Tax Relief On Childcare Bills! Give Us A Break!

[Minnie]

Childcare charges have always been a rip-off. Might I suggest a simple solution i.e. that you give up work and go into the child-minding business, and then you can retire aged 30.

Not if you're a selfemployed childminder working from home....do you think you'd be able to retire aged 30 if you were earning, on average, £3.25 per hour?

[LoneWolf]

There really is a fundamental question to be answered here.

Are children the collective responsibility of society or do parents hold sole responsibility?

If the former, then we need a radical overhaul of Social policy to make sure our collective obligations are met in full.

If the latter, then women might have to reappraise their expectations.

Surely no one believes women should be forced into that situation again?

[Albert Tatlock]

There really is a fundamental question to be answered here.

Are children the collective responsibility of society or do parents hold sole responsibility?

If the former, then we need a radical overhaul of Social policy to make sure our collective obligations are met in full.

If the latter, then women might have to reappraise their expectations.

Surely no one believes women should be forced into that situation again?

There is of course the argument that the general tax payer should not have to subsidise people who have children e.g. even through tax relief. As was said earlier - if you can;t afford kids - then don't have them. I mean it's not as though we're short of human beens these days is it?

[LoneWolf]

There really is a fundamental question to be answered here.

Are children the collective responsibility of society or do parents hold sole responsibility?

If the former, then we need a radical overhaul of Social policy to make sure our collective obligations are met in full.

If the latter, then women might have to reappraise their expectations.

Surely no one believes women should be forced into that situation again?

There is of course the argument that the general tax payer should not have to subsidise people who have children e.g. even through tax relief. As was said earlier - if you can;t afford kids - then don't have them. I mean it's not as though we're short of human beens these days is it?

 

So in terms of my question you believe children are the sole responsibility of their parents.

Interesting, and post Thatcher, legitimate. Slightly alien to my own thinking though.

[Albert Tatlock]

There really is a fundamental question to be answered here.

Are children the collective responsibility of society or do parents hold sole responsibility?

If the former, then we need a radical overhaul of Social policy to make sure our collective obligations are met in full.

If the latter, then women might have to reappraise their expectations.

Surely no one believes women should be forced into that situation again?

There is of course the argument that the general tax payer should not have to subsidise people who have children e.g. even through tax relief. As was said earlier - if you can;t afford kids - then don't have them. I mean it's not as though we're short of human beens these days is it?

 

So in terms of my question you believe children are the sole responsibility of their parents.

Interesting, and post Thatcher, legitimate. Slightly alien to my own thinking though.

Another way of looking at why so many kids live in poverty - is to look inside the brains of the people that decided to bring them into the world into poverty in the first place - especially when there are 3 to 5 such kids in many families (as opposed to them just having 1 child that might not live in poverty had the parents not had additional kids).

[Gladys]

LW, I know you were supporting my argument, but my real point is the lack of provision for children of school age. I take your point about the social engineering factor and do wonder if those at the helm believe that females invariably work part-time and so can fit their employment within school hours. Not so in my case, rarely home before 6 in the evening.

 

Had an interesting chat with someone who was brought up in a pub and said how difficult it was for her parents because there was only a couple of hours snatched in the afternoons in which the family could have time together for an outing. On the other hand many years ago a local landlord and landlady explained how good pub life was because they could more easily combine home life with their work commitments as they were only a flight of stairs away.

 

Seems like no situation is ideal and the other person's grass is always greener!

 

You can only do the best with what is available to you and, sadly, that is balancing the needs of children for a parent at home with the need to financially support the family. Not easy bed fellows so you just have to get on with it and do the best you can.

[LoneWolf]

Another way of looking at why so many kids live in poverty - is to look inside the brains of the people that decided to bring them into the world into poverty in the first place - especially when there are 3 to 5 such kids in many families (as opposed to them just having 1 child that might not live in poverty had the parents not had additional kids).

 

Again, entirely legitimate thinking post Thatcher.

The opposite end of that argument is poverty is structural and defined by divisions along the lines of class.

One argument is about the rights and responsibilities of the individual.

The other is about the rights and responsibilities of society.

A consensus existed for about 35 years or so in favour of the latter. Thatchers main legacy to Britain was the removal of that consensus and its replacement with ideas about individual responsibility and accountability.

Im old fashioned. Still believe in collective responsibility. Having said that I appreciate people have totally different views on Social Policy. This brings me back to my original argument that all candidates should have their views on Social Policy as a key item on their Manifestos.

Sadly, not a single candidate has done so.

[ans]

Yes, I did think about that Ans but things change, situations, circumstances, people. I expect you'd be aware of that.

