The review found that most women would like to work part-time or not at all when their children are under five but they cannot afford to do so. The report calls on the Government to replace the current system of tax credits with a universal allowance of £60 per child per week, which parents could keep or choose to spend on child care.
Should we pay mothers to stay at home? Do you agree that many mothers would like not to work but cannot afford to do so? And what about fathers?
Is it better for children to be cared for by their parents than by nannies or at nurseries?
Or should the Government be offering more help to poorer families, rather than paying all parents the same
amount?






While we were both working, and this was in Massachusetts mind you, we were
basically spending 2 hours each on the road, and filling up our car's tanks 3 times a week. He worked in Randolph and I worked in Foxborough, we lived in
Fall River. In short, no logical way to share the ride, that was almost an equilateral triangle. Just in commuting costs alone we were saving at least, if
not more, than $5000. We'd get in from work, dog tired, most nights neither of us felt like cooking and thought the other looked more tired than we were,
so we ordered in or ate out. He took over the cooking when his job ended, so we were eating at home more, much much much better food (Stray's an excellent
cook), and we were saving at least, if not more, than $5000. He'd do the laundry, he'd do the errands that would cost one of us a day's pay if
both of us were working, he'd work on the cars, he'd do the things that we had to hire other people to do when we were both working, and we were saving
a lot more than $5000. Gee... all of a sudden, even though less money was going into savings, the account was growing because we didn't have to withdraw
from savings after his job ended.