Spring Budget 2023

[danlightbulb]

Minimum wage laws haven't helped, bit much coming from you to be honest. Other people need to survive as well you know.

The issue is circular though. I don't know the correct term to use so as not to appear disrespectful to these jobs but if low end jobs cost more that pushes up costs for everyone which results in more wage rises needed to survive. The solution isn't to keep allowing costs to rise but to hold costs back, make stuff get cheaper not more expensive, then a basic standard of living would be affordable on a lower income.

Congratulations, you've managed to highlight in a single post how narrow minded and poorly informed you are well done.

For anyone that's actually worked with an early years setting, you'll know it's not about helping the normal children succeed but to help those with additional needs and behavioural problems and prepare them for school. That requires educating those staff and learning those skills, which means they (rightly) should be earning more.

No we don't need that as a society. Babies and toddlers don't need educating at age 1 to 4. They just need to play and have lunch. We don't need skilled people for that.

We cannot afford to have everyone earning more. It pushes up the basic cost of living and makes everyone worse off, which is why we're in this problem now. We need a return to more basic society.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

The issue is circular though. I don't know the correct term to use so as not to appear disrespectful to these jobs but if low end jobs cost more that pushes up costs for everyone which results in more wage rises needed to survive. The solution isn't to keep allowing costs to rise but to hold costs back, make stuff get cheaper not more expensive, then a basic standard of living would be affordable on a lower income.



No we don't need that as a society. Babies and toddlers don't need educating at age 1 to 4. They just need to play and have lunch. We don't need skilled people for that.

We cannot afford to have everyone earning more. It pushes up the basic cost of living and makes everyone worse off, which is why we're in this problem now. We need a return to more basic society.

Google the word Productivity.

 

[ci_newman]

How dare you post with rationale and common sense.

Also, two people on £33,280 will get 30 hours of free childcare from the age of 3 (soon to go down), plus 20% saving for under 3 year olds, whereas someone on £100k and above does not. You could even have two people on £90k who earn £180k as a household, who are still entitled to childcare help.

I didn't mention child benefit either...

 

[200sols]

The issue is circular though. I don't know the correct term to use so as not to appear disrespectful to these jobs but if low end jobs cost more that pushes up costs for everyone which results in more wage rises needed to survive. The solution isn't to keep allowing costs to rise but to hold costs back, make stuff get cheaper not more expensive, then a basic standard of living would be affordable on a lower income.

I don't think it is that 'low end' whatever you think that really is, its actually not easy and certainly not everyone can do it. Unless you want a bunch of brainless zombie kids starting out in schools the 1-4 year old period is actually vital and sets them up for life.

We need a return to more basic society.

You take the first pay cut then and do some good for society.

 

[Freakbro]

No we don't need that as a society. Babies and toddlers don't need educating at age 1 to 4. They just need to play and have lunch. We don't need skilled people for that.

We cannot afford to have everyone earning more. It pushes up the basic cost of living and makes everyone worse off, which is why we're in this problem now. We need a return to more basic society.

Please Dan just stop now, I'm crying with laughter and you're stopping me getting on!

 

[200sols]

I've spent most of the morning doing my finances and tbh, RIP

Spurred on by robfosters comment no doubt

 

[Chris Wilson]

Congratulations, you've managed to highlight in a single post how narrow minded and poorly informed you are well done.

For anyone that's actually worked with an early years setting, you'll know it's not about helping the normal children succeed but to help those with additional needs and behavioural problems and prepare them for school. That requires educating those staff and learning those skills, which means they (rightly) should be earning more.

And there we have it, from a supporter of child care from strangers. They send their toddler to an indeterminate bunch of people to whom they pay a fortune for allowing their kid(s) to socialise with the unknown, often ill behaved, ill bred, allegedly mentally disturbed, and possibly unvaccinated spawn of God knows who, whilst patting themselves on the back telling themselves somewhat unconvincingly that they are doing what's best for their children No doubt they pay someone to walk their dog, too!

 

[ci_newman]

And there we have it, from a supporter of child care from strangers. They send their toddler to an indeterminate bunch of people to whom they pay a fortune for allowing their kid(s) to socialise with the unknown, often ill behaved, ill bred, allegedly mentally disturbed, and possibly unvaccinated spawn of God knows who, whilst patting themselves on the back telling themselves somewhat unconvincingly that they are doing what's best for their children No doubt they pay someone to walk their dog, too!

