How do we ensure that people are paid enough?

I'm sure that a lot of people would be willing to help others, but to support people to stay at home for upwards of sixteen years is a big ask.

I don't think it's being mean-spirited to think that it's unfair to expect the child-free to support parents to that extent. Pay for education, maternity care and pay, nurseries, yes - but more than sixteen years of staying at home whilst children are at school is asking a lot, and not wanting to do so is not at all synonymous with not wanting children to have a decent start in life.

Children also learn by example, and if they see their mothers working to support them, and getting satisfaction from a career or job (or just from being independent), it could be argued that that is giving them a good start, too.

Doodledog

ElderlyPerson You are right that teens with special needs should get support of whatever kind they need.

How would you answer someone with no children who is working long hours, perhaps for little pay, who asks why they should pay tax to allow someone else to stay at home for sixteen years - longer if they have more than one child?

Unless the support is very generous (which would be even less popular with those without children), it would predominantly be taken up by those with a partner to support them, and paid for by those who are not in that position.

I don't think that the state should interfere with personal choices, or privilege one lifestyle over another (eg married person's allowance) and I just can't see how that would be fair.

I have no children but I have always been of the opinion that children should get a decent start in life and I have been happy to pay taxes to do help that happen.

For many years I did not need to have any prescriptions, but I considered at the time that everybody should get a prescription dispensed at no cost and would be happy to pay more tax to achieve that.

I have never understood the logic, if there is any, of the concept of a fixed prescription charge but paid only by those who need prescriptions. My opinion is that I was for many years gloriously fortunate in not needing any medicine and so was therefore as a result of my good fortune quite ready to pay towards the prescription costs of those who needed medicine.

The system seems to assume that everyone will take a mean spirited attitude to anything that helps others, but lots of people are not like that.

I think that UBI is good in principle, but only if those who work don't find that their pay is wiped out by tax. If that happens there will be no incentive, and if everyone stays at home things will grind to a halt.

That means that the level of UBI would probably have to be less than the lowest rate of pay. It would be people with higher paid work who are more likely to work because they enjoy it - many minimum wage jobs would find no takers unless the minimum wage were higher than UBI.

When we lived in Cornwall 25 years ago my husband used to claim family credit. It raised low wages to a livable level and lasted for 6 months before you had to apply again. The best thing about it was that if you got a better paying job during the 6 months you could still collect the benefit until it needed renewing. The downside was that it was the accepted way for businesses to pay minimum wages because they knew you could claim Family Credit.

MaizieD

^If the poorer people get to keep the extra money as they have been, then clearly it has to come from somewhere.^

They get it from the state. The state which, contrary to what most of the population believes, does not need taxation to be able to spend anything.

What does happen is that the money that the state spends on things such as wages and benefits is spent in the local economy, thus supporting lots of private businesses, large and small. The money the state has spent eventually returns to the state as it is taxed away on nearly every transaction. The state loses nothing and the economy gains.

Now, if the money is retained by the UC claimants but taken directly and immediately from wealthier people via taxation then it doesn't get to circulate in the economy at all because they don't have it to spend, instead. You've put £6billion 'in' and immediately taken £6billion 'out'.

It's a sum which comes to zero, whichever way you look at it, mine or yours, but in my scenario the £6billion helps to grow the economy while on its way back to the treasury. (It's called the 'multiplier effect')

I don't understand.

The poorer people get more to spend, the richer people get less.

But the same amount of money circulates, just from different people than it otherwise would have done.

I don't like the idea of people being poor and children having less than a good start in life, so I am happy to pay more tax to help.

I don't understand how the economy is affected by society taking a kinder attitude to people and their children.

ElderlyPerson You are right that teens with special needs should get support of whatever kind they need.

How would you answer someone with no children who is working long hours, perhaps for little pay, who asks why they should pay tax to allow someone else to stay at home for sixteen years - longer if they have more than one child?

Unless the support is very generous (which would be even less popular with those without children), it would predominantly be taken up by those with a partner to support them, and paid for by those who are not in that position.

I don't think that the state should interfere with personal choices, or privilege one lifestyle over another (eg married person's allowance) and I just can't see how that would be fair.

