Stay at home parents?

full-time-mum

exil wrote:

In particular, I know singles, divorcees and childless couples already resent the tax advantages given to couples with kids, not to mention paternity leave, being able to persuade the boss to let them work flexible hours, and so on.

Have those single/childless couples thought about where the doctors/nurses/airline pilots/cruise entertainers/etc etc are coming from to see them through their old age?

I know there is no certainty that the welfare/benefits/pension system will still exist then but, if it does, its these babies/children whose taxes will be paying into it to support them.

exil

full-time-mum wrote:

Have those single/childless couples thought about where the doctors/nurses/airline pilots/cruise entertainers/etc etc are coming from to see them through their old age?

I know there is no certainty that the welfare/benefits/pension system will still exist then but, if it does, its these babies/children whose taxes will be paying into it to support them.

Good point - but it's difficult to tell them that when you've just been given an afternoon off to see to a sick child and left them to hold the fort, it may lead to a punch on the nose!

beautifulgorgeous_2

The passport to leisure scheme which would let me get reduced prices for swimming etc is not avalable to me because my dh works and we are not on benefit. We have NO income for me not a low income as I chose to be at home with my children. My dd gets ones as she is a student but if she takes my son then we have to pay full price for him as he is too young to get one as a student and can only have his own if I was eligible. If they was an off peak lower charge for SAHP then that would help.

exil

Yes - you CHOSE to be at home with your children. My OH made the same choice and then went part time and recently returned to full time.

But what we're talking about here is asking single or childless people to subsidise that choice.

full-time-mum

exil wrote:

Good point - but it's difficult to tell them that when you've just been given an afternoon off to see to a sick child and left them to hold the fort, it may lead to a punch on the nose!

I never said it was an easy argument!

full-time-mum

exil wrote:

Yes - you CHOSE to be at home with your children. My OH made the same choice and then went part time and recently returned to full time.

But what we're talking about here is asking single or childless people to subsidise that choice.

...and you are asking those children to subsidise your old age.
Also, you choose to be childless - not a problem but I choose to continue society.

Using that argument, why should my OH susidise your single persons council tax allowance? or a diabetics free prescriptions etc etc

full-time-mum

robindunne1 wrote:

Parents live apart as it is more financially beneficial to be in different households - living together means less tax credits and other means tested benefits. A mother calls herself a single parent as it entitles her to more money and less of a compulsion from the state to find a job. People work less as they know less salary will be off set by increases in tax credits.... etc.... etc....

As an example, a friend of mine has just parted from her partner, she has 2 children. I am married with 2 children of exactly the same age.
We have a single wage coming in.
She gets child support for C1 from ex1 and for C2 from ex2.

We were looking into courses - she wants to change her career and I would like to find something to go back to.
She will get her course paid for plus help with child care. Plus she will get working tax credit as well as child tax credit. She also gets single persons council tax rebate. She plans to work part-time but only as much as allowed before she looses all the benefits.

I will continue to get some child tax benefit but nothing for my course fees and no support with after school costs. Her earned income will be less than my OH but not that far short if you take into consideration her ex's input.

Why should she get support and not me?

I breifly worked on day a week with OH flexing an early leave on that day to pick up the children from school - he still did the same hours. It was only min wage but I couldn't afford to do any more days as my after school childcare costs were greater than my hourly earnings and we weren't entitled to support.

exil

full-time-mum wrote:

...and you are asking those children to subsidise your old age.
Also, you choose to be childless - not a problem but I choose to continue society.

Using that argument, why should my OH susidise your single persons council tax allowance? or a diabetics free prescriptions etc etc

Look - I am NOT childless and I am NOT single, If you read my posts you would see that I DO have kids and my OH DID give up her job to look after them. However, my views on this are not governed by my own circumstances.
I try to see the wider picture.

exil

And the answer to the question is - nobody CHOOSES to be diabetic - but we have chosen the option to have one partner stay at home to look after kids. And as one of my relatives is currently going through a divorce, then I can say with some authority that I wouldn't swap places to get a few quid in tax relief and benefits.

full-time-mum

exil wrote:

Look - I am NOT childless and I am NOT single, If you read my posts you would see that I DO have kids and my OH DID give up her job to look after them. However, my views on this are not governed by my own circumstances.

Sorry, was meant to read as a reponse to the argument, not a personal attack.

exil wrote:

I try to see the wider picture.

Exactly my point too really, this issue is more long term and both parents (stay at home or otherwise) and singles/childless should see it as that.