ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Are SAHMS discriminated against. Red magazine are doing an article about it.(1000 Posts)
Just seen this on twitter.
Are stay at home mums discriminated against? Are you one and unhappy with benefits, or feel judged? Tell us.
Red might want to do a housewifes have spoken quiz. The why have children if
A)you never get to see them
B)work all hours for materialistic gain and useless iPad.mere baubles
C)Didn't marry well enough to be nice gerl with a man who'll work to keep you
partimeworker: That's a shame that it's going pear shaped so soon after finding such a great solution. You talk a lot of sense and the crucial thing is about working together as parents to find a solution you are both happy with, and then regularly 'revisiting' the situation to ensure things are working smoothly. I think it's also important to remember that things change, and what may be good at one point in time may not be viable or good at another. I'm sure even if there is a temporary hiccup in your plans, you'll be able to work things out with such a positive approach
I know Vivienne. I don't know any such martyrs in rl, although I do know a lot of sahp.
By the way, cb stops for all families where one parent earns above the threshold. That includes families where both parents work too. I know there are some families where the breadwinner is very controlling of the purse strings and it maybe the only money the sahp receives in their name, but that is not the majority. Am really not sure why for most cases a sahp would feel the loss more than a working parent.
Isn't this thread supposed to be about returning to work not making inflammatory and unsubstantiated remarks about childcare and a desire not to work?
Maisie, you described your 'experience' of interviewing SAHMs for a part time post and implied that they were ALL lacking in some way or entitled. You attributed these faults to their SAH status. When in reality it has nothing to do with that and if you where recruiting fairly and objectively their SAH role would be an irrelevance. That is poor recruitment practice because you are exhibiting some kind of bias. SAHP, returning to work after a few years out haven't a hope in hell if shoddy recruitment and selection practices like that are used!
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Scottishmummy - you are a daft apath
aye mo,well I've never married,I'm avaricious husk and kids go mrs hannigans nursery
so are you choosing A,B Or C
Thanks anotheryearolder and janey68 - I am just really about it at the moment, but hopefully I will manage to find something that suits us all.
I should add that DH says that the comments he got about going part time from colleagues weren't too bad/ too many (and some were envious); point is he got some negativity and I got none.
I think that even if we end up with a situation where men can work part time/take parental leave (in the same way as women) etc, there will still be a lot of jobs where this is not tolerated/encouraged and one parent will still end up working in a full on role while the other stays home to facilitate this. the only change will be that more women will be doing the full on role, while more men will be doing the sah one.
It will make women feel less disadvantaged in the workplace, but in terms of economic benefit to a sahp, it will be much the same.
I just found this article while perusing through the headlines of tomorrows papers. Thought some of you might be interested.
Wow, I have been amazed by how much I have read over the last few days everywhere on the SAHM argument. There are a lot of very angry people out there!
I am a SAHM and while I don't feel discriminated against, I am mightily hacked off about the ridiculous way in which the government has attempted to fix all the benefit problems across the board. I am sure cb won't exist for much longer, fine, but how can currently taxing ours back from my DH be the best way to go? I have no faith in our tax system. Would it not be fairer to pay cb for each child up until age 5?
I can't decide if the government is just incompetent or if it's a cynical divide and conquer policy, come up with random figures, reasons and thresholds for cutting all benefits and hope there won't be any joined up protest for it.....
I am happy being a SAHM. I didn't have a career, I have had jobs and although I was made redundant at the end of my maternity leave so I did not have the opportunity to go back, none of those pre-child jobs would have been important enough to go back to for me. Yes, we have given up a lot and no, I do not have a lifestyle of ease and luxury, but I love that I could make the choice. And I know that I am so lucky to have the luxury of a choice. It's so sad that so many parents don't have the opportunity of that choice. The ideal would be to support those who want to work while also supporting those who want to stay at home. It will never happen and until then, we can all just bicker amongst ourselves about who is the most wrong in their parenting choices.....
This is a topic very close to our family at the moment - and as this thread hasn't descended into silliness/insult swapping
yet I thought I'd post my tuppence worth. I'm a sahm to our 18mo ds, partly through choice and partly because there are no jobs in my field at the moment. A field I spent nearly ten years training to qualify and haven't actually worked in (as a qualified) since having ds just after.
I also believe that ideally (and only when the parent wants to, because a depressed sahp is the worst option for any child, though I know some depressed parents have no other option but to be the main carer) babies and toddlers do best with a parent at home looking after them. That doesn't mean that wohp are doing wrong by their children - just that they're doing the best they can given the circumstances. As we all try to do. I was shocked at how many of my parent friends have had flexible working refused (I naively thought it was a right to have it, not just to request it) and think the attitude towards part time working is a massive part of our problem in this country. That and the culture of only women requesting it. I wholeheartedly agree with aldwick's early post, and was pleasantly surprised to see such sentiments expressed on this forum.
