Posted: 10/7/2009 8:38:46 AM EDT
|
For all the nannying they are doing they arn't half out to cock up child care
Latest clusterfuck from Gordon McF***ng Brown and his band of C*nts Neue Arbeit sorry, New Labour is planning to cut the employee supported Childcare Voucher system.
Childcare vouchers are a simple, straightforward way to pay for quality childcare. That’s because you don’t pay tax or National Insurance on childcare vouchers to the value of £55 a week – so working parents can save as much as £1,195 a year – double, if both parents sign up for a childcare voucher scheme. Benefits to the scheme: With childcare costs averaging over £600 per month, this saving can be a considerable help to parents on lower incomes or who have more than one child in full time childcare. The system also makes it more viable for parents whose income is lower to remain in work by helping to reduce the overall cost of childcare. It will also mean that those parents that wish to remain in work may be forced to seek cheaper childcare alternatives, which may lead to an overall drop in the standards of care and education for pre-school children. This proposal represents yet another way for Neue Arbeit, sorry New Labour to tax working parents to pay for the Government’s financial mismanagement over the last decade. Whether you are a Parent, Grandparent, Aunt or Uncle or even a friend of people with young children, this issue will have a detrimental effect on someone you know. If you disagree with this proposal please sign the online petition to Gordon Brown at: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/keepvouchers/ and follow the online instructions. (The petition form needs to be completed. Following this you will receive an e-mail with a link – this link must be opened to complete the petition signing process. If you do not open the link your petition vote will not be registered) Please pass this on to any parents you know Thanks. |
|
I appreciate that I'm about to become the recipient of a barrage of hate, but I fail to see why my (yours or any other taxpayers) money should be used to pay people to bring up their own children. If you can't afford to breed, then don't. it's no different from deliberately getting yourself in debt & then expecting to be bailed out by the state.
Minimal state interference, minimal state control & minimal taxation. Bring on the avalanche.... 
|
|
sorry too many benefits to be had in this country.
we make sacrifices so that we can provide the right level of child care and education for my son, I do not feel that is the responsability of the government even when they sent me away on deployment. Ps. seven days till I'm out of this country 
|
|
Quoted:
I appreciate that I'm about to become the recipient of a barrage of hate, but I fail to see why my (yours or any other taxpayers) money should be used to pay people to bring up their own children. If you can't afford to breed, then don't. it's no different from deliberately getting yourself in debt & then expecting to be bailed out by the state. Minimal state interference, minimal state control & minimal taxation. Bring on the avalanche.... makes sense to me, is this what used to be called "family allowance" in the 60s and 70s? |
|
The reason Brown has done this is sheer class envy and spite.
It has come to the Dea rLeaders notice that some of the better off use their vouchers to pay for after school clubs were their kids do things like horse riding and other constructive and heathy uses of their time. This will not do! They should be spending their vouchers on State Approved kid factories were indifferent grunts can neglect and or abuse said kids and get them to do such creative things as colouring photocopied pictures and and watching Cartoon Network. |
|
Quoted:
I appreciate that I'm about to become the recipient of a barrage of hate, but I fail to see why my (yours or any other taxpayers) money should be used to pay people to bring up their own children. If you can't afford to breed, then don't. it's no different from deliberately getting yourself in debt & then expecting to be bailed out by the state. Minimal state interference, minimal state control & minimal taxation. Bring on the avalanche.... A valid point - However this tax break gives parents an incentive to stay in work. The average bill for 2 children in nursery comes in at £1200+ per month. I know several parents who have stayed in work because since the introduction of the scheme it has made financial sense to stay in work. Without that tax break you will find parents who are worse off and they will be better off by staying at home with their kids. You as a taxpayer will, therefore, be paying for dole, housing benefit and many other .gov handouts that are otherwise unclaimed by parents who will be giving up theit jobs to look after their kids at home. I've long been an advocate of the notion that if you can't afford kids then should you have them?......But this isn't about paying to bring other people's kids up, it's about enabling people to stay in work (you only get these tax breaks if you are in work) and making good quality childcare affordable between the ages of 0-3 yrs to people on lower incomes. No avalanche, but maybe you can decide who you want to pay for, cos one way or another the taxpayer is going to end up taking the hit (myself included). The tax break is only available on the first £243 (approx £55 per month). You still pay the tax on the rest of your income and the benefit received comes in at less than one quarter of that received by someone who is claiming (only) income support (They get £64 per week or over £250 in a four week period ). And that's before all the other benefits. ETA - Oh yeah forgot - those childcare providers will be met with a reduction in demand - so that'll be some more people for you to shell out for as more of these qualified nursery staff are made redundant. Not to mention the staff working for the childcare voucher management companies
I'd just rather pay for people to stay in gainful employment than have to pay more out to those who want to claim yet more money off the state. 
