To ask for one, simple, summary about all the angry SAHM threads.

(461 Posts)
catinboots Thu 21-Mar-13 22:26:49

Pleaseeee??

I haven't read them all - but there seem to be lots of SAHMs on here today, moaning that they won't eat help with child are costs.

Eh?

Have I missed some key piece of information? Have a got it wrong?

Surely the whole point of being a SAHP is so that you don't need childcare?..

montmartre Thu 21-Mar-13 23:21:41

Ah sorry, thought you were a different poster! (Fr name)

Nope. I've never been French grin a bit of a dragon wink usually, but never French.

I didn't realise sahm got any help with childcare. Saying that I know a couple who arnt working at the moment yet they get help with childcare.

I've been a sahm for the last 3 years, I don't care if I'm not valued by society, my family are happy that I'm now at home which is all that matters.

I think there are a lot of assumptions about staying at home being a choice.

No way could I command a salary to cover the childcare costs of 3 young children (2 at home, 1 with a disability). All the cuts just make us even more poor and we were struggling before.

ImagineJL Thu 21-Mar-13 23:31:32

Please Startail, stop using the phrase "choosing to bring up their own children" when referring to SAHMs.

Firstly it's not always a choice - some working mums have no option.

But mainly, just because someone uses paid childcare while they work, doesn't mean someone else is "bringing up" their child. My heart breaks on the 2 nights a week I can't put my own kids to bed because I'm working, and reading your smug phrase implying they're being brought up by their nanny is really upsetting me.

I'm their mum - a single mum too - and I am bringing them up, no one else, just me.

VestaCurry Thu 21-Mar-13 23:52:31

Sorry I haven't read the other threads, so forgive me if this was said elsewhere.

The government wants/needs as many people wohm to generate tax revenue. One of the main reasons is the population is ageing and living longer. To support that change as many people as possible of working age need to be generating income, preferably at the level where the exchequer gets money into it's coffers. This is one of the longer term reasons and doesn't touch the whole more current deficit issue, lack of growth in the economy etc and if the government wants everyone earning it needs to ensure there are jobs and........affordable child care available. As ever the whole thing is a bugger's muddle and successive governments tinker with these issues putting their own ideological spin on the tinkering.

Tbh I couldn't give a rat's area anymore whether the government appreciates the time I've been a sahm or am wohm.

VestaCurry Thu 21-Mar-13 23:53:34

That'll be a rats arse not area

lljkk Fri 22-Mar-13 07:25:40

I think there perhaps ought to be scope for parents claiming JSA to have access to some help with childcare costs; probably opening a can of worms by suggesting that. But suppose someone is on fixed term contract and has a gap before they can get another job, it may be financially hard to retain a scarce nursery place during the gap and make it possible to take up the next job.

Otherwise I'm fully in the YANBU camp.

We've barely ever qualified for any of these childcare subsidies when I was working or since then looking for work, too (like now). So I am struggling with all the entitlement threads, from SAHPs or WOHPs.

Partridge Fri 22-Mar-13 07:55:16

Sorry if this has been said but I don't think sahms are moaning about the money issue but the pejorative tone that was used - "work hard and get on"...

As someone suffering a bit of a crisis of confidence and possibly lacking a bit of self worth (as the only affirmation I ever get is from my husband when he remembers) this was pretty nasty. To avoid the implication that I am lazy I volunteer in the evenings and take my toddler to help in the school library during the day - but I still often feel I have no status.

It would be lovely not to give a fuck what other people think as suggested up- thread - or just go and get a job if I'm unhappy - but just because I have chosen this lifestyle doesn't mean I am immune to what others think. And comments like that made by the pm make it worse.

I can relate to that Partridge.

I'm SAHM but job hunting at the moment. It's pretty competitive out there and a 4yr hole on my CV doesn't help...

ssd Fri 22-Mar-13 08:17:11

I dont think this gov has a clue

Budgiegirlbob Fri 22-Mar-13 09:56:14

I'm a SAHM with three kids, although I do run a very small business part time around my kids. I find the whole 'get on and work hard' attitude very patronising and condescending. Am I not working hard? I guess I'm a bit old fashioned, but I think it's important to be around as much as possible for my kids, but I'm made to feel by the government that I have no particular value to society.
I fully appreciate that for many, many families it is a necessity for both parents to work, just to feed, clothe and keep a roof over their children's heads, and for those people I think that help with childcare is essential.
But I think that the limit is set way too high so that it also is helping those who are choosing to work, rather than have to.
For instance, my neighbours and I are similar in that we are both a two parent, three children family, living in identical houses. I choose to be a stay at home mum with small parttime job,working dad, and both my neighbours work with their children going to childcare. Nothing wrong with that, that's each our own individual choice.
But here's my problem - my DH and I are on a joint salary if about £28000 before tax. We don't use any childcare. In order for me to be a SAHM we have made major sacrifices to our standard of living. We have two old bangers of cars. We go camping in the UK for our holidays. We don't go out all that often, we don't have any designer clothes, and we shop at Aldi.
My neighbours earn £250 000 before tax, and do use childcare. They drive two BMWs and have a sports car for weekends, they go on holiday to Barbados and skiing in the winter, they wear expensive clothes and shop at Waitrose, and all of that is fine with me, it's their lifestyle choice to work more and see their kids less.
But this government is telling me that they are worthy of an extra £3600 per year and I not. That they are working hard and I am not.
It's not hard to see why SAHP might just feel a little pissed off!

