care.

It seems the nice middle class families of East Dulwich are full of egalitarian ideals when it comes to their families, but not when it comes to council housing, welfare benefits and support for excluded and undesirable members of our community.

[Penguin68]

simonethebeaver Wrote:

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

> There are lots of reasons a non-'working' parent

> might need childcare. They could be a full time

> student. They could have health problems that mean

> they need childcare support. They might be

> volunteering or training to make themselves more

> employable.

Or, in this case, apparently, they could be a trained barrister choosing to look after their children at home. For a number of the occasions cited above, e.g. full-time student, there is in fact government support to help. And if you have a partner in sufficient paid work to obviate child allowance (as in this case), you are making, whatever you do wih your time, an informed 'career' - or carer - choice, rather than being driven by extreme and uncontrollable forces.

The idea that you should expect me (and you, i.e. taxpayers) to fund whatever life choices you choose to make is not one I buy into.

[simonethebeaver]

Perhaps you could look outside the ED bubble though? For families which don't have barristers in them but are in fact earning a lot less. Who have real difficulties. Where one parent isn't working but wants to be and needs childcare to support that. Government support for childcare costs for students doesn't begin to cover the costs in London. The Government wants to encourage people to retrain into certain careers, often requiring study for years. This shouldn't be the preserve of those with one high earner. Parents with health issues face real struggles to get childcare funded by anyone but themselves. I don't think the state can or should fund everything but I do think assuming all families with only one earner have no need of childcare and one partner who isn't contributing to society is off.

I don't though think those who have decided to stay at home to raise their kids need childcare subsidies, although I assume there may be cases where the loss of childcare vouchers could make the choice economically unviable.

[steveo]

Does 'stay at home mother' in this instance mean 'can't get work?'

[Chillaxed]

Oh please, don't lump all the 'nice middle class families of ED' in with one person's opinion. Lame.

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> If its for training, college etc, then there

> should be an obligation on the college to provide

> a cr?che/nursery. Ditto sports facilities etc, but

> I don't see why hard working single parents should

> subsidise someone in a relationship who can afford

> to stay at home to pay for their child care.

>

> It seems the nice middle class families of East

> Dulwich are full of egalitarian ideals when it

> comes to their families, but not when it comes to

> council housing, welfare benefits and support for

> excluded and undesirable members of our community.

[neilson99]

I want kids. I want to stay at home. I want to do more studying. Maybe even re train. I want all this now, I'm not prepared to prioritise and make choices and sacrficices, so I expect everyone else to pay for it.

[Penguin68]

Perhaps you could look outside the ED bubble though?

My comments were entirely in the context of the lady being lauded as a reconstructive proctologist in this thread - of course there are many people who need taxpayers' support, and indeed who still actually get it. Support for childcare needs is properly part of our welfare state remit, for those who need it (rather than just would quite like it) - but the mantra of 'to each according to their needs' has the necessary corollary of 'from each according to their abilities'. In general barristers are better paid (in some cases very, very much better paid) than childcare people - to chose a lower paid role is perhaps to duck-out from 'from each according to their abilities' position.

We all, governments and families, have to cut our cloth etc. based on the resources we have available - we cannot afford 'the best of all possible worlds' much as we might like to be able to. I am not saying hardship and sacrifice is good, but it has been, and will be, a necessary component, at some level, of the human condition - indeed the need and ability to make difficult choices is what comes with the rations of rational thought. Enough clich?s for now.

[simonethebeaver]

What a good way to make your point, neillson.

Personally I do want to retrain, moving from a pretty well paid job to a far less well paid but more socially useful job. It will be a big change for my family involving serious financial sacrifice. We will be paying our childcare costs from our savings-they will likely be wiped out. We won't be eligible for any subsidy as that is restricted to very low earners. But it sticks a little that we will get no tax break at all on our childcare when people on 300k are getting it. Yes, my choice. But I'm in a privileged position where it is a choice. There are many people trying to better themselves with the aim of moving from a minimum wage job to a skilled or qualified profession who will be affected by this. They also have a choice, true, but in the long run will contribute far more.