|
|
Quoted:
The reason Brown has done this is sheer class envy and spite. It has come to the Dea rLeaders notice that some of the better off use their vouchers to pay for after school clubs were their kids do things like horse riding and other constructive and heathy uses of their time. This will not do! They should be spending their vouchers on State Approved kid factories were indifferent grunts can neglect and or abuse said kids and get them to do such creative things as colouring photocopied pictures and and watching Cartoon Network. Can't pay for after school clubs with thse vouchers sadly, Vito. - But you are right about the standard of care - there are rigourous checks on Nurseries and Child Care providers that participate in this scheme. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The reason Brown has done this is sheer class envy and spite. It has come to the Dea rLeaders notice that some of the better off use their vouchers to pay for after school clubs were their kids do things like horse riding and other constructive and heathy uses of their time. This will not do! They should be spending their vouchers on State Approved kid factories were indifferent grunts can neglect and or abuse said kids and get them to do such creative things as colouring photocopied pictures and and watching Cartoon Network. Can't pay for after school clubs with thse vouchers sadly, Vito. - But you are right about the standard of care - there are rigourous checks on Nurseries and Child Care providers that participate in this scheme. There are ways and means and being by definition reasonably intelligent people, the better off have found ways and means. |
|
Quoted:
makes sense to me, is this what used to be called "family allowance" in the 60s and 70s?[/quote]
No Family allowance still exists [/quote] I know we don't get anything - except the child voucher system. The child voucher system is all paid through an intemediary service, and constitutes the only benefits that Mrs Agent_funky and I have ever received - we've never claimed a penny in state benefit between us in our entire lives. Now we get £110 a month in tax relief for the three years that Mini-Agent_funky is in Nursery (which is spent on living costs), but pay well over £1500 per month in tax and national insurance. Of course one of us could quit work and spend our days at home bringing up our child (and get another one one the way - because we can afford to since we wont be paying childcare) but that would half our tax and NI contributions. Still, at least we would get £4000 a year in dole + other benefits, and it would mean we get to take out more from the system than we do now 
|
|
Quoted:
A new collection needed.... to pay rancid badger not to breed
By all means, I'll PM you my PayPal address to send the funds to. I have never wanted to have children. My wife had cancer & can't - not that she wanted them anyway (fortunately). My point is/was, simply that I begrudge paying for something for which I will never receive any benefit (& I don't mean in a DSS way). The old adage "cut you coat acording to your cloth" springs to mind. If you want children, can afford to clothe them, educate them & generally support them until they're 18 then great, jump right in. But, if you can't, then why expect someone else to pay for you to do so? If you both work, then accept that you'll be paying for child care, or only one of you work & then you don't. If neither option is fiscally acceptable, I'm sure that the majority of the populace can probably afford condoms. It seems to have become almost a social mantra that producing offspring is a god given right & sod the consequences. Perhaps we should petition No10 for a firearms voucher scheme... Buy the rifle of your choice on tick & every family which earns less than £50k get's £250 a month to pay it off. I'll sign that petition. I am not trying to single out those with children, there are a great many things in this country which are paid for by my/our taxes, for which I totally begrudge paying. This country has gone way too far down the "Socialist" road: "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money". Earn what you can, tax only what is necessary, spend the rest on what you like. |
|
Quoted:
Do you not think with all the money the muck in power are pissing away on immigrants, scum who can't be arsed to work etc, that a little bit of tax relief on caring for/educating our children isn't money well spent 
 I totally agree with you innitial feelings, but the tax relief isn't for "our" children (not that I'm aware of anyway ), it's for "your" children. In a not disimilar vein, I live in a very rural location (no street lights, the road isn't swept, rarely gets maintained, never see a police patrol etc) yet I pay the same council tax as someone who lives 3 miles up the road in a village or small town (in the same councils area with a similarly priced home) - I pay them same yet get less, is that fair? If you walked into you local gunshop & the guy in front had just paid £165 for a 1000 12g cartridges, you only wanted 25 but were still charged £165, you probably wouldn't be too amused....
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A new collection needed.... to pay rancid badger not to breed
By all means, I'll PM you my PayPal address to send the funds to. I have never wanted to have children. My wife had cancer & can't - not that she wanted them anyway (fortunately). My point is/was, simply that I begrudge paying for something for which I will never receive any benefit (& I don't mean in a DSS way). The old adage "cut you coat acording to your cloth" springs to mind. If you want children, can afford to clothe them, educate them & generally support them until they're 18 then great, jump right in. But, if you can't, then why expect someone else to pay for you to do so? If you both work, then accept that you'll be paying for child care, or only one of you work & then you don't. If neither option is fiscally acceptable, I'm sure that the majority of the populace can probably afford condoms. It seems to have become almost a social mantra that producing offspring is a god given right & sod the consequences. Perhaps we should petition No10 for a firearms voucher scheme... Buy the rifle of your choice on tick & every family which earns less than £50k get's £250 a month to pay it off. I'll sign that petition. I am not trying to single out those with children, there are a great many things in this country which are paid for by my/our taxes, for which I totally begrudge paying. This country has gone way too far down the "Socialist" road: "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money". Earn what you can, tax only what is necessary, spend the rest on what you like. Sorry to hear about your Wife.......I hope she has recovered and is well. However, your conclusions make no sense. What you seem to be saying is that you object to people getting a £55 tax break who are paying into the system anyway, are contributing to your state pension, your medical care, and who's contribution helps keep your council tax bill down to what it is.......but think it's OK for them to be on the rock'n'roll, with no job, and costing the taxpayer over £600 a month in benefits.
