Child Benefit- is is now means tested?

Person_one

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Not convinced by that to be honest, when I had a couple of weeks off work recently my young child became very clingy, to an unhealthy extent. Now they're back in nursery they're a lot happier and more sociable. I'm sure you could find 'research' to back up any viewpoint.

Your child wasn't used to having you around though, it was special and unusual rather than the norm. I'm sure if you were there all the time they wouldn't be that clingy.

Kimberley82

Person_one wrote: »

Your child wasn't used to having you around though, it was special and unusual rather than the norm. I'm sure if you were there all the time they wouldn't be that clingy.

Telling someone how their child would or wouldnt be is very rude and condescending. Every child and family are different not a one size fits all, we all have to do what works for us.l

sweaty_betty

Kimberley82 wrote: »

Telling someone how their child would or wouldnt be is very rude and condescending. Every child and family are different not a one size fits all, we all have to do what works for us.l

Amen to that!

My child loves nursery, gets really excited on the way there. It gives him a really good opportunity to mix with a range of different children and adults, to do a range of activities that I wouldn't necessarily be able to organise to the same level (at the same time as doing all the other jobs around the house that need doing).

He also gets really excited when we turn up to collect him, so I have no doubt that we as parents still figure as the most important people in his life (as he in ours).

I wouldn't necessarily want to be a full-time stay at home mum for a number of reasons. I like being me, rather than solely "mum", I like the fact that I will continue to build a career so that when he is at school and there is less need for me to be at home, I'm not needing to start from scratch, I also think it's good to set an example of the work ethic to him.

This is what works for us at present and we have made it work financially. But everyone is different and it's wrong to say how individual children will be affected by specific situations.

Person_one

Kimberley82 wrote: »

Telling someone how their child would or wouldnt be is very rude and condescending. Every child and family are different not a one size fits all, we all have to do what works for us.l

That seems like a pretty strong overreaction to my post!

One person's story of how their child was clingy when they were at home for two weeks, does not negate errata's very good point.

onlyroz

Person_one wrote: »

Why don't more dads go part time so they can share the care?

More and more dads are doing exactly that.

Regarding 'normal' nursery hours, my nursery offers either 8-6 or 9-4. I tend to drop my daughter off around 8:15, then my son at school around 8:45. I'm at my desk by 9:30, out by 5pm, in time to pick up the kids around 5:45, traffic permitting.

onlyroz

It's not just about the money, or spending quality time with your children. Why shouldn't both parents be able to aspire to a rewarding career? I'd like to think that I'm a good role model to my daughter, and that she'll grow up knowing that any career is open to her if she's willing to work hard, and that she can have a rewarding family life as well if she wants.

Person_one

onlyroz wrote: »

It's not just about the money, or spending quality time with your children. Why shouldn't both parents be able to aspire to a rewarding career? I'd like to think that I'm a good role model to my daughter, and that she'll grow up knowing that any career is open to her if she's willing to work hard, and that she can have a rewarding family life as well if she wants.

I agree, but I don't think taking a little bit of time when your children are very young should be the kiss of death to a career that it currently is!

Really, I'm criticising a whole system and culture rather than any individuals.

tooldle

completely agree with onlyroz. There is also an element of keeping an eye on the future. There always seems a heavy focus on being at home when your child is a baby. Priorities and needs are different. Maybe a private education is important, maybe you feel that your child should go to Uni and not be burdened by debt. Lots of different reasons to stay in the workplace when children are small, all of them giving starts in life of different but important value. Whatever works for the individuals concerned.
I feel there is little acknowledgement that in families with two working parents, with earnings below the cut off, there will also be two sets of contributions going into the system. Where there is only one earner, there is correspondingly only one set of contributions. If all working parents with young children take time out, or go part time, the level of contribution to the pot will drop. The state is not some mythical figure, it is the tax payer, working parents included.

BoroPhil

Nursery is fantastic for kids and ours really enjoy it. The social skills it gives them can't be understimated.

As for clinginess, I find with ours that the more we are around, the more clingy they are, particularly with their mam. I think it does them good to have time away, with others their own age, so they can develop their independence.

gauly

Person_one wrote: »

The poorer family were 'topped up' to an amount the state deemed necessary for them to live to an acceptable standard. The more well off family can afford that acceptable standard without that help, do you want the higher earning family to be topped up so they have more? On what grounds?

Is it just me who thinks the well off family should have more money? There is usually a reason why one job pays more than another: longer hours, unpleasant working condition, unsociable hours, more training required. If you end up with the same net income, why is anyone going to take the higher paying job?