Child care subsidies

agree with who…!

I don’t know in what age group you belong but I suspect you are, as me, of the older generation and I totally agree with everything you say.

No problem he is not asking for a grant to work…I’ve always considered that the retirement age should be flexible, if you can still contribute why not. I think you are rather missing the point of my argument.

No but I am aware that the present and also the past government both see the womens vote as being critical in their attempts to regain power.Or are you another benefits recipient and thus are solely self interested?

Agreed that there are benefits if more people are working, that really is not the point.

The point is why subsidise one sector of the work force to go to work when there is a ready pool of labour that is being paid a benefit to stay home. You don’t have to be an economist to work that out and it applies to any part of the world.

I suspect the government make more from the tax than they spend in child care subsidies, makes good business sense, although they spin a far more altruistic tale. Are you aware of the current economic climate or do you live in a cave?

Oh dear. There is a lot of nonsense in this post. Just one example:

“What I disagree with is that women) are subsidised by the state so that they can go out to work thus depriving youngsters of that vital first step”

Any first year Economics student will tell you that you have fallen for the ‘lump of labour fallacy’ which de-bunks the idea that there is a fixed amount of jobs in the economy and that if one sector of the population desists from taking them (say, elderly women) they will become available for another sector (say, young people). This is nonsense. The more people there are working in the economy will make it grow (these people are paying taxes and spending their wages) and this in turn creates more employment.

As far as the rest is concerned I can’t really say: I’ve never lived in Britain. But if this one example is wrong … then a lot of the rest must be too.

Interestingly in France though if you only have 1 child, my understanding is that after 3 years of age you don’t get any family allowance at all. The French system encourages larger families by offering higher allowances depending on the number of children you have. Not sure if there is a limit i.e. after 3 you don’t get any more allowances or not?

There are also tax breaks in France in the form of your spouse & children being extra ‘parts’ towards your income tax. So assuming you are one of the working population then if you were a one paid working parent family (as we are) you are supported with tax breaks for the non-paid spouse and the children. I think this is why few people pay significant levels of income tax in France.

This doesn’t affect your social charges though, you pay those whatever your circumstances & these make up the most hefty part of the tax charges we pay.

I thought I would also add my grandad’s viewpoint, he believes if you can’t afford to support lots of children then you should restrict your family size or the government should restrict it’s 'benefit’s. His view is aimed at the families whose parents don’t work (possibly have never worked) but claim an increasing amount of ‘benefits’ from the state as they have large families of 4 or more children. If these families then produce offspring who similarly don’t work (we are now seeing 3rd generations like this in some parts of North West England & probably other areas but my knowledge is of NWE) then these families are a drain on the working population of Britain & the money will run out. I probably wouldn’t take such a harsh stance as him but in one sense he is observing that there is a major problem with society & the costs of supporting it which didn’t exist 50 years ago.

As someone who decided to and was fortunate enough to have children I’m going to wade in with my 2 penneth’s worth. I don’t work now, I used to work & used to earn a high salary and paid a high amount of tax & social charges as well as funding my own pension (as we all know there will be no state pension for my generation when we eventually take ‘retirement’).

We were lucky, we sold our house in the UK before the current problems and we bought a cheaper house in France allowing us to live more frugaly, lifestyle completely changed and to drop one salary. Not everyone has this choice. This was a choice we were able to make but not everyone has this choice. My parents didn’t have this choice.

They were dependent on the family allowance, without it they would have gotten into more debt. My parents were not high rate tax payers, they were both public service employees (fireman & civil servant) but they were fortunate as they lived near their family in the North West of England and so child care came in the form of grandparents. Housing wasn’t ridiculously priced like the South East but they still struggled to make ends meet. They worked hard and they paid for me to go to University.

I graduated and earned a good job (in the South East as that’s where the good & well paid jobs mostly are) which allowed me to pay high taxes, my husband who continues to work has a similar story to mine (although he was brought up in the South East).

If my parents had not had the child allowance would they have been able to support me through university in later years? If I hadn’t gone to university would I have generated such good revenues for HMRC (I think NOT!) thus being part of the workers allowing pensions etc to continue to be paid to the older generation? When my children are at school I will work again & I have no doubt, I will contribute again to society financially.

As will my children in many years to come who are the future generation of tax payers.

