Keir Starmer's definition of working class

I think my fingers are very clumsy tonight 🤣

I think

If a mother wants to stay home with her child/children ?
She must pay contributions. She must be forced to work.
Noooooo

They are making less of a financial contribution though, I paid no tax at all for years, exactly the same as if I had stayed at home. And if we want to nit pick I was putting.more strain on roads, commuting, etc.

GrannyGravy13

Germanshepherdsmum

A couple can only afford for one of them to stay at home if the one working is earning enough to pay at least higher rate, probably additional rate, income tax. With higher earnings comes higher NI too. Much as I would have loved to have been able to stay at home when my son was small, or even to work part time, that wasn’t possible but I don’t resent those whose partners earn enough to make it possible, nor do I wish to penalise them as you do. My only beef is with people who could work but don’t, or who could work more hours, and claim benefits. That is not, in my book, acceptable.

We know a young couple where the wife earns many more times than the husband can ever do.

He has stayed home and cared for their children, she is making a very large contribution to both society through her job and HMRC.

People tend to forget that behind parents who are high flyers there is usually a stay at home parent running the home, caring for the children, looking after aging parents etc.,

I do find it ironic that we have threads on GN bemoaning that women have children and dump them in nurseries as soon as, in order to return to work.

The usual moan/rant is why bother to have them…

I know lots of couples who are both high flyers, and they make it work, both for their children and themselves. It’s tough, but by no means impossible. I wouldn’t ever condone anybody dumping their child though, wherever/whoever it was with - back up arrangements are essential.

I’m not sure quite what you mean by what are we to do with the people who work part time Galaxy, but as long as everybody who can work does work, whether part time or full time, they are making a contribution, which is important in my opinion both for them and for society.

Germanshepherdsmum

A couple can only afford for one of them to stay at home if the one working is earning enough to pay at least higher rate, probably additional rate, income tax. With higher earnings comes higher NI too. Much as I would have loved to have been able to stay at home when my son was small, or even to work part time, that wasn’t possible but I don’t resent those whose partners earn enough to make it possible, nor do I wish to penalise them as you do. My only beef is with people who could work but don’t, or who could work more hours, and claim benefits. That is not, in my book, acceptable.

We know a young couple where the wife earns many more times than the husband can ever do.

He has stayed home and cared for their children, she is making a very large contribution to both society through her job and HMRC.

People tend to forget that behind parents who are high flyers there is usually a stay at home parent running the home, caring for the children, looking after aging parents etc.,

I do find it ironic that we have threads on GN bemoaning that women have children and dump them in nurseries as soon as, in order to return to work.

The usual moan/rant is why bother to have them…

I actually said parents rather than women, I dont actually care which sex benefits from this.
As I have said all of those I know with young children all work part time, what are we to do with those people? I worked part time when my children were young, I was absolutely funded by DH!

This is in stark contrast to illegal immigrants who simply take from the state, contributing nothing

.Illegal immigrants are a very small proportion of all immigrants. most immigrants are here legally to occupy the jobs that we cannot fill.

Nor can it be said that illegal immigrants, take form the state and give nothing. The majority get in without being caught by by the authoritites. Once here they do as much as they can to avoid contact with the authorities. Most are bound to black market employers where they are paid considerably less than the minimum wage, often live and work in appalling conditions. They steer clear of involvement with thNHS except in the most exceptional cases.

Those who are caught are then tied into a asylum review system that is very very slow, during that time they cannot take ajob, rent a property or do anything to help themselves. Many end up as rough sleepers.

Most are thengranted assylum and become normal contributing members of te community, working and paying taxes.

Germanshepherdsmum

I see it as acceptable for a woman to stay at home with her children if her husband is earning a good salary and they don’t have to resort to benefits. The husband is providing for the whole family without recourse to the state - and it’s singularly unlikely that a man paying at least higher rate, or more likely additional rate, income tax will be able to do that. This is in stark contrast to illegal immigrants who simply take from the state, contributing nothing.

It’s not logical as an argument if the dependence on migrant labour is to be ceased. Life isn’t all about money, it’s about the contribution people make to society as well.

I will add that 'working' needn't necessarily be about going out to work, and there is no reason why mothers shouldn't have a year or so off after having a baby. I'm not a slave driver .

I'm talking about people who assume that it's ok to do nothing for society at large for years, but are happy to benefit from education, health, roads, defence, law and order etc etc without paying towards them.