For me the main issue is not a need to feel validated for what I do as a sahm, but other people's attitude that looking after a child full time is 'opting out of work for a few years' (or words to that effect as posted by someone up thread). I am not opting out of working - I am doing a job I personally consider to be more important right now. And yes, some acknowledgment of that by the government would be nice.
I highly recommend a read of 'shattered' by Rebecca Asher. Lots of research about this very topic, and good coverage of the 'dads' aspect too.
As for me, I think I'll continue to look for work (pt) and am very fortunate to not financially need to at the moment (would be royally screwed if it was financially necessary) but I am very concerned about the effect of a long absence on my cv.
If SAHP's need validation it should come from their spouse not the government, presuming of course the spouse was in full agreement as some SAHPs I have seen told their DHs they were being one regardless.
The Tories are trying to reverse the situation we currently have where Labour threw money at people for not working. All the changes to policies have been to ensure working pays as we need as many people as possible to contribute to the pot. Therefore giving free childcare to parents who dont work doesnt fit with that message hence the change.
SAHP have their pension contributions paid for them, if they want payment then that comes from working not the state. We dont need to pay people for their lifestyle choices. Choosing not to work then throwing a hissy fit about not getting handed money by the the state in the guise of "validation" is daft.
but CB does not discriminate against SAHP.
One WOHP and one SAHP earn one salary of 35k. they get CB.
One WOHP and one SAHP earn one salary of 65k. they dont get CB.
now if the SAHP now starts paid employment, nothing changes (unless they start earning over 60k) - so the govt is neither incentivising or disincentivising that family to have a SAHP.
of course you can always pick and choose numbers that you don't think are fair, comparing yours with another family, but everyone can do that all the time and tis pointless.
But happy, high earners in a household with a sahp, pay more tax than dual earners on the same combined salary. How is that fair or of benefit to society? Also dual earners on low wages get topped up by the state because they often don't get a living wage. This is just the govt supporting business by subsiding their wage bill. Of course this is paid for by people like my dh, taxed at 40% and not in receipt of cb.
If sah is a lifestyle choice, so is working in a highly paid job that you don't need in order to survive. Am not sure why it is okay to subsidise their child care bill.
But happy, high earners in a household with a sahp, pay more tax than dual earners on the same combined salary
but high earners pay a higher rate of tax than low earners. this is nothing to do with SAH/WOH. dual earner family are each paying less tax because they each earn less, not because of some special allowance for families where both WOH.
if one of the 30k per year couple stopped working to SAH, the others tax rate would not change. not would their CB entitlement.
so WOH/SAH does not affect tax rates or CB entitlement.
Well karma it's a matter of pure economics, innit?
The more high earners the better vis a vis the country's tax take.
Let's be honest, a small number of tax payers carry the tax burden. So we need to increase their numbers. We know that many women drop out of that category post DC, so any means of encouraging them to stay in the work force means more lucre for the state to spend on public services.
A small bit of government help might result in a tenfold repayment.
Almost everyone is discriminated in some way, shape or form. Some groups are discriminated against more than others. Some people just always see discrimination when it doesn't apply to them.
Single people can feel discriminated against because they get clobbered for single supplements on holidays and weekends away. Those without kids can feel discriminated against because they pay all their taxes but get far less back than those with kids.
It's never going to be perfect, sadly.
But I lose cb on the basis of my dh's wage, whereas families with the same income get to keep theirs. Either we are viewed ans taxed as individuals or we aren't. Seems the govt stack the odds to favour whatever group is currently in favour. Still don't see why my dh should pay for everything and get nothing back, when families with higher income keep cb and get child care paid for
Still don't see why my dh should pay for everything and get nothing back
you get pension credits which the working couple wont get.
What on earth do you mean, you don't get anyhting back?
Do you not use the NHS? Do your DC not go to school? If your house was on fire would you call 999?
I am talking about in taxation terms As for tax credits, I view those as being paid for by my dh and of limited worth, given that the eligibility age of pensions continues to rise and there is no guarantee I will ever receive it.
Meant pension credits, not tax credits.
karma - but everyone else pays NI and has no guarantee of an actual pension. you are no different.
and a couple where both earn over 60k could view they have paid doubly for CB but don't get any. again SAH/WOH again has NO effect.
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.