PippaZ

SueDonim

The thing is, when something is very cheap, someone somewhere is paying the price for it, whether it’s Uighur cheap labour in China or fruit pickers living in appalling, demeaning circumstances in Scotland.

If people had a reliable living wage that would mitigate needing cheap food. I’ve long been interested in the concept of a Universal Income, too.

Nobody has ever shown me why it wouldn't be better SueDonim. It would certainly cover the choices parents want to make about staying at home.

It answers the question my OP asked too. With a Basic Income your choice of work, learning or staying at home with your children becomes so much more possible.

I expect the devil is in the detail.How much would you give people?

Doodledog

PippaZ

GrannyGravy13

Alegrias1 nursery is currently free for single parents from the term after they reach two, (not sure how many sessions)

Better more affordable nursery provision is definitely needed as the costs are exorbitant here in the South East.

I do worry though that if someone suddenly becomes a single parent through no fault of their own that they would be guilt tripped into working full time when maybe part-time would be more suitable for a variety of reasons.

I wondered if that was a reply to my post as I can't find one from Alegrais - except saying she hasn't posted.

I wouldn't want anyone to be "guilt-tripped". However, sometimes needs must and not getting back to work and possibly making a career for yourself can affect the whole of a women's life and her children's.

It shouldn't matter whether someone becomes a single parent through no fault of their own or by deliberate design. We don't want to go back to deserving and undeserving poor, do we?

I think that a lot of people would like to work part-time and let the state pay for the rest of the week, but unless that option is open to all, I don't see why it should be the prerogative of single parents. Either coupled-up parents and the child-free should have the option too, or it should not be available at all.

ElderlyPerson, if a 15/16 year old is not able to be alone in the house for an hour or two after school I would be worried about them, to be honest. At 16 they can marry or join the army - they need to be gaining independence long before then. I suggested 12 for childcare credits, but I suppose if parents were unhappy with leaving them older than that they could come to arrangements with friends - I really don't see why we should all be paying for teenagers to go into childcare.

Having said that, in areas where there are problems with gangs, maybe it would help - but it would have to be compulsory if it is to reach the teenagers who most need help, and I just can't see that being acceptable to parents or children, really.

I was not advocating childcare for teenagers. I was advocating supporting parents who want to look after the children by being at home rather than working.

And just because some children can do things at 16 does not mean that every child can do such things at that age.

SueDonim

The thing is, when something is very cheap, someone somewhere is paying the price for it, whether it’s Uighur cheap labour in China or fruit pickers living in appalling, demeaning circumstances in Scotland.

If people had a reliable living wage that would mitigate needing cheap food. I’ve long been interested in the concept of a Universal Income, too.

Nobody has ever shown me why it wouldn't be better SueDonim. It would certainly cover the choices parents want to make about staying at home.

It answers the question my OP asked too. With a Basic Income your choice of work, learning or staying at home with your children becomes so much more possible.

I see what you mean Doodledog. This is why such things should be paid by the government out of (I know Maisie) taxes.

PippaZ

Doodledog

100% of the mother's income, or the father's?

I think it's a good idea to give the parents time with the baby, and I think the government should pay, rather than the employer. It might be better if it were based on an average of both partners, though, and based on their NI contributions, rather than length of service with their employer at the time of the birth.

The one who has chosen to be off, I imagine Doodledog.

I wouldn't want anything to be based on NI as it is a tax. If you start their you will soon be saying we should add up all we have paid in taxes (low paid alway going to have paid less - if anything). That has to be the least progressive way of helping parents I can think of

It is much simpler to make a replacement of pay at the time they have the child.

No, I wouldn't be saying that ?.

I meant that a grant shouldn't be based on 'time served' at a company, to avoid the possibility of women being sacked when they get pregnant, or a regular turnover of female staff so that none of them rack up enough time.

The thing is, when something is very cheap, someone somewhere is paying the price for it, whether it’s Uighur cheap labour in China or fruit pickers living in appalling, demeaning circumstances in Scotland.

If people had a reliable living wage that would mitigate needing cheap food. I’ve long been interested in the concept of a Universal Income, too.

