What do you hope for in the budget?

ronib

Well if forcing mothers to go to work when they would rather be at home isn’t what you want, why are you suggesting it in essence? Doodledog

Doesn’t this very much depend on their partners (if there is one) income?

If the state has to fund, then mum’s should be in paid work!

Cossy it wasn’t meant to be insulting but I am exasperated by the fact that small children don’t miraculously morph into tax payers. Some care needs to be given by someone along the line and yet it does cost.

ronib

Doodledog I think the raid on vat and private schools will not result in 6500 extra teachers as in the next budget. So maybe spend it on providing school transport to protect the public and to teach some discipline to the feral children in State schools? BTW the private schools are a world apart in this respect and I think it’s time the State taught real consideration and respect for others.

Goodness, you are on one today!

So I have personal experience of both state and independent education

IMO, there are many independently educated children who can be just as, and sometimes more, ill mannered and badly behaved.

My eldest son attended a very nice, expensive prep school from 3-11.

Our other (different Dad, different circumstances) three children attended our local state school.

Families and parents are all different, irrespective of income, some are very hot on manners, others not so.

My daughter teaches in a Primary School, I can assure you teachers teach their pupils the importance of manners and being kind.

I hope they make it clear how they’re going to make us a healthier nation. I’d like to see them working alongside people like Tim Spector. Jamie Oliver tried to get children eating more healthily but Theresa May wouldn’t have anything to do with him . I know the government have mentioned their long term plans for the nations health. I get reduced membership at my local gym and can use all of their facilities including the sauna and swimming pool for just over £20 a month. I do, sadly realise that a lot of illnesses are just down to bad luck because so many people who lead incredibly healthy lives get ill but it would still save the NHS a vast amount of money if people were more proactive in keeping themselves healthy. And I needs to start from birth ( even before birth). Free breakfasts for all schoolchildren will be a good starting point.

ronib

Cossy it wasn’t meant to be insulting but I am exasperated by the fact that small children don’t miraculously morph into tax payers. Some care needs to be given by someone along the line and yet it does cost.

It’s OK, but your inference was working mothers don’t nurture their children.

Cossy that’s correct. Working mothers can’t nurture their children when they are at work. Someone else has to … logically. The nurturing will be there in out of work time. Hope you understand that?

Cossyjust one last point - the feral children on the local buses are at secondary schools in a good middle class area. I am aware that the school motto at one school is compassion and kindness.
I might offer to go to the schools to engage with the children on this matter if they want.

I haven’t read the full thread yet, but I heartily endorse this from Doodledog, with a few additions.
I would like to see some announcements about what is not going to happen. If the government doesn't intend to tax holidays and bingo tickets, or means test/take away bus passes or whatever the papers are pretending, I'd like to see that declared at the start, so people actually listen to the budget, and will possibly stop speculating quite so much going forward

Not only would that be a good platform to build on, it would have to be the truth, with no room for backtracking which would immediately be seized upon by anyone with internet access.

ronib

*Cossy*just one last point - the feral children on the local buses are at secondary schools in a good middle class area. I am aware that the school motto at one school is compassion and kindness.
I might offer to go to the schools to engage with the children on this matter if they want.

I get your unease at the kids on the bus, but whilst I don’t think groups of pubescent teens being noisy, shoving, pushing, entering through the exit doors, is that unusual, not welcomed nor expected. I fully expect their parents, in the main, would also condemn their kids poor behaviour.

ronib

Well if forcing mothers to go to work when they would rather be at home isn’t what you want, why are you suggesting it in essence? Doodledog

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. What I am saying is that I would like to see the subsidy withdrawn. As it stands, parents who have to work are paying tax so that those who choose not to get their pension contributions paid. When some of those people retire from a lifetime of work they find they don't have enough contributions (eg if they worked term-time and didn't have complete years) whilst those who didn't were credited with full contributions.

Cossy, of course working parents nurture their children (mothers and fathers too). The suggestion that they don't is just designed to insult and get a reaction. Anyway, I am talking about people being at home when their children are at school, not nurseries.

Husbands (or wives if fathers are the main carers) don't pay contributions for their wives. There is no mechanism for that. All income tax is based on earnings, and they pay in accordance with their own salary, not the additional (hypothetical) one of a non-working spouse.

MayBee I agree that funding towards getting the nation healthier would be a good thing. Subsidies on fruit and vegetables would be a good start, I think.

In reality, most young mothers I meet when out and about with my grandchildren do work. The cost of living under both Conservative and Labour governments means that it is no longer possible for average income families to survive on one income. But again for the wealthy, the choice is there.

Can I make it clear that I do not suggest that working parents don’t nurture their children. The obvious point is that someone has to look after children when parents are working. At great cost to the parents too.
Also the school day ends around 3.30pm.

It wouldn’t make any difference to the gaping black hole, but I do wish road tax would be increased by quite a lot for the bloody enormous cars like tanks that have proliferated lately - there are a lot around here. And our pothole situation is dire - the extra weight of these monsters can’t help.

Doodledog

ronib

Doodledog you have a fixed idea that non working parents are funded by those who don’t work. In a partnership, the family budget is arranged to the benefit of the family unit. One partner may earn even more than Keir Starmer for example and the other partner may choose to stay at home and support the family that way, or combine with part time work. Stay at home mothers are usually supported by working husbands.