Or I might actually have family members who work in early years and have first hand information on the work it entails?

 

[Deleted User 298457]

And there we have it, from a supporter of child care from strangers. They send their toddler to an indeterminate bunch of people to whom they pay a fortune for allowing their kid(s) to socialise with the unknown, often ill behaved, ill bred, allegedly mentally disturbed, and possibly unvaccinated spawn of God knows who, whilst patting themselves on the back telling themselves somewhat unconvincingly that they are doing what's best for their children No doubt they pay someone to walk their dog, too!

The funny thing is you think my wife isn't any of those things either.

 

[danlightbulb]

don't think it is that 'low end' whatever you think that really is, its actually not easy and certainly not everyone can do it. Unless you want a bunch of brainless zombie kids starting out in schools the 1-4 year old period is actually vital and sets them up for life.

Looking after kids is hard work yes, but does not require training and development beyond a basic competence level. It might be un-pc to say that but it's true. It should be a low cost service. And those who staff the nurseries should be able to survive quite well on those lower earnings, if we had correctly functioning social housing etc.

You take the first pay cut then and do some good for society

The reason I went into engineering instead of childcare is because it's a career that has a need for a higher level of education, ongoing training and progression. I'm sorry, but early years childcare does not have that need. The problem we are in as a society is partly due to trying to make some industries into things they are not. Childcare is a fairly basic service that other people need to facilitate their own jobs. That is all it needs to be.


As a country we are eroding salary tiers for everyone except the top 1%. We should be doing the opposite - make cost of living cheaper so everyone can survive to a basic level on a lower income, then those who want more education and training go to sectors that require those skills and earn more money.

We're diluting the value of sectors that genuinely require skilled people, such as engineering, by having many parts of the service sector trying to achieve the same for little added value but more cost.

 

[Freefaller]

And there we have it, from a supporter of child care from strangers. They send their toddler to an indeterminate bunch of people to whom they pay a fortune for allowing their kid(s) to socialise with the unknown, often ill behaved, ill bred, allegedly mentally disturbed, and possibly unvaccinated spawn of God knows who, whilst patting themselves on the back telling themselves somewhat unconvincingly that they are doing what's best for their children No doubt they pay someone to walk their dog, too!

I've never read so much tripe from you before, that really is top quality tripe.

 

[ci_newman]

I've never read so much tripe from you before, that really is top quality tripe.

Feels like he could have benefitted from socialising more with the unknown, often ill behaved, ill bred, allegedly mentally disturbed, and possibly unvaccinated spawn of God when he was a child.

 

[Werewolf]

No we don't need that as a society. Babies and toddlers don't need educating at age 1 to 4. They just need to play and have lunch. We don't need skilled people for that.

We cannot afford to have everyone earning more. It pushes up the basic cost of living and makes everyone worse off, which is why we're in this problem now. We need a return to more basic society.

Please tell me you've had nothing to do with bringing up any children. It certainly sounds like you've never been involved with them.

I've got nephews and nieces and yes, yes they do need educating at 1-4, some of it is "classic" education (getting them started reading etc), other stuff is more like helping them improve their language skills, co-ordination, teaching them about safety.
Even just things like potty training and how to wash their hands is "education" and it's depressing to realise that some parents can't/don't teach that before a kid goes to primary school (not necessarily the parents fault, but if they've not had help and the common methods haven't worked).
The only thing is most of the best ways to teach a very young child is to do it through "play", and that does require staff who have training and experience to know the best ways to do it, and encourage it, as it can take parents with no prior experience a long time to learn how to teach it (and then learn again when their second child doesn't respond the same way as the first), so you train staff so they know going into the job the various methods to try.

 

[413x]

Two people earning the average wage (£33,280) in a household brings home a very similar amount to one person earning £100k.

Those earning £100k / year take home ~ £67,000 after tax (but not including pension contributions etc). Two people earning the national average would bring in £53,000 after tax.

No somebody earning £100k isn't destitute - but Chris.D probably has less disposable income after childcare fees than you and your GF do.

Ok.i admit, I put the figures into a calculator and was unpleasantly surprised at how much a 100k gets you.

