Parvo Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I've no problem with stay at home mums, it depends on who is going to pay for it. breeding does not need to be encouraged anyway....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s2 blade Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I've no problem with stay at home mums, it depends on who is going to pay for it. I'm all for mums staying at home , as long as the tax payer isn't funding it . If they can't afford to stay at home without taxpayers cash funding their Jeremy Kyle viewing then the answer is simple ,don't have kids you can't afford and get to bloody work . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 If we care about children, and don't want them to suffer; perhaps we should be more responsible and if we don't have the means to support them, do not bring them in to the world. Maybe we should split the country in to two. People who think it's okay to be reckless and irresponsible and expect other people to foot their bill, in one camp. Everyone else in the other camp. Separate finances etc... I know which camp I'd be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marx Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 If we care about children, and don't want them to suffer; perhaps we should be more responsible and if we don't have the means to support them, do not bring them in to the world. Maybe we should split the country in to two. People who think it's okay to be reckless and irresponsible and expect other people to foot their bill, in one camp. Everyone else in the other camp. Separate finances etc... I know which camp I'd be in. Would these be the reckless and irresponsible people avoiding tax, exploiting workers and putting profit before safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s2 blade Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Would these be the reckless and irresponsible people avoiding tax, exploiting workers and putting profit before safety? Or would they be getting laid every night , doing nothing all day and signing a peice of paper every fortnight for some free money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Would these be the reckless and irresponsible people avoiding tax, exploiting workers and putting profit before safety? No, these would be the reckless people who bring children in to the world, because they know hard working tax payers (who are responsible and don't have kids of their own, because they can't afford them) will pay for their kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 The cost of housing pushed both parents into work, buying a house on one income become impossible for many. Exactly. Average house price 1996: £62,000 [LINK] Average house price 2007: £179,000 [LINK] ‘I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery.’ Gordon Brown 1997 LINK What's worse, that corpulent fraud tried to push shared equity as a "solution" to high house prices: PricedOut, the affordable housing campaign, notes with disappointment Gordon Brown's announcement that he plans to expand shared equity schemes for would-be first time buyers in the near future. With houses now unaffordable in 75% of the UK, and the average house price standing at over six times the average salary, Gordon Brown has failed to acknowledge the underlying causes of extortionate house prices, prices he pledged to keep under control when he became chancellor in 1997 (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/budget97/live/housing.shtml). This move effectively represents the Government's half-price ticket to negative equity for would-be first time buyers. LINK What an unutterably dangerous cretin. High Treason A person convicted of treason is liable to imprisonment for life or for any shorter term. LINK Too good for him I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twibstix Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Our daughter is nearly 5 months old, my maternity leave runs out in may. I can't afford to go back to work as we can't afford childcare and the government have decided that OH earns too much money for us to qualify for any assistance. Besides, I didn't have my little miracle in order to shut her away in a nursery with someone else seeing her milestones and teaching her to speak. My job (full time, no holidays, no sick pay, 24/7) is mummy and it's the most important thing I will ever do so we will struggle, but we will get by and we will have a happy, well adjusted daughter to show for it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Exactly. Average house price 1996: £62,000 [LINK] Average house price 2007: £179,000 [LINK] LINK So you missed the boat and are still at home with Mom & Pops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 My partner would love to be a stay at home mum, but we need both incomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.