GillT57

^The extra £20 uplift is stimulating the economy, to the tune of £6billion a year. It all returns to the treasury by way of taxation because none of it is saved by the recipients, it's desperately needed to buy food and necessities^. I agree and tried to get that point across in a previous thread. The money received by families on UC goes into the local economy in particular, not much chance of saving that £20 a week in an account in the Cayman Islands!

I agree with you and Maizie about UC. Johnson was spouting nonsense when he claimed it would cost an extra £6 billion (or whatever figure he pulled out of the ether).

JaneJudge

If private landlords were forced to lower their rents then less housing benefit would need to be paid.

Lets see how unpopular that statement is...

We used to have rent control. That was until we commoditised everything we could and treated it as a market place or, more often, a gambling casino.

Doodledog

100% of the mother's income, or the father's?

I think it's a good idea to give the parents time with the baby, and I think the government should pay, rather than the employer. It might be better if it were based on an average of both partners, though, and based on their NI contributions, rather than length of service with their employer at the time of the birth.

The one who has chosen to be off, I imagine Doodledog.

I wouldn't want anything to be based on NI as it is a tax. If you start their you will soon be saying we should add up all we have paid in taxes (low paid alway going to have paid less - if anything). That has to be the least progressive way of helping parents I can think of

It is much simpler to make a replacement of pay at the time they have the child.

The extra £20 uplift is stimulating the economy, to the tune of £6billion a year. It all returns to the treasury by way of taxation because none of it is saved by the recipients, it's desperately needed to buy food and necessities. I agree and tried to get that point across in a previous thread. The money received by families on UC goes into the local economy in particular, not much chance of saving that £20 a week in an account in the Cayman Islands!

SueDonim

MaizieD how does that work if people spend money on, say, Amazon, who pay little tax and the profits go overseas? How does the money feed back into the UK economy?

It's not good and Amazon should be paying taxes on what it earns in this country. But the tax system is skewed in favour of the massive corporations' tax avoidance schemes. That needs sorting. As I recall, the EU was aiming to do something about this...

OTOH, I wonder how much money people in poverty would actually spend with Amazon?

SueDonim

I think that part of ensuring people are paid enough would be for consumers to not want to buy everything at the cheapest price. I look at the food in shops and sometimes wonder how farmers can afford to pay their workers anything when you can buy a pack of tomatoes from Spain for 75p or less.

My son-in-law farms and the rewards are very small for the hours that he puts in.

But they want to buy everything at the cheapest price because they don't have much money.

JaneJudge

If private landlords were forced to lower their rents then less housing benefit would need to be paid.

Lets see how unpopular that statement is...

I don't think lettings should be left to the market at all. We need more community owned not-for-profit housing.

JaneJudge

If private landlords were forced to lower their rents then less housing benefit would need to be paid.

Lets see how unpopular that statement is...

It would be popular with me.

I think it's wrong that people can cash in on property, while making it more difficult for others to get a foot on the ladder. There should be a return to rent caps, and/or more tax on income earned through renting.

I would apply that even more rigorously to Air B&Bs, which reduce the housing stock in areas that attract tourists, too.

Doodledog

100% of the mother's income, or the father's?

I think it's a good idea to give the parents time with the baby, and I think the government should pay, rather than the employer. It might be better if it were based on an average of both partners, though, and based on their NI contributions, rather than length of service with their employer at the time of the birth.

Oh! I wish! I probably wouldn't have needed to go back to work when my children were born. I'm afraid I don't think that's very fair because it would disadvantage people on low incomes. It would be effectively yet another subsidy by the lower paid to those who could afford to take more time off.

If private landlords were forced to lower their rents then less housing benefit would need to be paid.

Lets see how unpopular that statement is...

PippaZ You have a good point. The billionaire Warren Buffet made the same point when he supported the raising of incomes for the lowest paid.

Oh - that was in response to the post about Denmark!

100% of the mother's income, or the father's?

I think it's a good idea to give the parents time with the baby, and I think the government should pay, rather than the employer. It might be better if it were based on an average of both partners, though, and based on their NI contributions, rather than length of service with their employer at the time of the birth.