If you're on your own without kids. I still say it's a lot of money.

But yeah. If you're a full time parent I can see how 5k a month can result in not being flush with cash while kids are in child care.


I still think it's a lot of money though. But I admit I can see scenarios (ie kids and single) where there will be years (child care) when that wage feels much much lower.

 

[Freefaller]

Ok.i admit, I put the figures into a calculator and was unpleasantly surprised at how much a 100k gets you.

If you're on your own without kids. I still say it's a lot of money.

But yeah. If you're a full time parent I can see how 5k a month can result in not being flush with cash while kids are in child care.


I still think it's a lot of money though. But I admit I can see scenarios (ie kids and single) where there will be years (child care) when that wage feels much much lower.

On it's own it is a good salary. However as you've just discovered it's a bit more complicated, especially if you're the primary/only earner. You get stung with 60% tax, you don't get all the benefits you could get if you earned £99,999, and as you've seen if you combine 2x good salaries of £40k you end up actually no much worse off, with less tax more benefits....

However, if your other half earns 40k+ and you're also on 100k+ then yes you have little to complain about.

 

[danlightbulb]

Please tell me you've had nothing to do with bringing up any children. It certainly sounds like you've never been involved with them.

I've got nephews and nieces and yes, yes they do need educating at 1-4, some of it is "classic" education (getting them started reading etc), other stuff is more like helping them improve their language skills, co-ordination, teaching them about safety.
Even just things like potty training and how to wash their hands is "education" and it's depressing to realise that some parents can't/don't teach that before a kid goes to primary school (not necessarily the parents fault, but if they've not had help and the common methods haven't worked).
The only thing is most of the best ways to teach a very young child is to do it through "play", and that does require staff who have training and experience to know the best ways to do it, and encourage it, as it can take parents with no prior experience a long time to learn how to teach it (and then learn again when their second child doesn't respond the same way as the first), so you train staff so they know going into the job the various methods to try.

This is why it's not been good for society to have everyone in work. We had what you've described there when we were kids because our moms were at home looking after us.

But now, due to policies over 30+ years, two salaries are needed to get a house and meet basic living standards. That has been a backwards step.

 

[ChrisD.]

I never once said it's not a tidy sum of money. But bear in mind the issues it brings particularly as a main bread winner, you have to do a SA each year and if you're as bad with HMRC paperwork as I am, that costs money for an accountant to do it. Then time. Plus, you have to fathom out how to sacrifice salary to not get caught by the £100k trap but still have enough remaining to pay bills/nursery and live life which is what I alluded to earlier, this adds stress. Then you get a bloody pay rise or other bonus which makes zero difference to your take home and you have to do all the workings out again. Then comes the new year and you are over and you have to find £10k net to get under the tax trap or not take a salary for a few months putting everything into your pension to get tax relief. I've checked the sofa, I don't have that sort of money laying around beyond rainy day savings so it looks as if I'll lose part of my personal allowance, have a SA tax bill to pay and not be entitled to 20% tax relief on childcare (which I knew anyway, and didn't claim).

One huge benefit is the pension though, I'm pretty confident I will be able to retire and provide for my family without much worry which is not something everyone can enjoy because the state pension system in the country is utterly broken.

I think it's extremely difficult for people to objectively comment unless they are in the same situation. 10 years ago I was on around £30k and renting in London, I know exactly what it's like. There are folk on here who earn much more than I do, I don't make assumptions about their affairs with money or if they have a £4k a month mortgage (sorry @dLockers), because I have zero to add beyond thinking that it would bankrupt me paying that much. Cost of living and interest rate rises have hit everyone beyond the super rich, thinking otherwise is ignorant.

 

[ChrisD.]

Double post somehow.

 

[ChrisD.]

Oh yeah, inflation. Everything costs more, my take home remains fixed unless I get a massive 20+% pay rise which will never happen unless I find a new job!

 

[chrcoluk]

How dare you post with rationale and common sense.

Also, two people on £33,280 will get 30 hours of free childcare from the age of 3 (soon to go down), plus 20% saving for under 3 year olds, whereas someone on £100k and above does not. You could even have two people on £90k who earn £180k as a household, who are still entitled to childcare help.

Yeah this is a flaw in the system, been based on individual income instead of household income?