ED Mum Carves Clegg New One

[LondonMix]

ditto

???? Wrote:

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

> oh, don't worry *bob*, i am in the losing out

> category likewise and certainly won't be moaning,

>

[LadyDeliah]

A point made in the Guardian link says it all. If the stay at home mum wants a tax allowance for childcare she doesn't use, does she also want tax allowances for trade tools & materials she similarly doesn't use?

It makes no sense.

If stay at hone mums want financial recognition for the work they do in bringing up their kids, they should say so, instead of demanding a nonsensical tax allowance. That I'd back, if it was equal for all stay at home parents and not linked to tax and income.

[Otta]

My issue with this woman is not that she feels hard done by and wants some tax breaks. I might even support that (MIGHT). The poiont is that her argument makes no sense!

[LondonMix]

Agree, for a barrister, she's not very articulate. What she really should be saying is that a different proposal not for 3rd party child care costs but for the costs of raising a child in general should have been adopted so that all families would benefit. Not sure I agree with that, but at least it would have made sense!

[ClareC]

I'm struggling to see how measures attempting to end the trap of not being able to afford to work (due to the prohibitive costs of Childcare) can be interpretated as insulting to those parents who choose not to work.

It's not like the Childcare is being given for free, it's a tax break..... you have to be paying the tax and NI to get the discount on what you pay, pay being the operative word.

Perhaps I am missing something but encouraging people to work has to be good for everyone, more tax and NIC collected.

[Chillaxed]

Agree with ????.

Also, Carney's wife was making a joke about the flood of rich Parisian's into London i.e. now the taxes are being scaled back there might be a few houses left to rent, ha ha. Any inference that she was complaining about not being able to find adequate accom for ?5k a week is the Evening Standard's.

[Penguin68]

I think the equation is quite simple - if you are working and employing someone to look after your child you are likely to be contributing tax and NI for yourself, and generating tax and NI payments for your employee (certainly that will be so if you benefit from this tax break) so, net, probably more money is going back into the public purse than is being 'contributed' through the tax break. If you assume that the person working in childcare might otherwise have been on benefts themselves this is a real non-zero sum game, with everyone winning (at least economically).

This isn't about rewarding motherhood, it is about encouraging employment and economic activity.

I can understand that relatively wealthy people who lose a benefit (child allowance) through means testing, but who see some other couples still getting something will be jealous - there are lots of studies showing people are disproportionately envious of others over quite small amounts of value, but, with a limited public purse there are many who are having to live and make do without even one ?60k wage - if my (public) money is going anywhere I would rather see it go to them.

If you have the economic choice (many don't) of being a stay at home parent or not (many don't have the choice, can't get work even if they would like it) then you live with the consequences of that choice. The benefits to you of close and dedicated parenting come with an economic penalty (a cost) - to want to have your cake and eat it might be nice, but isn't something I, as a tax payer, really feel I should be funding.

There is no 'public purse', no 'govenment money' - it all comes from us or from companies - everything that is spent by the government comes from us, either directly, or as a consequence of the price of things we buy where the seller's profits are mitigated by tax (Starbucks, Google and Apple notwithstanding).

Actually, and to be honset, I don't want to pay tax so that someone else can 'have it all'.

[ClareC]

Barrister's work on a self employed basis..... Far more tax efficient than PAYE. ;)

[Chillaxed]

...and entirely appropriate to their circumstances (opposite of winky face).

ClareC Wrote:

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

> Barrister's work on a self employed basis..... Far

> more tax efficient than PAYE. ;)

[LondonMix]

Agree with Penguin who made my point much better than me! The government is trying to encourage parents to work. This is a benefit (economically) from a tax collection perspective. You can argue about whether it's a good policy for society as a whole (should two parents be working?) but its what the policy aims to do and I don't disagree with it.

[*Bob*]

Doesn't supporting your own family, not being reliant on others - even taking a financial hit to bring be a stay-at-home-parent (if you can afford that luxury) - feel good?

The only way that 'the benefits issue' is ever going to improve is for people who never had that feeling (perhaps don't know it even exists) to be encouraged to get it. Not for people who don't *need* more money to be given it out of some twisted concept of fairness!

[Penguin68]

Agree with Penguin who made my point much better than me!

Possibly, and thanks, but less succinctly. It's the second or third time this point has come up on this thread (I think that I'm a dog re-visiting his vomit on this as well) but the point still keeps being missed (by some, at least).

To choose to be a stay-at-home parent (SAHP) is really difficult (where that choice exists freely) - not only do you forgo immediate income, but getting off the career ladder for a number of years can bring you back into it well below contemporaries who haven't made that choice. Hence (one) of the reasons why women (the most normal SAHP) frequently report salary levels well below those of contemporary men. Even though formal rewarding of experience (i.e. length of service) is no longer generally allowed - opportunities for advancement come up randomly - and being out of the game for several years can mean that you miss out and arrive back in employment during a time of stagnation and with fewer opportunities. Additionally ageism, whilst illegal, is even more difficult to police than overt sexism and racism.