Pagwatch Fri 22-Mar-13 10:04:41

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

cazboldy Fri 22-Mar-13 10:13:35

Pag grin

The word thhat keeps being bandied about, and that we often disagree upon is choice.

Some people have no choice but to work

Some people have no choice but to sah

Some will be happy with that, some will be resentful..... and then when you feel you are being criticised for something you may have no control over, you (understandably) feel defensive.

There is no right way per se, like with many other things in life.... do what's right for you, and who cares what anyone else thinks.....

that sahm criticising working mothers, would probably like to have a job sometimes.... when the kids are getting on her nerves, and that wohm would probably like to be able to spend more time at home sometimes.....

at the end of the day, we are all just doing our best!

Dahlen Fri 22-Mar-13 10:16:31

Children are not a lifestyle choice in the same way as deciding to extend yourself to afford a bigger mortgage, choosing a holiday instead of a week in the UK, etc. Children are the way we perpetuate the species and we are biologically programmed to desire this. Being intelligent creatures we are able to apply thought to this and choose when and how many, but for most people, the urge to have at least one child is as much an instinct as eating. I think that's often forgotten by the "don't have children unless you can afford them" brigade.

Upwards of 80% of people in Western countries (higher elsewhere in the world) have children. It is a fundamental urge ensuring survival of the species.

So, given that we're all going to keep having children, and unless you subscribe to the idea that only the rich make good parents, we are going to have a situation where society has a lot of children who need looking after, and in many cases it is unaffordable for that to be done by a paid-for child-care professional.

We could say tough shit, let's not provide any help, but that would leave only the rich having children. hmm

We could make childcare more affordable. Good move. smile

We could recognise that since a child needs caring for perhaps one of its own parents could do it. shock Why on earth can't that be recognised as something that is helping society rather than just the family. A tax break or two for that really wouldn't be that much a hardship, surely.

BTW am a full-time working single mother who has always used professional childcare.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:21:36

I thought SAHP had their NI paid for them? isn't that a benefit for SAHP?

SoupDreggon Fri 22-Mar-13 10:21:49

SAHM's are very highly valued in society by most people I would say.

Not on Mumsnet they aren't! There's always someone popping up to say we aren't setting a good role model for our daughters and are somehow responsible for the poor way women can be viewed in the workplace.

What I don't understand is why you would need the government to validate your lifestyle choice by helping you out financially?

This equally applies to the government helping with childcare costs for working parents.

It is a bit hmm that there have been cuts to CB and child tax credits and then a boost to childcare funding.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 22-Mar-13 10:21:50

Why does anyone need acknowledgement that you are a stay at home mum

I thought I was in a very lucky position to do that even though I had been made redundant and single (no benefits) but that allowed me to have the money to stay at home or I would have had to return to work to pay mortgage/bills

What else did I need a big shiny badge hmm

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 10:23:35

I don't expect financial recognition for looking after my own dc. However, I would like recognition that my being at home enables my dh to do a job which generates a lot of tax for the bastard government. Without me being home, both of us would be in different jobs and paying less tax than he can pay on his own with the support of a sah spouse.

I would like to be able to transfer my tax allowance and I would like society to acknowledge that looking after children is important and valuable and I am not lazy/thick/boring because I have chosen to do this.

SolomanDaisy Fri 22-Mar-13 10:27:06

Basically the government has made the decision to use government revenue to subsidise the choices of families where both parents work, but not families where only one parent works. Thus endorsing one lifestyle choice and not the other. Families with one parent who stays at home could be subsidised through transferable tax allowances etc., it's not about childcare costs.

Frankly the amounts involved are so tiny that it's hardly worth worrying about. It's not like Britain has suddenly moved to a Swedish model of very cheap childcare and accompanying parental support policies.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:27:52

karma - a lot of women on MN talk about how much tax their DH pays. but if you look at the numbers, 50k salary is only 2k more tax than two people earning 26k.

50k = 14k tax
26k = 6k tax

(I obviously don't know if you DH is paying much more than that, so am making the general case).

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:28:27

I thought SAHP had their NI paid for them? isn't that a benefit for SAHP?

^

ScottyDoc Fri 22-Mar-13 10:29:44

Well said karma believer

My dh works like a dog and pays a ton of tax. What doesn't help is opportunistic ugly individuals such as Katie Hopkins going on daytime tv and outwardly belittling stay at home mothers. People like that contribute to PND in my experience. To top it off the government are desperate to get every physically able person out working to get the economy back, regardless of people's personal rights and choices and at the expense of their kids.

blueberryupsidedown Fri 22-Mar-13 10:31:32

Also, you don't get the tax break if the lower earner earns less than £10,000, which is the case for many families where one of the parent works part time at minimum wage.

So in my mind, this is unfair: Why do families earning £300,000 a year (that's not £30,000, that's £300,000 A YEAR) need financial help with child care? Why, Why, Why????

There are many examples of families who will be worst off on the new system, I am one of them, we will be worst off. And our average joint income is £48,000, not £300,000!

I'm a childminder and three of the four families I work for would (if the new system would be implemented now) would be worst off. Mostly because the mum works part-time or is self employed. Needless to say, none of them make £300,000 a year....

FreudiansSlipper Fri 22-Mar-13 10:32:46

How is you dh paying more tax

Do you mean you receive less cb which I agree is ridiculous but pay more tax than if you were both working how

And your family value you society is hard on women whatever they do many women would love the opportunity to stay at home

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now