Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

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?..

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 10:33:00

Faster, dh earns more than 50k, so is paying more tax. Back when I worked, I earned significantly less than 26K so it really is the case that on his own he pays more tax than if we both had lower paying jobs.

FrillyMilly Fri 22-Mar-13 10:37:33

Surely though those who feel forced out of the work place by childcare could use this scheme to get back to work? I'm a mum of 2 who are not yet in school and I work 4 days a week. I don't earn a huge amount, I'm not well off but we get by even with the childcare. I don't think of childcare as coming just from my wage though. It is paid equally by me and DH, DH also does the drop offs and I do the pick ups. Childcare is not just a woman's responsibility.

The woman who phoned the radio and confronted nick clegg gets no sympathy from me I'm afraid. Her husband brings home at least £3.5k a month given that she lost her child benefit, she had to leave her job as a barrister because she couldn't afford childcare yet she wants the state to somehow subsidise her? I'm sorry but there are people much more deserving of government help.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 22-Mar-13 10:38:24

You dh does not pay 40% tax of all his wage it is what he earns over 35k

less that 35k you pay 20%

LadybirdsEverywhere Fri 22-Mar-13 10:39:11

I think that the point is that the £1200 is a tax break, not that it is specifically for child care. This tax break is only available if both (or the lone) parents work. A SAHM would double her household income if she went back to work and the family would receive a tax break, but by staying at home to bring up her children and having one wage, the family does not receive the, now more necessary, tax break.

I think the issue is clouded somewhat when parents are high earners. . Imagine it the situation instead with two shop assistants; lower income families are forced to put their children in nursery to stay afloat.

ScottyDoc Fri 22-Mar-13 10:40:20

Society are much kinder these days to women who work. If you don't you aren't given the same amount of respect that a barrister or teacher for example, would be given. With the amount of so called high quality childcare available, some have the attitude that there's no real need anymore to stay at home and look after your own kids. I know I've put up with this since having my own dcs and the sad thing is much of it has come from my own family.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:41:26

ok the average person earns 26k and pays around 2k in NI every year.

a SAHP gets NI credits, which on average are worth 2k.

so that is a benefit for SAHP...... or am I wrong?

DolomitesDonkey Fri 22-Mar-13 10:43:03

In once sentence?

"Too much time on hands, seeking arguments for stimulation."

LinusVanPelt Fri 22-Mar-13 10:43:44

"Some of us choose to bring up our own children"... Yes, Startail , every one of us who hasn't placed our children in care or handed over custody has made that exact same choice.

It has fuck all to do with whether we work outside the home or not. What an ignorant thing to say.

GetOeuf Fri 22-Mar-13 10:44:37

I think the woman who had a go at Nick Clegg painted her argument very well.

One one hand the government is giving out allowances for those people who work (up to a very high salary earned) and yet are removing child benefit wholesale for households who earn a lot less. The one universal benefit which SAHMs have had (as well as WOHMs) has been taken away and another one introduced which can only be claimed by mothers who work.

I undertsand that argument and why is seems unfair and seems to support a belief that choosing to be a SAHM isn't seen as a valid choice. And I have never been a SAHM, or wanted to be.

GetOeuf Fri 22-Mar-13 10:45:23

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

jellybeans Fri 22-Mar-13 10:47:49

I think it is more the anti SAHP digs that the Gov give and the unfairness of the CB cuts.

coralanne Fri 22-Mar-13 10:48:14

My DD is a primary teacher but she has given up paid teaching to home school her DC.

Scotty she has only had admiration and total respect from everyone she knows.

purits Fri 22-Mar-13 10:49:48

The problem is the nation's change in mindset.
They used to be embarrassed to admit that they needed state handouts.
Now they seem to think that they are an entitlement.
How did that happen?

ByTheWay1 Fri 22-Mar-13 10:52:10

I'm a SAHM and a carer for my MIL (who nobody thinks is ill enough to require paid for care, or even for me to paid a carer's allowance, despite walking into the middle of the road randomly when out and about, or putting the tea towel on the gas burner etc..)