So I absolutely do not belittle the sacrifices made by SAHPs - but then, if we had to pay to compensate for these, they would hardly be sacrifices, would they?

[Cyberia]

Maybe the best solution is for groups of sahms to train as childminders, then look after each other's children for money - in practice, they could all hang out together at the softplay, the park, cafe, each other's houses - whatever - and then perhaps they could be eligible for this kind of incentive. If it's full time work, why not get the training? Not sure if it would benefit the exchequer but can't be bad for the kids...

[Magpie]

Child benefit has been paid to every mother (or father in single dad families) for every child since 1970's regardless of income, as society explicitly recognised that raising a family required additional support. I imagine that the majority of people on this forum benefitted from it. This has now been removed in an inequitable way from some moderately well-off families, and in parallel a new benefit related to childcare is being provided to other (in some cases) better off families. This is not about jealousy its about equity, but also I actually disagree with the policy: I think young children do better when cared for by a parent (certainly up to the ages of 2/3) rather than a nanny or a nursery, and most mothers agree with me, which is why many choose to work part-time rather than full time, and hence the government should be supporting this (eg via transferrable married couples tax allowance), rather than trying to encourage women back to work 6 months after birth. The economics are debatable as any study should take into account the broader social costs and benefits, and not just the financial.

[El Pibe]

When I was groweing the mums in the street had one of these, it's called a rota.

Probably unachievable now that you'd all need to do CRB checks etc etc.

[LondonMix]

Magpie, I agree its a question of what do you think is the greater good weighing the economic and social benefits of each policy option. The government has made its call and people either agree or disagree with it. I wonder how many people actually share your view-- all things being equal believe society would be better off if a parent stayed at home for the first 2-3 years of a child's life. I'm not sure I agree with you but I might be in the minority.

[Penguin68]

What evidence there is about early-years care suggests that it is the quality of the care (level of stimulation, reading to children, involvement with them etc. etc.) and not the giver of care which is important. Poor quality care (no stimulation, plonked in front of a TV all day and so on) - whoever gives it, is poor quality. You may wish to believe that a parent is more likely to be a good carer than someone simply paid to do it - my experience is that I have seen and know brilliant professional child care people and some pretty cr*p mothers - as well as vice-versa. If you want to play the 'what's best for the baby' card, it's the care quality, not the care giver, which is key.

And it is entirely possibly to bond with and give care to a child additionally when you get back from work (the experience now of many fathers as well as working mothers). As well as at weekends and holidays. The sacrifice those make to do this is 'me' time. All parenting, in the end, demands some sort of sacrifice, for most people.

[Magpie]

and who is more likely to be a quality care giver? a low paid worker in a nursery looking after multiple children versus the child's actual parent on a one-2-one basis? It's common sense and explains why women who do return to work try and work part time as much as possible, and often relay on grandparents for childcare.

Recent studies from Sweden certainly suggest that institutional care can be harmful to young children:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/26/jonas-himmelstrand-two-generations-of-universal-daycare-have-left-sweden%E2%80%99s-children-less-educated/

[LondonMix]

I?m not so sure its common sense. I think someone who devotes their life to the care of children (and so has a natural disposition toward nurturing children) can be just as nurturing as a mother who loves her own children. If you then compare this type of child care provider to an uncaring mother (who might be unhappy / depressed because she feels trapped / anxious in the home or economically vulnerable because she is dependent on someone else or the state), the picture becomes even less clear.

Also, that newspaper article you link to doesn?t make reference to any studies that suggest institutional childcare harms children. It points out a number of issues facing children in Sweden but explicitly states that causation had been difficult to prove regarding daycare. You have an ideological view which is fine, but don?t exaggerate the case for it.

[Penguin68]

and who is more likely to be a quality care giver? a low paid worker in a nursery looking after multiple children versus the child's actual parent on a one-2-one basis?

I assume that you also support home-schooling?

Most nurseries employ some trained assistants (NNEB or equivalent) who may well be considerably better equipped to look after children than untrained parents. And nurseries offer socialisation opportunities (with other kids, from other backgrounds) which a stay-at-home parent with a single child is more hard-pressed to find.

The idea that parents are always and inevitably the best carers is a nice one, but hardly supported by the facts. Some are, and good luck to them, others are better at their jobs than they are at child care.

[Huguenot]

Being an East Dulwich mummy is no insurance against being an idiot it seems.

[the-e-dealer]

?900 a month for a large nursery that failed Ofsted inspections on most criteria. !!! Sadly I have to agree that some of these Nurserys are sh1t!

[Alex K]

-- moved topic --

[LondonMix]

Yes, some child care options are terrible. However, to me that's an argument for the provision of better quality child care rather than an argument in support for a parent staying home.

[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.