 

Of course I'm aware of it. Two years ago my own situation changed from being very comfortable financially in a dual income household to being a sole houseowner with a large childcare bill. This change in situation was brought about by my own volition and has involved me missing out on a lot of things that I want. In those two years, I've had one 'holiday' for three days and I've gone without many things that I would have bought in an instant before. My absolute top priority is looking after my children and doing my best to provide them with everything they need, including a safe and secure home. I don't expect the state to bail me out, I dont expect handouts, I just expect to have to go without for the forseeable future.

 

so you just have to get on with it and do the best you can.

 

Precisely.

[LoneWolf]

Of course I'm aware of it. Two years ago my own situation changed from being very comfortable financially in a dual income household to being a sole houseowner with a large childcare bill. This change in situation was brought about by my own volition and has involved me missing out on a lot of things that I want. In those two years, I've had one 'holiday' for three days and I've gone without many things that I would have bought in an instant before. My absolute top priority is looking after my children and doing my best to provide them with everything they need, including a safe and secure home. I don't expect the state to bail me out, I dont expect handouts, I just expect to have to go without for the forseeable future.

 

Hats off you have made a choice and accepted the consequences and presumably the pleasures of your choice.

That doesnt and shouldnt preclude a reappraisal of Social Policy which might recognise the sacrifices you correctly point out you have made, as being something which properly should be borne in part or totally by Society. This isnt a radical view of Society's responsibilities, rather a straightforward appraisal based on economic realities.

For example, from a purely selfish point of view, if people dont have children who the hell is going to work and pay taxes to provide our pensions?

It wouldnt be state hand outs Ans, but a straight forward economic recognition of the value of children and of those who raise them.

[thebees]

The Dept Of Ed. are going to be creating school places for under 5's, well I think this is what the gobbledigook questionaire I received from them was all about. This might lessen the burden for people. I think it was called Educare, pile of rubbish if you ask me, 5-16+ is plenty of time to be in full time education. My gran used to say "Cut your coat according to your cloth" she wasn't wrong.

[keyboarder]

Children are the future.

[thebees]

But the future is bright, the future is Orange, if you listen to the telly...my children are not orange! Well that said the teenager has taken to wearing fake tan which has got an orangey tint to it...

[Theskeat]

Yes, I did think about that Ans but things change, situations, circumstances, people. I expect you'd be aware of that.

 

Of course I'm aware of it. Two years ago my own situation changed from being very comfortable financially in a dual income household to being a sole houseowner with a large childcare bill. This change in situation was brought about by my own volition and has involved me missing out on a lot of things that I want. In those two years, I've had one 'holiday' for three days and I've gone without many things that I would have bought in an instant before. My absolute top priority is looking after my children and doing my best to provide them with everything they need, including a safe and secure home. I don't expect the state to bail me out, I dont expect handouts, I just expect to have to go without for the forseeable future.

 

so you just have to get on with it and do the best you can.

 

Precisely.

 

I too would have to applaud Ans for being a man and dealing with a situation that is so common nowadays, but would add that I feel that in some way he should recieve finacial assistance to help him through what can only be described as a stressfull. It is a lot harder for a father to look after his kids alone and at the same time maintain fulltime employment. If the shoe was on the other foot so to speak the wife would given all the help she needed.

Once again Ans well done for getting you priorities right

[Tuna Sandwich]

Hats off you have made a choice and accepted the consequences and presumably the pleasures of your choice.

That doesnt and shouldnt preclude a reappraisal of Social Policy which might recognise the sacrifices you correctly point out you have made, as being something which properly should be borne in part or totally by Society. This isnt a radical view of Society's responsibilities, rather a straightforward appraisal based on economic realities.

For example, from a purely selfish point of view, if people dont have children who the hell is going to work and pay taxes to provide our pensions?

It wouldnt be state hand outs Ans, but a straight forward economic recognition of the value of children and of those who raise them.

 

LoneWolf, Life is about choice. You have made your choice, as has ans, who accepts that he made his choice, and good on him for it.

 

With regard to social policy, I have no kids but pay massive taxes every year, a large proportion of which goes into a pot to pay for schooling other people's children, to support their tax relief, to subsidise council housing, etc. I could grumble about this but I don't. However, when people start making socialist remarks, wanting me to pay more to subsidise them that really annoys me.

 

You talk of who is going to pay the pensions in the future if we don't have kids, I am far from retirement age but as far as I can tell I doubt I will get a state pension, even though I will have paid into it. This is because by the time I retire I expect the state pension to be means tested, and those who have made provision for themselves will get shafted again. The only people who will get the state pension will be those who are already benefiting from the government's socialist stance.

 

By the way, Thatcher saved the UK and we are still feeling the benefits from it. Even the labour government have not managed to cock it up, yet.

[Albert Tatlock]

By the way, Thatcher saved the UK and we are still feeling the benefits from it. Even the labour government have not managed to cock it up, yet.

Duh!

 

By the way, Thatcher saved cocked up the UK and we are still feeling the benefits from paying the price for it.

 

Fixed your post.