Question Parents
- Thread starter Scouse
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #33
I guess people can't read. I made a detailed and substantial point about carers (and have repeatedly said that parents deserve support). Not a single person has attempted to address it head on and most seem to be angry about an argument I'm not making (or have actively refuted).
I guess it's true when they say "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - it's difficult to get people to discuss something when their benefits depend on them remaining blind to the points.
Thought Freddies were better than that tho.
I guess it's true when they say "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - it's difficult to get people to discuss something when their benefits depend on them remaining blind to the points.
Thought Freddies were better than that tho.
dysfunction
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,709
I don't claim any benefits for my children.
Yes did get leave but that's pretty much it.
Are you wanting to get benefits for nothing?
Yes did get leave but that's pretty much it.
Are you wanting to get benefits for nothing?
Raven
Fuck the Tories!
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,834
If everyone got a flat "parent rate" or whatever then inflation and base wages would cover it within a couple of years and it would no longer be a bit on top.
I don't begrudge people having help from the government (so long as its means tested, no idea if it is or not atm) parenting is expensive and it is a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time, for lots of reasons, equally rewarding though if kids are your thing I guess too.
As you like to say, it doesn't affect me in any way that someone gets a few quid (and it is a few, its nothing spectacular) a week to buy nappies.
The whole work thing is a different matter and is something for the employer to sort out through temporary cover or a better balanced workforce. We are quite relaxed about people finishing early now and again for kid stuff...but then non parents can also leave early...in both cases people are expected to make the time up.
I don't begrudge people having help from the government (so long as its means tested, no idea if it is or not atm) parenting is expensive and it is a pain in the arse quite a lot of the time, for lots of reasons, equally rewarding though if kids are your thing I guess too.
As you like to say, it doesn't affect me in any way that someone gets a few quid (and it is a few, its nothing spectacular) a week to buy nappies.
The whole work thing is a different matter and is something for the employer to sort out through temporary cover or a better balanced workforce. We are quite relaxed about people finishing early now and again for kid stuff...but then non parents can also leave early...in both cases people are expected to make the time up.
Raven
Fuck the Tories!
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,834
Also, re carers, that should be a completely separate issue to maternity (or working/life balance for parents) and definitely should be better supported but again, half of that is the employer and how flexible they are. They should also get more help from government.
However, you can't expect a private company to subsidise the care of your relatives, it has nothing to do with them.
However, you can't expect a private company to subsidise the care of your relatives, it has nothing to do with them.
DaGaffer
Down With That Sorta Thing
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 18,509
As much as you might want to create a link between parents and carers @Scouse, there isn't one. They are no more related than parental leave and pensions.
Your personal views about whether the planet has enough humans is also irrelevant; having children is a social norm that's pretty much universal; there isn't a society on the planet that doesn't accept wanting to have children is a basic aspiration; even if some would like to limit the numbers. So deal with it.
Your personal views about whether the planet has enough humans is also irrelevant; having children is a social norm that's pretty much universal; there isn't a society on the planet that doesn't accept wanting to have children is a basic aspiration; even if some would like to limit the numbers. So deal with it.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #39
Why the hell do you think I want anything? I'm a non-parent contractor ffs. I don't get sick pay, tax credits, am ineligable for unemployment benefits if I'm not working, yadda yadda yadda. I'm self sufficient and don't rely on anyone but myself for a single thing.
I can't be any clearer in my posts about the principles I want to discuss.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #40
Aside from the points about social norms - who cares? - it's still a choice (and, as you say, an "aspiration" (for some)). And I've not mentioned "limiting numbers" at all:
As long as public funding is used to provide for parents, soaking up limited funding when there's clearly more deserving cases out there, then there's an argument for them to be reassessed. Carers is a single example (and a good one) but there are others.
And, again, I'm not advocating the withdrawal of all parental support. I'm attempting to provoke intelligent discussion
Yes there is. As long as taxation is used to fund these things there's a link. I've already conceded that there is a case for lots of things to be reassessed and I've used carers as an example, not as a be-all.
As long as public funding is used to provide for parents, soaking up limited funding when there's clearly more deserving cases out there, then there's an argument for them to be reassessed. Carers is a single example (and a good one) but there are others.
And, again, I'm not advocating the withdrawal of all parental support. I'm attempting to provoke intelligent discussion
Tom
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 17,354
I think you have a point about carers. Parents care for children - society helps fund that with protective legislation. But those children receive next to nothing when it comes to them caring for their parents in old age. Perhaps if they did, we'd have an easier time caring for the elderly. For instance, how about if you have the space to add a granny flat to the side of your house, the taxpayer funds it - and once the house is sold (to whoever), some of that increased value is paid back along with stamp duty?
I've thought for a long time that the benefits accorded to those who marry should be available to many other relationships. Siblings sharing a house, children caring for relatives, etc. They should all receive automatic rights like tax benefits, inheritance assumptions, etc. The advantages of living in a caring relationship shouldn't be limited to those who have sex.
