ED Mum Carves Clegg New One

[Pickle]

Pocket Wrote:

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

> 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.

Agree entirely. I stay at home to look after my 3 children, and feel very lucky to be able to do so without struggling to meet the day to day costs that having a family brings. The suggestion that I should be entitled to ?1,200 a year like working parents is a ridiculous one. Given the choice between commuting to work in the city, where I made my career before kids, and being able to do the school run, volunteer at school, and spend every minute of my day with my

14 month old, being at home would win hands down.

[*Bob*]

The fact is no-one likes having money taken away from them, whether you're at the bottom of the heap - or further up.

Some people near the bottom definitely need a mighty kick up the backside.

Some people nearer the top should try and remember that life might have dealt them a better hand and afforded them greater opportunities.

[henryb]

Exactly - rather come up with a complex and expensive scheme to give different tax breaks on childcare to different people. Why not just provide more state childcare for everyone?

[DaveR]

In an ideal world we would have universal benefits to reinforce the social contract, but we don't have that luxury. To be ruthless, we need to operate on the basis of what people do, not what they say. Wealthy pensioners will complain if you pull their free bus passes, but so what? Is it going to act as a realistic disincentive to people doing their best to save and provide for themselves in the future? Of course not. This is a single example but it applies generally.

I would have more respect for Clegg if he'd told the 'ED mum' straight out that this is about handing out public money, and giving it to her is not justifiable or beneficial for the wider population.

[henryb]

It is not handing out public money. It taking less of people own money off them.

[DaveR]

The net effect is a transfer of cash from one tax payer to another; without the tax break the money would still be in the public pot. Same difference, in this instance.

[DuncanW]

I don't agree with what this woman said one bit. Essentially her role in life bringing up her kids is incredibly important, but as with the general consensus on here, I don't believe it should be subsidised by the tax-payer. And how she equates that with being attacked or denigrated is beyond my comprehension.

She's entitled to her view, of course, and to phone up talk radio shows to express it. One can only assume she doesn't have anything better to do with her time.

But what really irks me is the Mail's coverage of this. Countless thousands of people phone talk radio shows to make ill-informed, self-unaware and self-interested points every day. So why does the Mail pick up on this? I don't believe this article was written to defend women who want to stay in the home, I believe it was written to remind women that's where their proper place is, in the home doing the housework please.

And if you're in any doubt as to what the Daily Mail really thinks about women, turn to page three of today's Mail to see a story about a woman who who has issued a lawsuit against a man she claims sexually assaulted her accompanied by a naked picture of the claimant. Shameful!

For what it's worth I am no fan of Nick Clegg but from the transcript, I would say he gave a very good account of himself this time.

[Rianoo]

I feel sorry for parents that find life very difficult. In or out of work. They don't come first - the child does. Can we now move on to immigration and non-dom tax.

[Dopamine1979]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

'in the context of the lady being lauded as a reconstructive proctologist'

Nicely done.

[Rianoo]

@Penguin

Some people may 'duck out' due to the strains and stresses of being a parent. It is a very grey area and cannot be summed up with cliches. Communication is key in this area.

[henryb]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> The net effect is a transfer of cash from one tax

> payer to another; without the tax break the money

> would still be in the public pot. Same

> difference, in this instance.

Yes possibly but still it is not dishing it out - it is not taking it in the first place - which is conceptually different - especially to the Tory party. Tax breaks ? good, Welfare Payments - bad.

[uncleglen]

I know people who have earned high salaries then saved enough money with a view to leaving their jobs to bring up children, i.e. planned for their own futures! They are fortunate, especially in London, to have spare cash in order to do this.

Most people have to take statutory maternity leave and return to work and put their children into nurseries or employ nannies or au pairs.

[Otta]

Frustrated barrister stuck at home looking after kids, looking for an srgument.

Nothing to see here.

Sorry, but if her husband is on a barrister's wage, they don't need a couple of grand a year extra.

This is just a good example of how trying to do something for one group of people will always get a rise from another group. There are loads of people out there who say "it's not worth me going back to work, I'd barely be better off after childcare costs". I think it's good to give these people a bit of help if going back to work is what they want. Of course though it will annoy other people.

This woman just comes over as a bit of a knob though to be honest. "Discrimination" my arse.

[Cyclemonkey]

she could always go back to work and then she'd get the ?1,200 she's so desperate to get

[Penguin68]

...and this would be paid for by her NICS and Tax and that of the person she's employing to care for her children. Job done, winners all round.

[Cyclemonkey]

To be honest it would be good for the economy as well - she's presumably got a good education paid for or at least subsidised by the state so more producitve use of her skills would be good all round.

[Rianoo]

"Paid for by her NOCS" - brilliant !!

[Chillaxed]

Otta, as you've previous form, perhaps you could let the Family Room know about this thread as I'd be interested to hear their views.

[Otta]

Okay. Although there are no rules about doing it, you could do it yourself.

Don't mean that in a nasty way, just saying incase you felt it was against forum lore.

[Pickle]

... and I'm pretty sure a lot of family roomers look at other sections of the forum too ;-)

[Cyclemonkey]

This one looks set to run and run. The Observer has a piece about it today. It quite sensibly points out that she can't have a tax break for an expense she doesn't incur, is she going to start moaning about all those businesses that can claim tax back on their expenses? I respect her choice but many cannot afford to have one partner working and i assume the government has decided the country does not want to lose skilled workers from the economy for a fair few years.

[Smiler]

Can't find the ONS figures, but think that a sizeable minority of mothers don't work at all, and another number work very few hours. It is a myth that all SAHMs make a choice based on their partner's high income while others "haven't the luxury".

Many of the SAHMs I know had jobs before having children that didn't pay enough to cover childcare costs, especially for two children. One can argue that they should still return to work "at a loss" in the short to medium term in order to stay in the labour market and earn more long-term, but that is a different argument to branding SAH as a luxury choice.

Returning to work is especially difficult at the moment: job losses and public sector cuts in recent years have disproportionately affected women in terms of job and career progression availability. childcare is often not of high quality. Prospects don't seem great in many occupations.

My biggest personal beefs (probably wrong) with SAHPs, at least the traditional arrangement of one person doing everything at home and the other giving it their all at work, is that it works against more flexible work for all parents, especially women, and it is almost always the women at home and men working, leaving fewer women in working life. Most of my peers at work have no children (men and women) or a SAH wife (men with children) and they all work long hours, don't take time off if children are ill and so on. I struggle to compete.

[Smiler]

Also, these proposals will mean less state support for many working parents too, think the main exceptions are single working parents, couples both workng on basic rate tax with more than one small child, those whose employers not offering the current scheme and self-employed people. The proposal is for under fives ( vouchers can be used for care for older children).

[Loz]

Not sure why the state should be funding a lifestyle choice anyway. It's not as if this planet needs more people on it.

[LadyDeliah]

Smiler, this wasn't about childcare for a couple where both are working. Of course people in that position should get the breaks. It's someone who is not working out of choice and whose husband is in a well paid profession, expecting others to subsidise childcare costs despite her not needing childcare.