No, husbands pay tax and NI based on their own earnings, not the potential earnings of their wives (and vice versa). There is no mechanism whereby one person can pay the contributions of another. Also, working people produce goods or provide services to society which those who stay at home do not. Those who have to work are forced to pay for those who choose not to, which is something I would like to see changed, so that more people can make genuine choices as opposed to some lifestyles being prioritised over others.

But as I say, that’s a small part of what I would like to see the budget address, and I am keen to hear positive ideas from others rather than complaints about what might happen.

You can pay voluntary NI contributions, your husband would be quite at liberty to give you the money to do it.

Lots of people who aren't in paid employment do voluntary work that is of value to society. When I retired I used to go into GSs school and help the children who were struggling to learn to read. I did it for 4 years and then being a carer to disabled husband meant I didn't have the spare time.

I worked from 15 to 65 so paid lots of NI contributions but I don't dismiss couples who decide that one of them will stay at home and if the other earns enough to pay the NI contributions for the non working partner then good for them. Similarly I value the voluntary work that many do.

ronib

Doidledog The State pays NI contributions for stay at home mothers until a child is 18 years old? Or do you want to stop that?

I think that changed a few years ago, it is something like 12 now I think.

I think 16 ? theworriedwell

theworriedwell

ronib

Doidledog The State pays NI contributions for stay at home mothers until a child is 18 years old? Or do you want to stop that?

I think that changed a few years ago, it is something like 12 now I think.

Yes, I pointed that out upthread.

For the millionth time, I am not saying that anyone is not valuable. We all are. What I am saying is that at a time when working people are using foodbanks and services are being cut it makes no sense to pay people to stay at home when their children are at school. Those who can afford to do so should not be supported by those who work (and who may also volunteer in various ways).

I repeat, this is just a small part of what I would like to see in the budget. I don't think it will happen, and there are things I'd prioritise.

Cossy

Here goes!

Deferral of WFA til next year.

Unfreezing of personal allowance and and increase.

More and still more social housing.

Less “admin” staff and less admin per say in schools/NHS/Police.

Bigger budgets for state schools.

Restrictions on benefits for those who CAN work but choose not to, and a raise in benefits for those unable to work.

Alcohol, vape and cigarette duty raised.

Fuel duty frozen.

Proper investigation/assessment of those “home schooling”

Keep 25% single person discount.

Fund more youth workers and youth services.

Ditto Probation.

Sensible living wages so those working for large companies are no longer subsidised by the govt (UC/ Working Tax Credits)

Review of SEN provision.

Social care and residential care overhaul.

Would it be better if police officers, teachers and doctors were spending their time doing admin? There has to be admin, who sorts out payroll, who answers the phones, who orders the stationery, who negotiates the electricity/gas deal for the year? I'd much rather someone good at admin was doing it and the reality is they will be doing it cheaper than using the police officer/teacher/doctor.

ronib

I think 16 ? theworriedwell

I'm not sure but I remember it changing, if I google it it comes up as 12. Maybe it varies if a child has special needs?

Doodledog

theworriedwell

ronib

Doidledog The State pays NI contributions for stay at home mothers until a child is 18 years old? Or do you want to stop that?

I think that changed a few years ago, it is something like 12 now I think.

Yes, I pointed that out upthread.

For the millionth time, I am not saying that anyone is not valuable. We all are. What I am saying is that at a time when working people are using foodbanks and services are being cut it makes no sense to pay people to stay at home when their children are at school. Those who can afford to do so should not be supported by those who work (and who may also volunteer in various ways).

I repeat, this is just a small part of what I would like to see in the budget. I don't think it will happen, and there are things I'd prioritise.

Locally lots of the people running the foodbanks aren't in paid employment. Volunteers are working, they just aren't paid.

Doodledog, NI contributions should absolutely NOT be stopped for mothers who choose to stay at home for the early years of their children! You do come across as rather harsh.

ronib

Doidledog The State pays NI contributions for stay at home mothers until a child is 18 years old? Or do you want to stop that?

No, they didn't.

What they did was reduce the number of years required for a State Pension eg if the number of years required to receive a full State Pension was 39 and a mother stayed at home to care for pre-school age children for eg 7 years and was in receipt of Child Benefit, then the number of years required for a State Pension would be reduced to 32.

This only applied from 1978 to 2010.
Those who had no choice but to stay at home to care for their own children before 1978 lost out on those years of pension.
Carers who looked after a sick or disabled person also were entitled to HRP.

The system changed in 2010 to Carers Credit.
The State does not pay NI contributions to parents until a child is 18 years old.
It never did.

Yes, NI paid until youngest child is 12.

I simply want to cut down on Admin and have less admin staff, not have the teachers etc doing it themselves.

I kind of get Doodlebugs point

ronib

Visgirl1 interesting as the age limit was 18. So some savings there for any government.
Wouldn’t it be great if mothers hoping to return to work could be given guidance and free training to re-enter the workforce? Or does this happen at the moment?

The government in power at the time does not pay a NI contribution.
They just credit the years.

Thus, it's a future government paying the pension.

Wrong - I am sure that NI contributions were linked to child care benefits and that I received both until my youngest child was 18 - back in the day when mothers were encouraged to stay at home that is.