I've thought for a long time that the benefits accorded to those who marry should be available to many other relationships. Siblings sharing a house, children caring for relatives, etc. They should all receive automatic rights like tax benefits, inheritance assumptions, etc. The advantages of living in a caring relationship shouldn't be limited to those who have sex.
Moriath
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 16,209
I agree to an extent. My bro has kids and he got free holiday when they were born. He got child benefit and i guess at least at the beginning he qualified for tax credits.
I do get annoyed at people who take a job and six months later go on maternity leave for a year. That just takes the piss. Do it at a company you have given a fair amount of time to. But u cant say stuffs like that without getting inlegal hot water.
I cant say my company is more or less different to parents and non parents cause if your job allows u can work from home. Which i do most of the time.
Unfortunately childless people like us are in the minority and the majority see it as a good thing to discriminate against us in that respect.
Would have liked kids but didnt happen so enjoying the riches and doing what i like.
Carers are different as sometimes its not a choice they made and they are seen as adults and therefore no vilnerable as kids. And should be able to kake do i guess
I do get annoyed at people who take a job and six months later go on maternity leave for a year. That just takes the piss. Do it at a company you have given a fair amount of time to. But u cant say stuffs like that without getting inlegal hot water.
I cant say my company is more or less different to parents and non parents cause if your job allows u can work from home. Which i do most of the time.
Unfortunately childless people like us are in the minority and the majority see it as a good thing to discriminate against us in that respect.
Would have liked kids but didnt happen so enjoying the riches and doing what i like.
Carers are different as sometimes its not a choice they made and they are seen as adults and therefore no vilnerable as kids. And should be able to kake do i guess
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #44
There's scope there @Tom. Agree completely about non-traditional relationships. (Although it neglects single people. Their aspirations are just as valid.)
But again, limited funding. When you've two parents who've made a choice to have a child, as opposed to someone forced or born into a situation out of their control, then I see a lot of the credits/benefits given to parents as a poor call / incorrect prioritisation of limited public funds**.
Just look at what those with disabilities are currently going through as another example... Single parents are still maligned but are much more deserving of help than couples who have each other as support.
Maybe it's a mistake to raise this point, but I also think that parents are now so pampered many of them are blinkeredly self-important - some act as if the world revolves around them. And I reckon that, because two parent families are still a majority, that majority selfishly gets their needs looked after ahead of those more needy (via the ballot box - I made the point earlier about it being a massive vote loser for politicians, despite clearly more deserving cases out there).
Like I say - I've not got a stick in this fight at all.
**though companies (non-public funding) should have a duty of care to all their employees. That should be priced-in. If you can't turn a profit / service your shareholders without fulfilling what should be legally mandated duties then your company should be deemd non-viable IMO.
But again, limited funding. When you've two parents who've made a choice to have a child, as opposed to someone forced or born into a situation out of their control, then I see a lot of the credits/benefits given to parents as a poor call / incorrect prioritisation of limited public funds**.
Just look at what those with disabilities are currently going through as another example... Single parents are still maligned but are much more deserving of help than couples who have each other as support.
Maybe it's a mistake to raise this point, but I also think that parents are now so pampered many of them are blinkeredly self-important - some act as if the world revolves around them. And I reckon that, because two parent families are still a majority, that majority selfishly gets their needs looked after ahead of those more needy (via the ballot box - I made the point earlier about it being a massive vote loser for politicians, despite clearly more deserving cases out there).
Like I say - I've not got a stick in this fight at all.
**though companies (non-public funding) should have a duty of care to all their employees. That should be priced-in. If you can't turn a profit / service your shareholders without fulfilling what should be legally mandated duties then your company should be deemd non-viable IMO.
Last edited:
Moriath
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 16,209
They get time off and access to public funds just cause they happen tohave had sex for the purpose of having a baby.
I have no recourse to any funds to help me. Nor do i get any of the favourable go early to watch kids play. Have day at home cause its holidays. Etc etc.
Gwadien
Uneducated Northern Cretin
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 19,917
Talivar
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,057
The thing is no matter how people see it or sell it, our species needs children, how many and where is debatable but we NEED them so there is always going to be favorable treatment towards the people who give up the time and money to raise them. To make it truly equal we should maybe pay non children families much less as they dont need to support children and then give them access to the same benefits as families with Children. Simple reality is if everyone stopped having babies today then within 120? years the species is dead so to say we dont need to make babies to survive as a species is not accurate. Also a large % of our species is genetically wired to achieve this and want this so it not just a simple case of do i want one or do i not.
Job
The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 21,652
Its other peoples children who would pay the taxes to go towards your imaginary assistance towards your lifestyle.
You are arguing from the inside out, you cannot isolate one groups 'lifestyle' from the economy of another, children are a net input, in reality childless couples are being subsidised by the majority.