Meanwhile cuts in local authority spending year on year mean a parent at home with children to care for and health difficulties will find it harder and harder to get any financial assistance in caring for them. Still, all about their choices presumably.

[simonethebeaver]

Penguin, I think we agree on the phone-in woman.

[*Bob*]

Great to see the Mail are continuing with their campaign about a society with a growing sense of entitlement.

[titch juicy]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Perhaps you could look outside the ED bubble

> though?

>

> My comments were entirely in the context of the

> lady being lauded as a reconstructive proctologist

> in this thread - of course there are many people

> who need taxpayers' support, and indeed who still

> actually get it. Support for childcare needs is

> properly part of our welfare state remit, for

> those who need it (rather than just would quite

> like it) - but the mantra of 'to each according to

> their needs' has the necessary corollary of 'from

> each according to their abilities'. In general

> barristers are better paid (in some cases very,

> very much better paid) than childcare people - to

> chose a lower paid role is perhaps to duck-out

> from 'from each according to their abilities'

> position.

>

> We all, governments and families, have to cut our

> cloth etc. based on the resources we have

> available - we cannot afford 'the best of all

> possible worlds' much as we might like to be able

> to. I am not saying hardship and sacrifice is

> good, but it has been, and will be, a necessary

> component, at some level, of the human condition -

> indeed the need and ability to make difficult

> choices is what comes with the rations of rational

> thought. Enough clich?s for now.

absolutely

[DaveR]

"ady Delilah, it looks like she's ahead of you;

'It's a cultural thing. It's a general feeling that we are starting to get from the Government. People now feel they can say ?why should I pay for you to stay at home?"

clearly you're buying the governments message & feel you can say that. :D"

Saying something is a government message is not an excuse for not addressing it. This is the same point that was made (certainly by me) in the child benefit thread, and I'm happy to make it again here. Giving public money for childcare to families who do not need childcare in order to support themselves is a nonsense, and to call this policy discrimination against stay at home mums is worse than nonsense.

[titch juicy]

@fleetstreetfox is laying into her on twitter

"DAILY MAIL NEWS: Really quite well-off woman is annoyed she hasn't got more money. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297228/BUDGET-2013-Stay-home-mother-Laura-Perrins-mauls-Nick-Clegg.html ?"

[Pocket]

The ED mother is a very lucky woman. Not many of us in 2013 have the choice to stay at home and look after our children. We are not living in the same era that our parent's did. Costs for everything are astronomical, forcing mothers to go out to work simply to make ends meet.

I am going to stick my neck on the line here, and I know that I will get shot down for saying this, but staying at home to look after your children these days is a luxury only the few privileged can afford, sadly. Would love to do it but I don't have a partner who earns enough to cover all our outgoings single-handed. Therefore any tax-break to help us balance work and childcare economically is a godsend.

[????]

Pushing aside the shrieking class war stuff about barristers/entitled rich people etc etc. Of course it's a sort of selfishness but the problem with scrapping universal benefits is that that higher rate tax payers will (to a degree understandably) then start to question why they should pay for 'people to sit at home all day watching Sky', or 'have a three bedroomed property funded by me when they live by themselves' etc, etc. The scrapping of Universal Benefits starts to undermine the social contract of the welfare state, which the mixed views on here or elsewhere show.

On the other hand, we as a country can't afford the level of provision of benefits of all kind - child/pensioner/Housing etc - so something has to give or welfare completely reformed.

and finally, the relatively richer and older are more likely to be enfranchised and vote and so politicians bottle out or make compromises that then p1ss off another set of people.

tis a mess

[BrandNewGuy]

neilson99 Wrote:

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

> I want kids. I want to stay at home. I want to do

> more studying. Maybe even re train. I want all

> this now, I'm not prepared to prioritise and make

> choices and sacrficices, so I expect everyone else

> to pay for it.

I want more money by getting a job. I want someone to look after my child so I can do it. And I want someone else to pay for it...

Cuts both ways.

[Chillaxed]

Not doing herself any favours on the PR front by donning the pearls for the photoshoot either.