my god, this lot are stopping childcare vouchers now

Xiderpunk

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Because you live in a liberal democracy, and most people think that the state should offer decent families some help bringing up their children rather than leaving them to grow up on the streets.

Why don't you let that concept rattle round your empty head for a while and then see how it takes you?

So your saying that if the government does not help these children the parents will fail and they will grow up on the streets? Begs the question that why did these !!!!less parents have children if they can not provide for them themselves.

Xiderpunk

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Why dont you go and move to Somalia and see what a country that has no state supported infrastructure is actually like.

The hypocrisy of people like you is staggering. You happily reap all the benefits living in a country which subsidises road, rail, policing, defense, government, emergency services, environmental health, medical health, disease control, education, planning, energy, development and a hundred other things without which your "higher rate tax" job would not exist and have you most likely grubbing about in a field looking for something to eat; and still have the sheer, bald, stupidity to claim that you don't see why you should 'support' other people.

Nonsense post, none of it is relevant. How you have connected roads, rail and policing to child support is beyond me. I suggest you read the drivel you write before posting as it can make one look rather stupid.

chewmylegoff

mysk_girl wrote: »

Yes, but there are no more hours available during holiday time or during the week so earning £20k is never going to be possible. Nor is there any further career progression with us, she already manages a preschool and 7 other staff.

But given that she only works 27 hours a week for 38 weeks a year she can get a second job, so it is perfectly possible.

grizzly1911

PaulF81 wrote: »

Simple solution. Te government should cap childcare costs per hour.

It's quite frankly extortionate. How they can charge what they do for what is effectively babysitting, I don't know.

Presumably the providers would just stop offering the service. They couldn't run it at loss.

onlyroz

Do you all really want a situation where the only people who can afford children are the mega-rich, or the people who don't care if they spend their entire lives living off benefits?

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

But given that she only works 27 hours a week for 38 weeks a year she can get a second job, so it is perfectly possible.

are you suggesting that a 20k pro-rataed salary is excessive for the manager of the pre school nursery?

the rest of the staff are probably all earning the minimum wage

chewmylegoff

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you suggesting that a 20k pro-rataed salary is excessive for the manager of the pre school nursery?

the rest of the staff are probably all earning the minimum wage

No - the comment was that the salary was only £13kpa and therefore it was not an attractive starting salary for a graduate. However more than £20kpa pro rata IS a competitive starting salary for a graduate in most parts of the country. That is my point.

laurel7172

It's hardly unfair to restrict subsidised childcare to families where the childcare is a necessity rather than a luxury.

Moby

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you all misunderstand my anger. if the Govt said there were no longer benefits available CB, vouchers, whatever, for all. That would be fine.

But when someone earns, say, £50k on their own and they get no help, but two people on £150k each (£300k combined) do get help, something is CLEARLY wrong and if people can't see that - god help us all.

the same with the CB farce. One earner on £60k (could be because his wife is dead) with 4 kids gets nothing at all. Meanwhile, the couple next door earning £50k each (£100k combined) get full CB for their one child. It's clearly idiotic and costly to run. And it was so much simpler and fairer to:

a. stop CB altogether
b. stop CB for children over a certain age, say 12?
c. only allow it for 1 child, or possibly 2.

this is why I am angry with the schemes. of course I want the money, who wouldn't?

as for a stigma of being on benefits - as I have said a million times, most people in receipt of these types of benefit do not even consider them a "benefit". they consider them an incredibly small amount of tax already paid rebated to them.

if i were a rich pensioner and was getting £250 fuel allowance, I wouldn't give it back. 99% of people wouldn't. If I really didn't need it, I would give it to my children or grandchildren who probably do need it.

You've said all this bilge before and it didn't make sense then so why repeat it?

Moby

onlyroz wrote: »

Do you all really want a situation where the only people who can afford children are the mega-rich, or the people who don't care if they spend their entire lives living off benefits?

Good point. I think what it reflects is how everything now is becoming very political. That's worrying because it means we will all be at each others throats pointing fingers like white horse etc.
Its the consequence of a govmt which promotes the division between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. Osborne only has to say rubbish like 'I am on the side of those who want to get on in life' and the damage is done .....the point is made! He knows that many of us already identify/aspire with that objective. Its basically meaningless rubbish but it presses the buttons of your average Daily Fail reader like nothing else. It helps them to feel better than their neighbour ....'who is on the dole'. Its the politics of class division and is risible....but he gets away with it because there are so many numpties that fall for it!:mad: