Free 15hrs childcare

princessdon

tokenfield wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand?

Ok then lets just say my bad eh?

tokenfield

princessdon wrote: »

Ok then lets just say my bad eh?

Don't even understand that either?

SandraScarlett

QUOTE=tokenfield;62644817]It may be free to you, but to those that are taxpayers - they are paying for your child's 15 hours at the nursery.[/QUOTE]

tokenfield wrote: »

Free to the parents, but someone is actually paying for those 15 hours!
The likes of me and 1000's of other taxpayers.

I have paid for my children in both private and state sectors. I paid privately for a nursery place from the age of 3.

I have also paid the private fees for my grandchildren at nursery.

So why do I have to pay for the sprogs that have nothing to do with my family as well so that mum & dad can go back to work in order to enjoy a better lifestyle? Bit rich in my opinion.

Up to this point, you used righteous indignation that the OP should be enquiring about 15 hours of child care. Then you posted this:

tokenfield wrote: »

I have arranged our affairs in such a way that I do have access to a considerable amount of capital but for means tested purposes the capital that is elsewhere is kept just under the £10,000 figure.

Instead of putting our savings into bank accounts which I knew would cause problems when claiming Pension Credit as well as affecting what the council will seek to include should either of us need help in our old age, we moved home quite a few times over a period of 15 years, stretching our resources each time that by the time I retired at 60, we live in a mortgage free property worth in excess of £750,000. That is our capital reserve.

So no we haven't spent it all, we have been rather canny in keeping it away from the those that would like to treat it as available capital which we should live off.

At sometime in the near future I will inherit from my family approx. £480,000 which will mean another home move so that it is used entirely to help buy our final principal private residence of approx. £1.25m. (they can't consider deprivation of the inherited capital if it used to buy your only home).

You could describe us as others do - asset rich, cash poor.

Andy? No, not me, why do you ask?

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Meanwhile, the tax payer can pick up the care bill, which you would be able to pay, but choose not to.

xx

tokenfield wrote: »

If that is what happens so be it. I have no intention of making myself into a martyr for anybody.

If it's good for MP's and many others then who can object if I do the same?

So it's perfectly OK for you to get Pension Credit, and have yours and your wife's care bills paid, should you need them, by the taxpayer, but you strongly object to paying for the 15 hours care for someone elses children.

If you and your wife ever both need full time care, you'd need the tax payer to stump up for 336 hours a week! But because it's for you, that's OK is it? And I see you're now putting yourself on a par with MPs. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Not something to boast about, is it.

And, by the way, if one of you needs care, they don't put a charge against the house, letting the spouse continue to live there. However, if you both needed care, or one of you died, the surviving spouse would have the charge against the house.

xx

tokenfield

SandraScarlett wrote: »

QUOTE=tokenfield;62644817]It may be free to you, but to those that are
taxpayers - they are paying for your child's 15 hours at the
nursery.

Up to this point, you used righteous
indignation that the OP should be enquiring about 15 hours of child care. Then
you posted this:


So it's perfectly OK for you to get Pension Credit, and have yours and
your wife's care bills paid, should you need them, by the taxpayer, but you
strongly object to paying for the 15 hours care for someone elses children.





If you and your wife ever both need full time care, you'd need the tax payer
to stump up for 336 hours a week! But because it's for you, that's OK is
it? And I see you're now putting yourself on a par with MPs. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:





Not something to boast about, is it.





And, by the way, if one of you needs care, they don't put a charge against
the house, letting the spouse continue to live there. However, if you both
needed care, or one of you died, the surviving spouse would have the charge
against the house.





xx

[/QUOTE]

Certainly, and as I have said I paid for my children and grandchildren to go to nursery. The OP considers that she is entitled to 'free' nursery provision. I pointed out that it isn't free at all - people like me (taxpayers) are paying for it. That annoys me to think that after what I have done for my family I am expected to part pay for every other sprog in this country!

I also object to having what I have worked hard for taken off me whereas those that have squandered their money are fully supported when it comes to care fees.

The capital we have (my wife has) gives us the choice as to what or where it should be spent.
As you will know, I am legally penniless - except for joint ownership of just under £10,000 in the bank. I have no assets. The only asset that exists is my wife's property.
Quite a few years ago she decided to place it in a family trust. She has the right to live in it for her lifetime - but the actual owner is her trust.
I am but a 'lodger' in our home with no rights or entitlements.
Consequently, if it came to it, neither of us can be said to have any assets that can be used to support any care fees.

And what is so wrong in protecting what I have worked and saved hard for not forgetting the inheritances that have been passed down from within our family? Surely we are entitled to dictate what our capital worth is spent on - not you or the government.

If it is OK for an MP to do it, then I'm sorry but it is good enough for us to have the same protection.

cbrown372

I've no idea Andy, you tell us after all you were a tax inspector

SandraScarlett

[/QUOTE]Certainly, and as I have said I paid for my children and grandchildren to go to nursery. The OP considers that she is entitled to 'free' nursery provision. I pointed out that it isn't free at all - people like me (taxpayers) are paying for it. That annoys me to think that after what I have done for my family I am expected to part pay for every other sprog in this country!

I also object to having what I have worked hard for taken off me whereas those that have squandered their money are fully supported when it comes to care fees.

The capital we have (my wife has) gives us the choice as to what or where it should be spent.
As you will know, I am legally penniless - except for joint ownership of just under £10,000 in the bank. I have no assets. The only asset that exists is my wife's property.
Quite a few years ago she decided to place it in a family trust. She has the right to live in it for her lifetime - but the actual owner is her trust.
I am but a 'lodger' in our home with no rights or entitlements.
Consequently, if it came to it, neither of us can be said to have any assets that can be used to support any care fees.

And what is so wrong in protecting what I have worked and saved hard for not forgetting the inheritances that have been passed down from within our family? Surely we are entitled to dictate what our capital worth is spent on - not you or the government.

If it is OK for an MP to do it, then I'm sorry but it is good enough for us to have the same protection.[/QUOTE]

Andy, you will always find a way to justify why you should be supported by the tax payer, for example, your Pension Credit, free care if you need it, etc - but in AndyLand, others shouldn't.

As much as I find it difficult caring for someone with Alzheimers, at least I know that when/if he needs full time care, that mine and my husband's equally hard earned savings will enable me to choose the Care Home he goes to.

Enjoy your money Andy.

xx