You are arguing from the inside out, you cannot isolate one groups 'lifestyle' from the economy of another, children are a net input, in reality childless couples are being subsidised by the majority.
Ormorof
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,887
You are aware that those days at home are their holiday days that have either been contractually agreed or part of the general holiday schemes that companies have
Parents do not get extra holidays, but they often have to use their holiday days because there is no childcare available, you on the other hand can take your days off whenever you please
Parents tend to have to work back any time they take to "watch the kids play"
And its not "taking the piss" going on maternity leave its the law that companies must allow it and why? Because vast majority of evidence shows that it is hugely beneficial to society for parents to be able to do so
the attitude of some people on these forums is mind boggling, like having kids is some sort of jolly and all we are all in some scheme for ripping off the state
Do you need the funds Moriath? If not then why does it matter to you?
The universal child benefit schemes are in place because it makes it much easier to distribute, lowers cost of maintaining it and allows politicians the right to justify why its so low
DaGaffer
Down With That Sorta Thing
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 18,509
Aside from the points about social norms - who cares? - it's still a choice (and, as you say, an "aspiration" (for some)). And I've not mentioned "limiting numbers" at all:
Yes there is. As long as taxation is used to fund these things there's a link. I've already conceded that there is a case for lots of things to be reassessed and I've used carers as an example, not as a be-all.
As long as public funding is used to provide for parents, soaking up limited funding when there's clearly more deserving cases out there, then there's an argument for them to be reassessed. Carers is a single example (and a good one) but there are others.
And, again, I'm not advocating the withdrawal of all parental support. I'm attempting to provoke intelligent discussion
No, there's a link because you've decided there is to make a point. But why not argue to spend more on carers and less on education? Or Defence? Or the NHS? As it happens even if you do want to equate carers to parents; where are the comparative costs? I know the size of the whole "Family & Children" section of the welfare budget in 2016 was £15.7bn, which is about 2% of public spending, and kids under 16 account for 18.8% of approx. 64 million people, so about £130 per child per annum all in, or in other words, about 35p a day. My guess, and its only a guess, is that carers, either directly or indirectly, are getting a fuckton more than that on a per caree basis. The problem being that it seems to come from a mix of budgets and I can't find a definitive figure (or indeed how many people need care); but I certainly know that here in Ireland my father in law (who is a carer for his disabled son) is getting a lot more than a 130 quid a year. And this isn't to dismiss carers and somehow claim they're all rolling around in coke and hookers, its to point out that parents aren't exactly reaping the exchequer for all its worth, and that the two things really aren't comparable.
The costs of childcare are being borne to an overwhelming degree by parents themselves. Not the state (unless you count the education budget), not companies, parents. And by and large in the UK that's actually leading to inefficient use of resources (e.g. women) who don't go back to work because they can't afford it, and a Polish immigrant does their job instead.
I seem to remember having this debate before. I'm more qualified than most to comment; I went until I was 40 not having kids, and had a comfortable child-free lifestyle that let me take entire years off if I felt like it, so I know the difference between kids/not kids in a substantive way. I've also recruited lots of staff and had lots of staff go on maternity leave, sometimes repeatedly. Boo hoo, poor me. Its a cost of doing business.
As for the rest of your comments. I mentioned limiting numbers, not you, I figured you'd get the inference. The Chinese limited population growth (disastrously) but never considered not supporting the concept of family. And yes, its a choice, a choice every single society on the planet agrees is a choice society supports. Its one of the few things we actually all agree on.
Job
The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 21,652
Thats the bit you dont like.
in reality childless couples are being subsidised by the majority.
Not having kids isnt saving anything, you are not skipping dessert and right in claiming a reduction on your part of the bill.
They get subsidies, because they put more in to the pot.
Moriath
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 16,209
Already said it doesnt matter to me already cause i work from home and my company is flexible to everyone not just those with kids. But some companys only allow flexi hours for those with kids cause they have to.
And i said these things have been given as society seems to deem it ok.
A friend of mine had six months paid leave after being service to his company for 20 odd years. As a reward.
Why cant companies do that as a compensation for not having maternity or paternity leave hehe.
It matters more to me that my taxes are going to pay for a lot of these benefits and all and not the services that i would use or like to be better like nhs or police forces or council services so i dont have to pay when i dump stuff off at the tip.
Gwadien
Uneducated Northern Cretin
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 19,917
I don't have mental health issues why the fuck should my taxes go towards helping people with mental health issues?
old.user4556
Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 16,163
See my bit about the human race.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,725
- Thread starter
- #60
Get the butthurt teacher right here. I've not said, at any point, that we shouldn't help parents.
But you bring up good points there. It's up for grabs really. I'll make a more cogent argument to a few of the points above when I have time but it's a discussion about where tax is most effectively spent. - on families which have two able bodied people or elsewhere?