So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News4 mins ago
Cost Of Childcare
37 Answers
Ok l will probably open a can of worms here but free speech and all that. Why don’t women Stay At Home and look after their own children? They can go to work part time when the children go to school. Oh and if this means they are Losing Money by Not Going Back to Work……. If work and money are so important.. Don’t Have Children in the First Place if you Can’t Afford Them or Look After Them…..you are their Mother. They need their parents at such a young age, not random people in a childcare facility. Or go to work and Dad can look after them. If he needs to work…. I repeat Don’t Have Children if you Can’t Afford Them. Too much greed in the world.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by smurfchops. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Smurfchops, sometimes people have to work - even if they don’t to begin with. I’ve no objection to that but what I do object to is people who seem to think it’s ok to have children and let the state keep them. I watched an interview with a man who gave up work simply because he wanted to spend time with his child. I wonder what would happen if we all did that?
What would you have done if you were widowed, divorced or your husband became disabled whilst your children were pre-school age, smurf?
You are harking back to an age when one wage could pay the mortgage and support the family. For many, that is impossible. Parents could start their family in that financial comfort then the main earner become redundant, with both parents then having to take mediocre salaries to make ends meet.
Don't send our womenfolk back to the 1950s, we need women in professional roles and in every walk of life.
You are harking back to an age when one wage could pay the mortgage and support the family. For many, that is impossible. Parents could start their family in that financial comfort then the main earner become redundant, with both parents then having to take mediocre salaries to make ends meet.
Don't send our womenfolk back to the 1950s, we need women in professional roles and in every walk of life.
"My husband worked all his life and paid taxes which pays for these down and outs who can’t be bothered to go to work. It also paid towards any child benefits I received."
very neat. Perhaps all those people who have childcare assistance (all 4 year olds and some 3 year olds), everyone with a tax free childcare account and childcare vouchers also kid themselves like you do that the work they do whilst paying for childcare covers the assistance they get?
very neat. Perhaps all those people who have childcare assistance (all 4 year olds and some 3 year olds), everyone with a tax free childcare account and childcare vouchers also kid themselves like you do that the work they do whilst paying for childcare covers the assistance they get?
I think child benefit should be restricted to one child until that one is old enough to go to school then a maximum of one more. There are young mums round here with three or four kids and another on the way - don't suppose they have ever worked. Also not payable until the mum has worked for at least five years.
^^ I tend to agree with you Lankeela.
We always felt sorry for the children who had to go to nursery school when I was small (1950s). Presumably their mums had to work.
I stayed at home until my 2 kids were 5, apart from fitting in the odd day or 2 supply teaching. The girls began school with reading ages of 9 years and 7yrs.8mths. respectively. Both were numerate; could do simple sums up to 20; could write their names and other words, feed themselves using a knife and fork and change their shoes, put their coat on etc.. They played with other children around and when very young went to mother and toddler groups as well as learning how to behave in the homes of other adults. You can't do that in a nursery.
I think it is very sad that both parents seem to have to work these days and yes, I agree that it is preferable that a parent should raise a child in the early years. One of my daughters did this, the other 'got bored' and went back to work.
Perhaps a solution might be to give pension credits to stay-at-home-mums? My pension suffered horribly. They could be conditional on the child reaching expected standards on starting school.
We always felt sorry for the children who had to go to nursery school when I was small (1950s). Presumably their mums had to work.
I stayed at home until my 2 kids were 5, apart from fitting in the odd day or 2 supply teaching. The girls began school with reading ages of 9 years and 7yrs.8mths. respectively. Both were numerate; could do simple sums up to 20; could write their names and other words, feed themselves using a knife and fork and change their shoes, put their coat on etc.. They played with other children around and when very young went to mother and toddler groups as well as learning how to behave in the homes of other adults. You can't do that in a nursery.
I think it is very sad that both parents seem to have to work these days and yes, I agree that it is preferable that a parent should raise a child in the early years. One of my daughters did this, the other 'got bored' and went back to work.
Perhaps a solution might be to give pension credits to stay-at-home-mums? My pension suffered horribly. They could be conditional on the child reaching expected standards on starting school.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Until I was 18 I never knew a time when my mother and father didn't both work. Pre-school I was minded by a Polish refugee lady who lived with us and had a child my age. I could read and write before going to school but my social development was very restricted as we lived in the country away from other families.
I have some sympathy with the OP. My parents didn't have luxuries, they cut their coat according to their cloth, as it were. It meant we went without, we didn't go around expecting others to pay for childcare, they managed on their own. There's too much assuming one is entitled and need not sacrifice for something wanted these days; and too much believing others must pay towards one's bills because a drop in living standards just won't be tolerated.
For sure there will be genuine cases of need but they do not cover complaints about one of a couple giving up their job/income to bring up their offspring and making do as a result. Keep the Welfare for those in real need not those refusing to manage their life.
For sure there will be genuine cases of need but they do not cover complaints about one of a couple giving up their job/income to bring up their offspring and making do as a result. Keep the Welfare for those in real need not those refusing to manage their life.
//What about the fathers?
There is nothing that says that it should be the mother who is the main childcarer.//
Quite so, wolfie. But the principle of the question is valid.
//It is wrong to dictate to others how to live their life.//
I don’t think the point of the question is to do that. The protests yesterday were about the cost of childcare. Well people have to decide: it’s very important that they work so as to maintain their lifestyle, but the most important job they are charged with – that of caring for their children – they are perfectly happy to subcontract out to a bunch of strangers. They then protest at the cost of that most important job. It's quite simple: if both parents work then the required childcare is expensive. You pays your money and takes your choice.
//Why should people don't send kids to private schools pay for those schools to have tax exemption?//
Because those private schools are providing places for pupils who would otherwise have to be accommodated in State schools - at an expense to all taxpayers.
There is nothing that says that it should be the mother who is the main childcarer.//
Quite so, wolfie. But the principle of the question is valid.
//It is wrong to dictate to others how to live their life.//
I don’t think the point of the question is to do that. The protests yesterday were about the cost of childcare. Well people have to decide: it’s very important that they work so as to maintain their lifestyle, but the most important job they are charged with – that of caring for their children – they are perfectly happy to subcontract out to a bunch of strangers. They then protest at the cost of that most important job. It's quite simple: if both parents work then the required childcare is expensive. You pays your money and takes your choice.
//Why should people don't send kids to private schools pay for those schools to have tax exemption?//
Because those private schools are providing places for pupils who would otherwise have to be accommodated in State schools - at an expense to all taxpayers.
