Give up your job to live on benefits.

blueboy43

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Guess the local zoo would be cheaper than shipping 'em off to Romania.. I'm surprised no-one has claimed I want 'em up chimneys yet.


The story doesn't add up. 80% of childcare costs are paid for via working tax credits, 3-4 year olds are entitled to free education, 5+ year olds will only need 2-3 hours of childminding a day for anyone working 9-5. If someone wants to leave their job to look after their children that's their choice but its a lifestyle choice that taxpayers - who heavily subsidise childcare - shouldn't pay for. 'Choice' is something Britons don't have nearly enough of because they insist on a government that takes 50% of their money, don't expect any back, there is no system that is being paid into, there is £900bn of debt that is rising at a rate of £150bn per annum.

"3-4 year olds are entitled to free education".

Complete rubbish.

No 3 year old goes to state school in the UK

mbga9pgf

Hate to point it out, but the changes to benefits have short term painful implications. But these are changes for a generation; a generation that will no longer choose to have children if they cant afford them and wont expect the state to give them everything on a plate.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

So the father has no responsibilty, but taxpayers have?

Which part of:

Both Men & Women who are not the resident parent have a responsibility to pay maintanance.

did you not understand? I'll try and explain it in an easier way for you if you are having trouble with that sentence and think it means "the father has no responsibility".

It's quite simple. In this case, are you expecting the father to house, feed, cloth, and pay all bills for this family, because she has chosen to give up work?

Blimey...we'd have women all over the country giving up work and men living on the streets if this was the case.

All I'm saying is, the man can't be held responsible for actions of two people, in every case. Especially when the circumstances are not known. Neither can he be held responsible to pay for absolutely everything if she decides to give up work, as there would be, in most cases, absolutely no way the non resident parent could live themselves, after paying all the bills and housign costs, and living costs of the resident parent.

leveller2911

blueboy43 wrote: »

"3-4 year olds are entitled to free education".

Complete rubbish.

No 3 year old goes to state school in the UK

Think you will find they are, both my children (now aged 11 and 5) went to playschool (pre school)which was funded from the age of 3-3.5 for 1 year if my memory serves me right........

blueboy43

leveller2911 wrote: »

Think you will find they are, both my children (now aged 11 and 5) went to playschool (pre school)which was funded from the age of 3-3.5 for 1 year if my memory serves me right........

1) its not school, even though some schools operate playgroups.

2) They are not "entitled" to full time playschool or similar.

3) 3-4 year are entitled to 15 hours of nursery or playschool or childminding per week. Normally this is from between aged 3 and 3 1/2 depending when the child is born.

4) I know of no local council who funds full time playschool for 3 year olds. Which area are you in ?

5) The 15 hours per week is only for 38 weeks and is paid at a fixed rate. When my children, similar age to yours were at nursery, this funding covered less than 25% of their 4 day a week full time nursery care. I would imagine in the South East this would be significantly less again.

neverdespairgirl

blueboy43 wrote: »

"3-4 year olds are entitled to free education".

Complete rubbish.

No 3 year old goes to state school in the UK

No. Free nursery places.

Daddy-Spendless

i wonder if the cost of childare has seen an increase due to the governments child care payments to those in reciept of tax credits. i dont know anything about the workings of that stystem, but i would guess that if the government are picking up the tab, then those needing a child cared for are unlikely to be quibbling over the cost.

C_Mababejive

The answer is simple.

If she cant afford that home,she needs to put it on the market and downsize.

I didnt spot a mention of her ex partners input in all this?

Taxpayers cannot continually fund peoples mortgages.

seven-day-weekend

Er... maybe the woman's husband died? We should not make assumptions here, we do not know the facts.

I personally think she is one of the people who should be helped, it is only a temporary measure until her children are a few years older. She is a nurse who has paid into the system and will do so again. Although I do think she should downsize if possible.

It's the ones who have never (through choice) contributed and have children regardless and whose rent we pay for decades that we should be targetting here.

LydiaJ

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

The story doesn't add up. 80% of childcare costs are paid for via working tax credits, 3-4 year olds are entitled to free education, 5+ year olds will only need 2-3 hours of childminding a day for anyone working 9-5. If someone wants to leave their job to look after their children that's their choice but its a lifestyle choice that taxpayers - who heavily subsidise childcare - shouldn't pay for. 'Choice' is something Britons don't have nearly enough of because they insist on a government that takes 50% of their money, don't expect any back, there is no system that is being paid into, there is £900bn of debt that is rising at a rate of £150bn per annum.

That's what I thought when I first read the article, but that was because I was forgetting that she's a nurse. Childcare for shift work is a lot more complicated and expensive than for normal work. She ought to be able to find some kind of nursing work that fits into regular hours if she really looks for it though. I have a friend who's a nurse, who really enjoys hospital work best, but is working in a GP practice for a few years while her kids are small because the hours are more regular. (And she's married with a husband that does a lot with their kids.)