It's easy to sit there pontificating about affording kids, and the mother and baby spaces at Tesco or whatever, but you are missing the point - this isn't just about "another" government handout to those with kids. This is about making it more viable for people to remain in work and contribute to society instead of becoming a drain on society financially in a time of economic difficulties. The cost of childcare (per child) for me and Mrs Agent_Funky is £6,916.00 per annum (and that's relatively cheap compared to urban nurseries). We get, between us a £110 tax break a month, and still pay over £1500 per month in income tax and NI - That's our choice and you won't see me whining about it ever, but there are those that don't earn half what Mrs A_F and I earn, who are trying to provide a decent upbringing for their kids - and this approach will not have a favourable effect on them, or the nation's financial stability as a whole. Sadly, we don't have the opportunity to opt out when it comes to how taxes are spent - So would you rather reward people to the tune of £55 a month for staying in work and contributing through taxes, or give to someone who contributes nothing and costs several hundred a month in benefits?
ETA - it is also our kids that will be paying willingly into the system to maintain your pension pot, your healthcare provision and your roads/bins etc when you are old - thought you might want to build that into the equation. Just saying
|
|
In order for my wife and I to be doing something useful 9am-5pm, Mon-Fri, it cost us £15,000 per year just in nursery costs for two kids. While that's changed now I don't begrudge any family a bit of support with childcare.
Even if you're not working, a few hours break from the kids can be that relief valve you might need to stay sane, as well as providing an opportunity for kids to socialise in a reasonable environment that they may not otherwise get. It's money well spent in the long run, in my opinion. |
|
Quoted:
However, your conclusions make no sense. What you seem to be saying is that you object to people getting a £55 tax break who are paying into the system anyway, are contributing to your state pension, your medical care, and who's contribution helps keep your council tax bill down to what it is.......but think it's OK for them to be on the rock'n'roll, with no job, and costing the taxpayer over £600 a month in benefits.
It's easy to sit there pontificating about affording kids, and the mother and baby spaces at Tesco or whatever, but you are missing the point - this isn't just about "another" government handout to those with kids. This is about making it more viable for people to remain in work and contribute to society instead of becoming a drain on society financially in a time of economic difficulties. The cost of childcare (per child) for me and Mrs Agent_Funky is £6,916.00 per annum (and that's relatively cheap compared to urban nurseries). We get, between us a £110 tax break a month, and still pay over £1500 per month in income tax and NI - That's our choice and you won't see me whining about it ever, but there are those that don't earn half what Mrs A_F and I earn, who are trying to provide a decent upbringing for their kids - and this approach will not have a favourable effect on them, or the nation's financial stability as a whole. Sadly, we don't have the opportunity to opt out when it comes to how taxes are spent - So would you rather reward people to the tune of £55 a month for staying in work and contributing through taxes, or give to someone who contributes nothing and costs several hundred a month in benefits?
ETA - it is also our kids that will be paying willingly into the system to maintain your pension pot, your healthcare provision and your roads/bins etc when you are old - thought you might want to build that into the equation. Just saying Firstly we are all entitled to our own opinions & I don't begrudge anyone theirs. I was propbably wrong to take this particular part of the subject in isolation, it isn't the problem, but it is a part of the problem which we have. I was merely restricting my innitial comment to the scope of the original thread. Overall, my point is that if you reduce the tax burden on the populace, then they no longer need all of the handouts, as they're outgoings are reduced. I appreciate that this cannot be acheived whilst merely looking at a small part of the system which we currently have, but if we cut out whole swathes of the SS system, which do nothing but encourage people to stay on the dole (I can't afford to work I won't get as much as I do on the dole) proliferate their dubious bloodline (I'm 16 and I don't want to live at home or work, so if I have half a dozen children by random fathers, I'll get acouncil house & never have to work), foriegn financial migrants (I'm not British but I want free medical care so I'll claim assylum, they'll have to pay me dole & supply a translator because I can speak English), you get my point (or perhaps you don't). Regarding you children paying for me: yes with the morally bankrupt system which we currently have, they probably will be doing so indirectly. Not that I want them to or would ask them to ( I would prefer them not to). I would much rather pay my own way, just as they (and you) should pay theirs (yours). Unfortunately no-one has the political balls to sort the system out. |