Surely it is better to support parents who need to work to allow them to work and instill a work ethic into their children than to force these families into financial difficulty, further restricting their abilities to support their children through their future education? Society needs to invest in it’s children and it’s the children of people like James and myself that will be the ones paying our pensions in years to come…if indeed there is enough to go round.

I think what is annoying us is the idea that Roger is throwing child benefit etc in the same basket as those on benefits who don’t want to work as they’re better off not working - something that exists in France too and which really annoys me :frowning:

but making such an amalgame is insulting for those of us who work bloody hard and pay a fortune in taxes and charges socials - I pay my charges socials precisely for what I get back. I won’t start off again or continue James’ list but if you’re receiving a state pension Roger then you’re ripping off the state - give the money back, you should have saved yourself or not gone into retirement if… :wink:

Please note the latter is more leg pulling banter than anything else - we don’t want this thread to go off the rails !

Not Joking but I do like to stimulate discussion.
You will Get the ‘Daily Heil’ brigade up in arms about the benefit Kulture but suggest that Child care allowance is a ‘benefit’ that should be reviewed then watch them squawk. :slight_smile:

I still think - or would like to think - that Roger is joking.

Personally I draw the line at middle class Housing benefit AKA Child care allowance.
I also believe that any society that gives benefits to all strata is living in cloud d cuckoo land, cut all the benefits, JSA for people who haven’t worked ever, bring in a qualifying period for all benefits paid within the Country so ending benefit tourism etc etc

depenbds what the overall game plan is wife and noonou at home not paying taxes or both gainfully employed? taxes hit the poorest - depends on how they’re managed, not in France they don’t, they hit the middle classes hardest!

Quite agree on having a good hard look at income and expenditure, no-one’s advocating living beyond your means but help with childcare is all part of living in a society or do you want to close all schools and get the parents to educate their children… they shouldn’t have kids if they expect the state to educate them and school them just so mothers can go back to work surely the mothers should stay at home and educate them… we could save a fortune, no more schools to run, no more teachers’ salaries to pay, all those mums at home teaching their own kids leaving their jobs available for the unemployed…

where do you really want to draw the line :open_mouth:

vive la france, vivent le socialisme, la société, la citoyenneté et l’État providence !

Quite frankly whether or not a similar system operates in France is irrelevant, does it make sense to subsidise second incomes? Subsidies come out of National taxation so are born by all members of society, but hits the poorer members hardest.If you cant afford the cost of Kids and don’t feel that A)You are able to rear them and B) that your career is less important than your offsprings nurture, why did you have them?
As for some posts, If your out goings exceed your incomings you need to audit your game plan, is the house too large for your income?, Have you spent more on your Tai-chi classes than on insulation for the Barn?Is it worth travelling 500 Miles a week to work or should you leave the hot house of the South East to a lower wage but lower cost area? Its not all about your total income its all about quality of life, as a business analogy, Its not turnover, its profit that demonstrates success.

“like” button :wink:

I could make so many similar comparisons, including my own - if I moved to the UK with OH and kids I’d pay less tax and be a real individual rather than a cog in french society but our lives would be a financial nightmare.

I’m not for throwing money down the drain and still draw a line between helping those who work and giving money away to those who don’t want to work and are milking the system (huge difference that is often cited by people in the aveyron comparing the work ethic here and the fare niente ethic just the other side of the larzac in the hérault)

Just take a look at the two countries - roughly the same economy, population, history etc but which one seems to be going to the dogs and where have most of the people on this forem chosen to live. as James said, I’d probably have more money/income etc on paper in the UK but my quality of life at the end of the day wouldn’t be half as good as it is here.

I can’t comment on what was said on the BBC as I only have french tv… and that suits me just fine :wink:

I choked on my coffee when I read your post Roger. Are you serious?

don’t know how it works in the UK and don’t want to; I live and work in France, my kids were born in France and yes my french OH went back to work because the state pays for pretty much all the child care and thus keeps her paying her taxes in her job and provides work for our nounou who also then pays more tax. We pay extremely high taxes here but get very good benefits as a result - it’s give and take - it’s also politicaly motivated as if there isn’t a next generation there’ll be noone to pay your pension or look after you. and i don’t think many French people would warm to your stand point but you were talking about the uk so I won’t go there.

but do you also moan when people cost the state a fortune when they need an operation or long hospital stay or other care?

I grew up through the thatcher years and believe in market forces too but prefer the French socialist way of doing things and I’m sure you love life here too but are you working and paying all the taxes that I do to pay for everything you’re getting here :open_mouth: