Vasectomies Are Free

Funding is falling short, (a problem in itself), and nurseries, etc, have decided to ask the parents to fill the shortfall for certain items. With figures like this, why shouldn't parents be asked to stump up a bit more?
My daughter and son-in-law have my 10 month old grandson attend a nursery, and it costs them £1050 per month. Obviously, part of the 36% who are paying extra to fund much of the shortfall. 
The government pays for the hours, not for the complete service, as many seem to think. Just because a government funded service is available, it doesn't mean they have to bring your child up for you. Having said that, I do accept that their figures are out of date, and they should increase what is available.

We had to provide nappies to our childminder and we paid for the service wholly as we didn't qualify for child tax benefits. Childcare is very expensive and you can see why some people say it's cheaper to stay at home and claim benefits than to get back into work then lose a massive amount of your salary to child care costs.

Agreed Mr Pig. The big problem there is that if you come out of the labour market, then it can be really difficult to get straight back in, especially if you have skills that need to be kept up to date on a regular basis. 
It isn't easy nowadays for the younger generation, and I don't see how such high prices can be justified when it comes to the caring of people, young or old.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote:So your parents drew benefits?

Of course not, they started Whittam International plc.

So your parents turned down child benefit, a given for all at the time, for their spawn? You want people to actually believe that your parents turned money down?

gloswhite wrote:Funding is falling short, (a problem in itself), and nurseries, etc, have decided to ask the parents to fill the shortfall for certain items. With figures like this, why shouldn't parents be asked to stump up a bit more?
My daughter and son-in-law have my 10 month old grandson attend a nursery, and it costs them £1050 per month. Obviously, part of the 36% who are paying extra to fund much of the shortfall. 
The government pays for the hours, not for the complete service, as many seem to think. Just because a government funded service is available, it doesn't mean they have to bring your child up for you. Having said that, I do accept that their figures are out of date, and they should increase what is available.

I think you’re missing the point Glos. Funding childcare is one of the few policies the government have introduced to support working families.

So when it gets to the point that it isn’t full funded, and either nurseries or parents are picking up the shortfall, then you begin to understand why this doesn’t reflect well.

Rather than complaining about parents, surely your ire should be directed at the government?

Don't patronise me T.R.O.Y, and you are missing my point entirely.

I believe your term' support working families' is relevant here. Supporting a family doesn't mean to take over all financial responsibility for a child's upbringing.

Im not going to apologise that you feel patronised, all I’m telling you is what the survey says and how the policy is being interpreted in light of it. They shouldn’t claim its fully funded if it’s not.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Im not going to apologise that you feel patronised, all I’m telling you is what the survey says and how the policy is being interpreted in light of it. They shouldn’t claim its fully funded if it’s not.

You really are a know-it-all. And a gobshite.

I agree that in some cases people have more children than they can afford, however once you start down the road of limiting numbers then you need to ask who decides, i would not be happy if anyone told me i could not have another child if that was the wish of my wife and i.

Be careful what you wish for the China experiment almost made having a daughter a life or death decision, due to how there society viewed having a son. Tip of a very dodgy iceberg.

I agree with previous comments, circumstances change, two well paid people have say 4 kids and then presto they lose a job and it all goes wrong. Most people are happy with one or two, five these days is the exception so just deal with it in those terms.

In terms of the comment made by the MP it fits the concept of a conservative, Its what they believe in so he should have stood by his words, no matter how cringe worthy they are.

wessy wrote:I agree that in some cases people have more children than they can afford, however once you start down the road of limiting numbers then you need to ask who decides, i would not be happy if anyone told me i could not have another child if that was the wish of my wife and i.

You and your wife might like stealing condoms from Boots, but someone tells you not to do it - the law.

Make having more than 2 children illegal and it just becomes another law to follow.

The government not so long back changed the law so that you could only claim benefits for up to 2 children(from the date this started) for those that met the criteria. If you chose to have anymore then it was tough shit on anymore handouts which I agree with. 

I watched the 20 kids and counting the other week which featured the well known Radford family from Morecambe. They owned a small bakers. 

How the hell they can give each of their children enough love and attention they need I do not know.

I find it extremely selfish on the their children.

I could only guess that the parents came from families where perhaps they were never showed enough affection etc so one of them longed for a big loving family.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wessy wrote:I agree that in some cases people have more children than they can afford, however once you start down the road of limiting numbers then you need to ask who decides, i would not be happy if anyone told me i could not have another child if that was the wish of my wife and i.

You and your wife might like stealing condoms from Boots, but someone tells you not to do it - the law.

Make having more than 2 children illegal and it just becomes another law to follow.

What if they say you cant have any children, Its now Law would people follow it?
What if they said you can only have a kid if you earn X amount ? Tip of the iceberg.

Why would i steal condoms it is against the law , Freedom of choice ie having another child is legal and an important principal i would prefer to protect that position.

They would never be able to do that. It is part of our instinct to reproduce for a kick off.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Im not going to apologise that you feel patronised, all I’m telling you is what the survey says and how the policy is being interpreted in light of it. They shouldn’t claim its fully funded if it’s not.

You really are a know-it-all. And a gobshite.

Haha I know, and don’t you just love me for it