I don't care how much tax a partner pays. We work on a pro-rata tax system, so he or she is simply paying his or her dues. There is not, AFAIK any mechanism by which someone can pay for a partner not to work - the system doesn't work like that.

I see it as acceptable for a woman to stay at home with her children if her husband is earning a good salary and they don’t have to resort to benefits. The husband is providing for the whole family without recourse to the state - and it’s singularly unlikely that a man paying at least higher rate, or more likely additional rate, income tax will be able to do that. This is in stark contrast to illegal immigrants who simply take from the state, contributing nothing.

Casdon

Having a highly paid partner or inherited money doesn’t exempt anybody from the obligation to work in my opinion. The quality of parenting is much more important than the quantity of it, and this country is now geared up for all working age adults to work - and most, including those with young children do want to work. Working is good for self esteem, and it’s good for children to have fulfilled parents.
I don’t see how, when people complain about the number of immigrants, they also see it as acceptable for people who can work not to be working and contributing to society.

Exactly my view.

Blimey Casdon are you advocating for a North Korea style UK?

If people can afford not to work, good for them. They will still be paying tax in a multitude of ways.

I have always worked and juggled childcare, none of our five children went to Nursery before the age of three. We were fortunate to have a Nanny, (no relatives in this country)

Most parents now have a year off due to maternity/paternity leave, for each child. Improving the quality of nursery provision is very important. This isn’t the 1960s though, most women do want to work anyway, part time when their children are very young.

Surely the answer then is to provide adequate support for parents to stay at hom in early years then, not ensure that those who earn less money are also disadvantaged by being placed in nurseries which frequently aren't ideal.

Early years development doesn’t require 24/7 on site parenting though GrannyGravy. What matters is that the child receives plenty of attention and stimulation, and whilst a strong parental bond is vital, it’s not only parents who can provide that. I just don’t see why having money should exempt people, but it’s acceptable for those with less income to be obliged to work when they have children the same age.

Agreed. Can’t have it both ways.

Er I wouldnt work if I won the lottery. Of course it would be acceptable to do that.
In terms of those with young children I am in a quite large team, I would say all those with young children work part time. I work in nurseries and early years settings, I would say whilst they have some advantages, they arent ideal places for very young children and the quality of provision is often not good.

Sorry, if a couple can afford for one of them to stay home and look after their children rather than put them into a nursery in my opinion that’s best for the children.

Once they get to three children are usually ready for nursery/pre-school, then the stay at home parent can begin to return to work if they so wish.

Taxing the working parent twice because their co-parent is staying at home doing what is a very important job is just ridiculous.

On another thread it is being repeatedly posted how important early years and parent - child relationships are for the development both emotionally and educationally for children…

Having a highly paid partner or inherited money doesn’t exempt anybody from the obligation to work in my opinion. The quality of parenting is much more important than the quantity of it, and this country is now geared up for all working age adults to work - and most, including those with young children do want to work. Working is good for self esteem, and it’s good for children to have fulfilled parents.
I don’t see how, when people complain about the number of immigrants, they also see it as acceptable for people who can work not to be working and contributing to society.

A couple can only afford for one of them to stay at home if the one working is earning enough to pay at least higher rate, probably additional rate, income tax. With higher earnings comes higher NI too. Much as I would have loved to have been able to stay at home when my son was small, or even to work part time, that wasn’t possible but I don’t resent those whose partners earn enough to make it possible, nor do I wish to penalise them as you do. My only beef is with people who could work but don’t, or who could work more hours, and claim benefits. That is not, in my book, acceptable.

I don't want to drag the thread off topic for too long, but I think if a couple wants one of them to stay at home, the other should pay two lots of tax. As it stands, one person pays for him or herself, and the other pays nothing. To even things out, they should pay double. They will still, as a couple, be better off than a working couple who pay twice and also pay childcare and commuting charges.

I don’t have a problem with a woman staying at home if her husband is earning good money (or vice versa, mustn’t be sexist). I didn’t have that choice. I have worked with many men who simply couldn’t have put in the hours they did if they hadn’t had a wife at home running the place, doing the shopping, looking after the children, making sure everyone had clean clothes.

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t see that happening here. You are probably talking about societies which have been thus for very many years, so that nobody knows anything different.

Society was much more equal when I was a child, back in teh 50s