I'm a full time mum and benefits are my wages.

[bornfree 10]

Call me old fashioned, but idealy, mothers should be at home bringing up the kids.

 

But if being 'old fashioned' the dad would be bringing home the money and she'd be happily married.

[truman 10]

Call me old fashioned, but idealy, mothers should be at home bringing up the kids.

 

With the father going out to work and supporting them....?

[Cyclone 10]

Call me old fashioned, but idealy, mothers should be at home bringing up the kids.

 

That only works if the father is there to pay for the family to live.

The state should not be supporting single parents for 18 years to stay at home.

5 years, arguably, until the child is in full time education (I said arguably, not that I necessarily agree), but after that there is no reason the parent shouldn't work whilst the child is at school.

[coupe 10]

The truth is if you earn less than £18k per year in London as a woman of kids bearing age I don't even understand why you bother getting a job. Have a kid, sign on then get it all for free. This is my advise for anyone not capable of earning more than £18k per year and leaving in London.

 

This country is not for hard working people.

 

Lol that is true in a way. Thats why at some interviews the employer will ask if you are married, have kids etc. They are basically just trying to predict how safe an investment you would be to hire.

 

The bottom line is people will generally do what suits them best. That is human nature. With the current system people are almost being encouraged to sponge off the state.

 

But you have to remember there is still a low birth rate according to the stats compared to decades ago. Working folk simply arent having enough kids. These days the average couple may have 2 or 3 kids whereas in the past it may have been 8 or 9. So the state will subside the unemployed to do this if thats what it takes.

Edited February 19, 2010 by coupe

[vwkittie 10]

Call me old fashioned, but idealy, mothers should be at home bringing up the kids.

 

That would necessitate these sorts of mothers actually *thinking about what they are doing* before getting themselves up the duff though. This is apparently far too difficult for some people to do. You would think she'd have learned where babies come from after she had number 1 let alone three

 

Besides, this particular woman's children are at school all day so what 'bringing up' is she doing then?

 

Anyway, a lot people who actually pay their own way can't afford their mortgages/rents/bills etc without both parents working.

[Zaytsev 10]

That would necessitate these sorts of mothers actually *thinking about what they are doing* before getting themselves up the duff though. This is apparently far too difficult for some people to do. You would think she'd have learned where babies come from after she had number 1 let alone three

 

Besides, this particular woman's children are at school all day so what 'bringing up' is she doing then?

 

Anyway, a lot people who actually pay their own way can't afford their mortgages/rents/bills etc without both parents working.

 

Then they should put their kids, if they under school age, before the big house and car and not be so selfish. Putting pre school children in childcare between the hours of 8am and 6pm is wrong.

 

I agree that this woman could work as her children are of school age.

[truman 10]

Then they should put their kids, if they under school age, before the big house and car and not be so selfish. Putting pre school children in childcare between the hours of 8am and 6pm is wrong.

 

I agree that this woman could work as her children are of school age.

 

Slightly O/T but don't you think that young kids can gain from being with other children....?

[Zaytsev 10]

That only works if the father is there to pay for the family to live.

The state should not be supporting single parents for 18 years to stay at home.

5 years, arguably, until the child is in full time education (I said arguably, not that I necessarily agree), but after that there is no reason the parent shouldn't work whilst the child is at school.

 

Whether the father/mother is there or not is he/she has responsibilities to pay for the children. If the parent with care is on benefits then everything he pays will mean the tax payer does not meet the burden.

 

While I agree with you on some points, children being put in full time childcare pre 5 cannot be a good thing.

[Zaytsev 10]

Slightly O/T but don't you think that young kids can gain from being with other children....?

 

I would argue that a one year old needs their mother rather than a childcare assistant and a room full of children watching TV.

 

LINK

 

Do you think 1 to 5 year old can gain from 10 hours per day childcare 5 days a week.?

[Cyclone 10]

Whether the father/mother is there or not is he/she has responsibilities to pay for the children. If the parent with care is on benefits then everything he pays will mean the tax payer does not meet the burden.

 

While I agree with you on some points, children being put in full time childcare pre 5 cannot be a good thing.

 

I don't think I suggested that, I suggested that it's reasonable for the mother to return to work after the child is in full time education at the age of 5.

And yes, the father should be supporting the child (but not necessarily the mother) whether he's present or not. But if he doesn't work either...

[truman 10]

I would argue that a one year old needs their mother rather than a childcare assistant and a room full of children watching TV.

 

LINK

 

Do you think 1 to 5 year old can gain from 10 hours per day childcare 5 days a week.?

 

What's wrong with part time?

[Cyclone 10]

Lol that is true in a way. Thats why at some interviews the employer will ask if you are married, have kids etc. They are basically just trying to predict how safe an investment you would be to hire.

They'd best not be caught asking those questions, it's a discrimination tribunal waiting to happen.

 

The bottom line is people will generally do what suits them best. That is human nature. With the current system people are almost being encouraged to sponge off the state.

 

But you have to remember there is still a low birth rate according to the stats compared to decades ago. Working folk simply arent having enough kids. These days the average couple may have 2 or 3 kids whereas in the past it may have been 8 or 9. So the state will subside the unemployed to do this if thats what it takes.

Ermm, enough would be 2 children per adult couple to maintain the current population level. As a state we have no desire for our population to grow.