Child Care & Tax for Working Or Allowance for staying at Home?

garyrjb

I have often wondered, when I sit at home listening to the government going on about how much they are doing to help women go back to work through the tax credits, weather they have got the soloution completely wrong. Would it be better if they actually gave 1 partner an allowance to stay at home (see I am PC) and look after their own children for as long as they want to. I may be wrong but do alot of people go back to work because they want to or they need to! Is having two wages nesscesary because of high mortgage costs. but maybe that has driven up the prices people are able to pay and therefore a viscious circle?

What do you think.

Want To work or need to work.

Tax credits for someone else to look after your kids or a housepersons allowance?

My first post so please reply

Garyrjb

Miss_Cinnabon

Hi i think you have raised a good point there, i have kids 2 at school and a 1 year old.

I think parents should be given the choice and not forced out too soon to go back to work as parents should have time with their chidren on a one to one basis.

When i had my kids i said i would stay at home for the first 5 years til they went to school. My partner works full time so only one wage has been coming in, it is only in the past year his wage has gone up to 25k we were on 11k so this has helped a lot.

We manage fine on this but don't go out much, drink, smoke etc and don't have any credit to worry about, we have recently come out of a trust deed so now getting ourselves sorted. I also do mystery shopping work when i can.

I think the government have totally done it all wrong as the amount of children getting into trouble when they hit the teens is a problem , they have to address the problem where it all starts ie the parents ( don't shout me down for this) and lack of attention which can result in bad behaviour.

The majority of parents need to work to survive not want. They have morgages, debt, want to provide for their kids etc.

The goverment should provide an allowance for parents wishing to give their kids their time and not a strangers time at least for the first 2 years.

CIS

The problem is an issue of finance, in that whilst a person is at home not working and paying tax/Ni etc, they're not paying in to the system and instead getting money out.

If someone could come up with the money and the benefit system to do it, Iam sure they would as a votes winner.

But where do you draw the line ?, should someone whos partner earns £30K get money for staying at home because if they worked they might earn £30K as well ?, if you dont draw a line then people on lower incomes lose out to those on higher income.

If they means test the benefit, people complain about thw means testing, but if you dont they complain about people who dont need it getting it.

MPwannasavemoney

garyrjb wrote:

I have often wondered, when I sit at home listening to the government going on about how much they are doing to help women go back to work through the tax credits, weather they have got the soloution completely wrong. Would it be better if they actually gave 1 partner an allowance to stay at home (see I am PC) and look after their own children for as long as they want to. I may be wrong but do alot of people go back to work because they want to or they need to! Is having two wages nesscesary because of high mortgage costs. but maybe that has driven up the prices people are able to pay and therefore a viscious circle?

What do you think.

Want To work or need to work.

Tax credits for someone else to look after your kids or a housepersons allowance?

My first post so please reply

Garyrjb

A great idea - some incentive to stay at home should be given. Even transferring the housepersons tax free personal allowance to the working partner would help!

DazzerG

I'm afraid CIS is correct.

The whole point of WTC is to 'encourage' parent(s) back into work and financially contributing to the system rather than remaining at home and drawing from it.

It may seem harsh, but at the end of the day somebody has to pay for the pot. If the number of people contributing via taxes decreases because they choose to stay at home, then the pot of money to re-distribute back out to those that need it most decreases substantially.

If they means test the benefit, people complain about the means testing, but if you dont they complain about people who dont need it getting it.

The classic case is Child Benefit.....there isnt a government around that would DARE touch CHB, but if you only paid it to those that needed it most, they would receive more.

oh well, that's life I suppose.....cant please all the people all the time

Broken_hearted

I don't think people should be paid to stay at home and watch their own children. Yes most women work because they need to, a lot also work because they want to.
I don't want to pay for other to sit at home while I was back at work when my first child was three months old.

garyrjb

Broken_hearted wrote:

I don't think people should be paid to stay at home and watch their own children. Yes most women work because they need to, a lot also work because they want to.
I don't want to pay for other to sit at home while I was back at work when my first child was three months old.

yes but did you choose to go back to work or did you have to. if you had to because of financial nessecity this is the point I am raising. Do you not believe it is better for your child if you are there to help the child through its formative years?

garyrjb

CIS wrote:

The problem is an issue of finance, in that whilst a person is at home not working and paying tax/Ni etc, they're not paying in to the system and instead getting money out.

If someone could come up with the money and the benefit system to do it, Iam sure they would as a votes winner.

But where do you draw the line ?, should someone whos partner earns £30K get money for staying at home because if they worked they might earn £30K as well ?, if you dont draw a line then people on lower incomes lose out to those on higher income.

If they means test the benefit, people complain about thw means testing, but if you dont they complain about people who dont need it getting it.

Do you think 30k is a lot of money. £770 mortgage on a smallish victorian terrace and £300 commuting charges a month doesnt leave you with pots of money. I know it isnt starvation rations but quoting figures of 30k doesnt show the whole picture.

black-saturn

Broken_hearted wrote:

I don't think people should be paid to stay at home and watch their own children. Yes most women work because they need to, a lot also work because they want to.
I don't want to pay for other to sit at home while I was back at work when my first child was three months old.

Who was looking after that child then?

DazzerG

garyrjb wrote:

Do you think 30k is a lot of money. £770 mortgage on a smallish victorian terrace and £300 commuting charges a month doesnt leave you with pots of money. I know it isnt starvation rations but quoting figures of 30k doesnt show the whole picture.

I think you'll find that 30K is alot to most posters/readers here.

Broken_hearted

black-saturn wrote:

Who was looking after that child then?

His grandmother, she loved it and he loved it. I stayed with my Nana when I was young as both my parents worked so I have no problems with working mothers.
I chose to work as I enjoyed working, I was brought up to believe that it was my responsibility to work and earn my own money. If you want a nice house, cars, holidays and such then you need to work. Infact these days both adults need to work just to get the house.
If you want to stop working to stay at home then you need to accept you are going to have less, not expect other to pay for you to do it.