Paranoid! What me? NB

Woh .... and what would be wrong with the father from bringing up the child instead? "Womens place is in the home" argument is (IMO) a complete non-starter ...
having said that I agree with your sentiments - dual income is required just to buy a starter home, it is then very difficult to remove the need for dual income ... perhaps a change in the tax laws to benefit those single (low) income families would be better - and not via vouchers etc etc ... but through genuine tax breaks ... but - the government wouldn't get the extra income tax or NI contributions would they .... far better for them to promote childcare with both parents working (HMG rakes off their bit), childcare company (HMG rakes off their bit again) and the employees of (and guess what - HMG gets a bit of that too!) ...

I would disagree that we have generally low wages - just a huge difference between the top and bottom earners - but that is % increases for you ...
10k + 2% = 10.2k
100k + 2% = 102k ...
will forever increase the wages difference.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
How can they do that?

Given the current state of society what tools do the government have to persuade mothers to stay at home with their children?

Short of making very generous payments or allowances to parents who decided to stay at home with the children it is difficult to see how the government can influence the market.

The current tax regime is very unfair - as it is a couple where one partner is at home and the other earns £50K is much worse off than one where both work and earn £25K. At the very least the government should make tax allowances fully transferable between husband and wife ..

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The new man...

Well actually the wife went back to work after 8 months of having our youngest, I stayed at home for another 14 months looking after him. He is now at playschool and loving every moment of it.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>
 
It was until this lot decided that women should be free to have there own, and couples did not exist. So if they are free to decide why cann't they transfer it ???
Just another nail the coffin of marrage.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://link>www.kddpowercentre.com</A>
 
Nothing wrong with the father bringing up the child, that works just as well.

The government could easily change the way society operates by doing away with maternity/paternity benefit and allowing the working partner to claim the others tax relief. This would incentivise those that opt for the breadwinner/homemaker approach and disincentivise those that choose to reamin in work. This would also benefit society as it is bound to have a beneficial effect in raising children and go a long way to restoring the benefits of a family structure.

What money is lost in additional tax revenues can be retrieved from not having to provide state funded childcare, maternity benefits, and the whole host of hangers on and social departments that feed off society.

The fact is the government don't care about families or children, all they care about is having as many people as possible working and paying taxes for as long as possible. Hence the desire to raise the retirement age to 70.

The only reason for this is to fund the never ending growth in public sector employment and the hordes of interfering busybodies they need to govern every aspect of our lives.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top