I often wonder if anyone in government has the slightest idea on the subject of saving money, or is it that they are driven to find ever more strange and ludicrous ways to piss our money up against the wall.
Parents should get tax breaks to help them bring up their children at home, says Gordon Brown's childcare research chief.
That would be the same piss poor tax credit system that is a nightmare to administer, confuses many people and overpays some whilst under paying others.
Professor Jay Belsky warned that toddlers who spend long hours in nurseries or with childminders suffer "disconcerting" effects.
These include difficult relationships with their mothers and aggressive and disobedient behaviour when they start school.
Those who spend time in centre-based care from a very young age are particularly at risk, he said.
Professor Belsky, the man brought in to assess the Government's Sure Start family centres scheme, made his plea for change "on humanitarian grounds".
**So lets see if I have the Professors argument here: a woman chooses to have a child, then when she chooses to put that child with either a child minder or nursery this has a "disconcerting" effect on the child.
First I would take up his point about childminders and nurserys, they are professionals and I am sure that most parents when choosing them will take the time to at least check out who they are leaving the child with.
As for the effects, now surely the mother would notice that and take action? But either way the Professors answer is to throw money at the problem and create state funded stay at home mothers.
Maybe he is of the type who think that a womans place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant? But like all socialists he thinks that we should pour taxpayers money into the problem to resolve it and so keep women who choose to have children at home.
So quite how does this tally with all the much touted talk in political circles of getting people off of benefits and back into the workplace?
After all if you hand over cash for people to stay at home with their offspring rather than doing a days work - a lot of people will take the option of staying home. After all someone else is paying, despite the claims by politicians of "free child care" and it helps to create and expanding the dependency culture here in the UK.
5 people have spoken:
I don't find this to be bad news at all. If parents take care of their children themselves you will find a stronger families and as a result, a stronger society. A mother staying home with her children has been the norm throughout all human history until the last century or so.
The act of giving a tax break to those mothers is much better than a government handout as well. If more countries would do this many of the crime/drug/teen pregnancy issues we have in the west would diminish.
However it does go against all that Gordon has said about getting mothers back to work.
Besides why should the taxpayer fund people who make a lifestyle choice to have children?
I doubt many mothers would agree with the premise that raising children is not considered work.
I would also take issue with the fact that having children is even a lifestyle choice. Everywhere else in nature, reproduction is a biological instinct, its programmed into our dna. It ought to be the objective norm. The stronger act of deliberate choosing happens when we decide to suppress these instincts for whatever reason.
As far as the taxpayer issue is concerned. I suppose that it your perspective is dependent on your philosophy on the ownership of money in a civil society. If you believe that all money is by default the property of the state, then the act of a tax reduction could be interpreted as the state 'giving' money to those whose taxes have been reduced. For my part, I follow the principle that a man's earnings are his own and the state only confiscates it from him by threat of force. Therefore, if the the state gives a tax break to people, it represents a lessening of state influence, and in fact a good thing. The real question you might ask is "why is the state taxing those without children higher than others?"
(Presuming, of course, that this is a real tax reduction, and not a government handout.)
While on the surface this proposal seems to be a good thing, the motives of the current government are certainly not above suspicion.
(A very cynical approach to this would be to look at the demographics of the UK and determine if this proposal might be to be aimed at currying favor with a specific ethnic/religious minority.
But thats another discussion...)
Sure raising children is work, however it is still a lifestyle choice.
People choose to have kids and should be ideally in the financial position to be able to look after them in the main.
True there will always be those that need the states help and I shall also say that the state should ensure that there are enough places for youngsters at nurserys etc.
As for the timing, well its fairly clear that Bottler is on borrowed time, so a pledge to aid mothers -despite previous comments about getting them off benefits - could be seen as a cynical ploy to gather the "female" vote come election time.
Oh and they will wheel out the scare stories of Tories eating babies over breakfast as well.
First leftists told us to put the kids into daycare early because it is good for them, then they tell us to take them out because it's bad for them!!!
I agree about handouts, people choose to have children, the taxpayer shouldn't be made to pay parents for having children. I say give them tax breaks, if only one person is working and has dependents, i feel they should be taxed less, that's better for the state and society.
Giving out money is a bad idea, it nurtures dependency and entitlement, stop at tax breaks.
Post a Comment