If I go out to work, my kids will need childcare outside school hours and my MIL will need someone to care for her or go into sheltered housing - this would cost more than any wage I could currently make, a tax break of 20% of childcare costs up to a max of £1200 for children under 5 (which I don't have) is SOOOOOOOOO not likely to make me want to do that.....

it is all smoke and mirrors designed to CUT the deficit and "increase growth" (minimum wage jobs cleaning toilets and wiping old folks bums do not increase growth!) - hence some people need to LOSE money, and pay more in taxes whilst not many will gain..... but if the government can get everyone arguing about the divisive SAHP/WOHP crap then who notices.....

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:53:41

one universal benefit which SAHMs have had

NOOOOOOOOOOO they get NI credits as well. WOHP don't get NI credits

but hey why let the facts get in the way of a whinge!

ScottyDoc Fri 22-Mar-13 10:54:19

I'm glad for your friend CoralAnne that's at least a positive story.

It's a shame though that so many like myself who choose to give up work and be SAHMs are seen as letting the side down almost.

Doraemon Fri 22-Mar-13 10:56:37

I am a childminder, currently on maternity leave. Under the new system, I suspect I would be financially better off sending my baby to another childcare provider while I look after someone else's child, and claim the tax break. It does annoy me that when caring for someone else's baby I am seen to be working, but caring for my own children as a sahm is seen as not working.

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 10:59:08

Why does anyone give a shiny shit whether other people approve of their particular work and childcare arrangements?!

We choose to both work PT, share childcare, and use paid childcare for 2 days a week. Woo fucking hoo. It happens to mean a significant hit in our income - so we don't holiday abroad, buy brand new clothes, own flashy gadgets etc, but we both think the non financial dividends for the whole family are well worth it. SAHMs do not have a monopoly on making financial sacrifices.

I really couldn't give a fig whether the govt, or anyone on MN, or indeed my RL friends and family "value" or "approve of" our choices. It makes my DH, me and my DS happy. End of story.

(Presumably the point being made about NI contributions for SAHPs is being conveniently ignored by some posters.)

Crinkle77 Fri 22-Mar-13 10:59:10

I think it had something to do with the wording about rewarding hard working parents. It implied that SAHM's were not hard working

mirry2 Fri 22-Mar-13 10:59:34

Dolomites - "Too much time on hands, seeking arguments for stimulation." grin you took the words out of my mouth

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 11:00:16

I think the point that many of you are failing to see is that a temporary sahm needs some sort of childcare to be able to actively seek work. If some of you lost your jobs through redundancy you too would be classed as a sahp until you found work. Not everybody has extended family to provide childcare in these times.
How on earth can you job seek with one or more pre school dc trailing along. How will potential employers cope at interview? Will they be bound to provide a creche, because otherwise you are cutting off part of society from seeking work.

Startail Fri 22-Mar-13 11:01:31

I will use the phrase choose to bring up my own DCs if I like!

Because I have friends who definitely choose to work full time to fund expensive houses and private schools ensuring they never see their children.

I have friends who choose to live on amazingly tight budgets so they can HE.

And I have friends who choose to work, evenings and school hours to ensure they do see their DCs.

Most people have some choice.

Everyone has the choice not to have DCs and if they do have DCs to choose their partner wisely. (Death and ill health excepted)

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 11:02:36

The continued insistence on seeing childcare as a woman's job to organise/pay for - both on MN and the wider media may actually cause me to rupture an aneurysm.

You do not earn X "after childcare". Your family's income may be X after childcare but why the flying fuck is it only counted as coming out of one wage?!

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 11:03:11

(Obviously LPs do earn X "after childcare")

Startail Fri 22-Mar-13 11:05:09

Me I chose not to work for nothing and be there for my DDs, especially in the holidays.

Sometimes it feels like Hobson's choice because if I had school based child care and granny round the corner I'd have made a different choice.

But choose I did.

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