Cost of child-care makes working pointless for all but the most well paid mothers

Generali

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Yes, BUT he has paid TAX and NIC all his life. You not getting that point? just because his contributions paid for someone else whilst he was paying them, doesn't mean he is not entitled to those benefits (health care and pension) when its his turn to get them. He paid. End of. He's entitled. Period.

That the national debt has increased pretty considerably over the course of his life means that he probably hasn't paid in enough.

suburbanwifey

Generali wrote: »

That the national debt has increased pretty considerably over the course of his life means that he probably hasn't paid in enough.

Hasn't the national debt increased due to labour turning pumping out children into a career that paid rather well? I'm sure he will have/has paid in MORE than enough. I personally pay in more than your average worker earns in total, am I not entitled to a pension and hospital care when the time comes? just because I don't have kids, don't like kids and yet pay my way all my life? your logic is flawed.

Edited to add: are you calling me childless scum too ??

vivatifosi

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Edited to add: are you calling me childless scum too ??

Generali hasn't called anyone childless scum. IME he doesn't use language like that, though he did say there are people in the UK that hate children. That's a different accusation.

TWH talked about childless scum. However I've yet to hear of a category of people that horsey actually likes, so I wouldn't let him get to you.

ruggedtoast

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Yes, BUT he has paid TAX and NIC all his life. You not getting that point? just because his contributions paid for someone else whilst he was paying them, doesn't mean he is not entitled to those benefits (health care and pension) when its his turn to get them. He paid. End of. He's entitled. Period.

No he isn't. Period.

Generation X and Y are all paying for people to have pensions we will never receive ourselves.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No he isn't. Period.

Generation X and Y are all paying for people to have pensions we will never receive ourselves.

What, £140 quid a week?

SingleSue

Myself and now ex husband had the perfect answer to the cost of childcare, although we were forced into it not by cost but because of the lack of available childcare for disabled children.

We worked opposite shifts, so I would be with the children by day whilst he was at work and then he would be with them in the evening/night whilst I went to work. This also meant that during the day when appointments/meetings/therapy allowed, I could also work extra hours.

Ok, it was not our first choice as it had a detrimental impact on our family life but the by product was that we had no childcare costs to pay. However, my going back to work was never a financial decision (I was going stir crazy) and in fact, in my going back we were worse off initially as I could no longer claim carers allowance, we lost some tax credits and there were extra costs for fuel/clothing but within a few months with pay rises etc, we were in positive territory and eventually, we moved completely out of tax credits scope.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No he isn't. Period.

Generation X and Y are all paying for people to have pensions we will never receive ourselves.

State pensions are the greatest Ponzi scheme ever devised. Previous 'investors' are repaid using money being put in by current investors. It would be illegal if it wasn't the Government doing it.

The Government even uses the ability to just not pay the next generation a pension as justification for not accounting for the liabilities properly.

thescouselander

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Yes, BUT he has paid TAX and NIC all his life. You not getting that point? just because his contributions paid for someone else whilst he was paying them, doesn't mean he is not entitled to those benefits (health care and pension) when its his turn to get them. He paid. End of. He's entitled. Period.

The younger generation might have said the same except their "entitlements" are being eroded all the time. Just because someone pay into the system there should be no expectation that they will get anything back. Not good but that's modern times for you.

tonycottee

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I dislike children also. Could there be a lot of child-haters as you call them due to the fact that there appears to be system in place in the UK whereby children seem to run things? You can't tell them off, they can just run riot everywhere, you complain and You are out of order, not the noisy, badly behaved kids that have no discipline and can even (ludicrously) divorce their parents if they smack them??) Teachers are powerless at the hands of thugs in schools (they get sacked if they react to abuse from kids) etc. etc. Children in this country can do what they like - scratch your car, scream at you, abuse your property and get away with it. Thousands of kids born to inadequate parents who live on benefits who bring kids into this world for an income, not because they want them. They run in the streets at 14 in gangs, who controls them? no one. Nope, I dislike kids and whoever gave kids all these rights should have to live near them! Luckily, I don't.

Let me guess - most of this you got from reading papers like the Daily Mail, and now you assume it's the norm.
How many children have divorced their parents for smacking?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

People shouldn't let their kids behave like that. Very few do IME.

You're right. People shouldn't let their kids behave like that.

But in my experience, far too many do.

And just to get my point on the record here, I don't hate kids. I do however think that far too many parents have no idea how to control their children's behaviour in public, and have no idea what acceptable public behaviour is.