Stay-at-home mums should go to work!

[SpikeMac]

Exactly.

 

Average house price 1996: £62,000 [LINK]

Average house price 2007: £179,000 [LINK]

 

 

LINK

 

 

What's worse, that corpulent fraud tried to push shared equity as a "solution" to high house prices:

 

 

LINK

 

 

What an unutterably dangerous cretin.

 

 

 

LINK

 

Too good for him I say.

 

And today, Gideon has set in train the next tranche of house price inflation.

[Ms Macbeth]

My partner would love to be a stay at home mum, but we need both incomes.

 

And that doesn't make her irresponsible. It's the quality of parenting that counts, I was a working mum most of the time, and my children have grown up to be pretty decent adults - as have many more from similar home situations. If people are in the financial situation to choose to have one parent at home, and that's what they wish then fine. If they both need (or choose) to work, that's fine too, as long as the child's welfare is a priority. To live in a half decent area with a reasonable school meant two incomes for us. That was our choice back then, and we don't regret it.

 

Lets be honest, there are plenty of permanent stay at home parents who don't do any better with their children than those who work.

[CatsEyes84]

This is a tough one because he cost of childcare is too expensive forcing mothers to stay at home as they are better off as working full time and have your child in Nursery half or more of your income is spent on this. This is then forcing mothers to only 20 or less hours a week, The Government have said that they will give working families more help under the 2012, 2013 budget but like other people said we cannot have this culture of people who are irresponsible having children they cannot afford the Government needs to draw a fine line between the people who genuinely need the help and those just abusing the system as they do not want to work.

 

---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 00:37 ----------

 

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.

 

If you have both worked I think it disgusting you cannot get help, have you tried Child Tax Credits?? Working Tax Credits?? the Government do not realise raising a child is damn expensive not done it myself but know others who have children, what gets me about it is if you chose not to work and had a child you would get £60 a week no matter what which makes no sense. I know someone who has never had a full time job she has been on various benefits so never paid tax national insurance etc and because she has had a child recently she is getting £60 a week for that child but she has never ever contributed, I feel like in that case why should the tax payer pay for her child when she herself has never paid in? it is like the Government like to punish honest hardworking people like yourself and your partner who go out to work and line the pockets of idle people who cannot be bothered to work like that person I know.

[maxmaximus]

 

So you missed the boat and are still at home with Mom & Pops!

 

I assume your children, grand children, great grand children and all your future descendants already have an house.

 

One anomaly I have come across when talking to people, they are happy the price of their house as gone up and wouldn’t want it to drop and at the same time complain their children can’t afford an house.

[Itrytoplease]

They admit to 2.5 million being un-employed as of Yesterday (20/03/13) but they have messed around so much with the figures that not even the government know exactly how many are unemployed.

 

If you’re on this course you’re not included in the figures, If you claim that benefit you’re not included. At least in the 80s the figures were straight i.e. Not working = unemployed and those days the numbers were over 4 million.

 

The government have had a go at the unemployed , they’ve had a go at the disabled now is the turn of those really lazy people who think that just because they have a 2/3 month old baby it’s a good reason not to seek work. How dare they.

 

There must be a reason why the government is trying to get us to fight amongst ourselves, if some of their view were posted on a certain blog site, by a member of the public the police would be on their door step to arrest them for inciting hatred.

 

How come the government is the only Organisation that is not tightening their belt, they seem, to me to be spending our money faster than they can get in in. When I see the politicians take a 15% cut in salary (as I’m having to do) Then I might believe some of the crap that they come out with like – WERE ON THE RIGHT TRACK the deficit is going down.

[Staunton]

In the 1950s the traditional nuclear family - a married couple with two children and a dog - might live in a house for which the husband's salary covered the mortgage repayments. A wife would usually stay at home, rear the children, shop, cook, and clean.

 

It is no surprise that many women found this unrewarding, demeaning and dull.

 

However, as more and more women entered the world of work, a strange thing happened. With increased income, the traditional nuclear family was able to spend more on financing their property. This factor, in a highly competitive market, like the one that has been in place since 1979, led to dramatic increases in house prices. Where once a single wage was sufficient to meet the mortgage costs, it soon became necessary for there to be two incomes within a household in order to pay the bills.

 

As house prices increased, the banks, not the householders, made the profit, selling ever larger mortgages and increasingly sophisticated financial packages to facilitate home purchases.

 

So, by the 1990s, both mothers and fathers had no choice but to work, the banks were enjoying enormous income, and children were parented in an ever more stressed, exhausted and financially stretched environment.

 

Average salaries have remained remarkable constant over the last 35 years, while corporate remuneration has risen dramatically. Today, many ordinary families despair of ever owning their own home, and still both must work in order that the the rent gets paid. And children are as vulnerable as ever to the anxieties of stressed, overworked and underpaid parents. The middle class dream has turned sour, and our children are paying a heavy price.

[truman]

In the 1950s the traditional nuclear family - a married couple with two children and a dog - might live in a house for which the husband's salary covered the mortgage repayments. A wife would usually stay at home, rear the children, shop, cook, and clean.

 

 

Genuine question..what %age of people were homeowners in the 1950s..what is the percentage now?

[Grenoside123]

And that doesn't make her irresponsible. It's the quality of parenting that counts, I was a working mum most of the time, and my children have grown up to be pretty decent adults - as have many more from similar home situations. If people are in the financial situation to choose to have one parent at home, and that's what they wish then fine. If they both need (or choose) to work, that's fine too, as long as the child's welfare is a priority. To live in a half decent area with a reasonable school meant two incomes for us. That was our choice back then, and we don't regret it.

 

Lets be honest, there are plenty of permanent stay at home parents who don't do any better with their children than those who work.

 

Thank goodness someone else can understand our predicament. I would have loved to have been a stay at home mum but I also wanted a nice environment for my little boy to grow up in. In order for my husband and I to give him this, it requires two incomes.

There's no way on this earth that I would have brought my child up and schooled him where we used to live so it meant selling up and taking on a bigger mortgage to live in a good area and to get him in a school of our choice.

 

People will no doubt frown upon me for being a working mum but I have a super happy, loving little boy who has a lovely place to grow up, attends a fantastic school and has a lovely circle of friends from nice, hard working families.

[Staunton]

People will no doubt frown upon me for being a working mum.

 

I hope that nobody frowns upon Grenoside123 or SevenRivers. Families have to make an impossible choice today - provide the emotional stability for their loved ones, or to strive in the workplace to meet the economic demands of providing a comfortable home.

 

It is essential that we begin to understand that the free market doctrine that is driving Western politics has failed to deliver the 'freedom and choice' that was promised.

 

Working families are trying very hard to provide a safe and loving environment for their children and to keep a roof over their heads. But this is very difficult to maintain. Family tensions due to overwork, financial worries, and the struggle to meet the bills that keep on rising are having a devastating effect on our wellbeing.

[tinfoilhat]

Genuine question..what %age of people were homeowners in the 1950s..what is the percentage now?

 

I did find this out and although there was more renting back then, the difference wasn't quite as big as you would think. I'll see if I can find the link (I'm sure it was on the bbc site somewhere)