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.
I think it's been explained really well on here,.
I don't this is an issue of anyone not understanding- its just that people
Don't agree. That's doesnt equal discrimination against SAHM mums though.
Karma- your DH earns over the threshold so you lose CB. If you go out and get a job tomorrow, you still won't be paid CB. Therefore its not a decision based on SAHM.
I agree with the point that the govt has a massive task trying to reverse decisions made by previous govt which really disincentivised people from working. The govt is unashamedly encouraging people to work because that's what generates money. That doesn't mean SAHM are 'forced' into the workplace, if you want to stay at home and can afford to then fine, twas ever thus.
As for pensions, don't start me on those.. NI contributions disappear out of my wages and from next month my occupational pension contributions increase massively... Does this mean I'll get more pension at the end? - er, no. The pension deal remains the same, I just have to pay more in to get the deal I signed up for. And as for state pension, well that couple of hundred quid continues to go out of my pay packet each month and god knows whether they'll be any state pension left by the time I retire! Does that mean I'll get a refund for all the tens of thousands I've paid in over a lifetime- nope, it doesn't work that way
Believe me, you don't have to look very far to find things that seem
Unfair when you're working, but life doesn't work that way does it- you pay into the pot regardless of what you take out. I've also mentioned before that I have never been in hospital, didn't even have my babies there so I cost the NHS the minimum amount through pregnancy and childbirth- does that mean I get some sort of payback? - of course not
It's possible to see 'injustices' everywhere If you look at your own personal circumstances rather than the bigger picture
Misty9 - Rebecca Asher's book 'Shattered' is excellent, I agree. Although her starting point was that of a mum who found mat leave v tough and was relieved to go back to work after a year (think it was a year) - she picks apart the 'choices' available to women re work and family, and how dads' experience is so different.
She's also good on why women waste time attacking each other and losing sight of the bigger picture in terms of parenthood/money/work.
Rain- I haven't read that book but my theory as to why so many women end up attacking eachother is quite simple. We all love our own children so much, and our one core desire is to see them grow up healthy, happy fulfilled and feeling in charge of their own life. We invest so much in them that it's very difficult to accept that we have far less control over their destiny than we think. All those different debates- bf or ff, attachment parenting or not, working or not, childminder or nursery, which school... I think there's a real pressure to feel that if we nurture our children in the most approved manner (according to whichever trend is in fashion at the time!) then they will grow up to be happier, more successful etc
The fact is, there are so many different ways of doing things and it's sometimes hard to accept that what we do may not make the impact we like to think.
I think parents should try to enter into parenting doing their best (obviously) but not assuming that any particular course of action, or any particular sacrifice, will necessarily bring about a particular result. And that's an issue which cuts across WOHP and SAHP. Imagine a working parent thinking "I've worked hard all these years to provide a better life for you"... It's parallel really with a SAHP thinking "I sacrificed my career to provide a better life for you..."!!! I feel very strongly that decisions about working or not need to be based on what the whole family (and that includes dad) feels is right for that individual family at that time. Not because you are expecting some sort of pay back from your children.
I am fortunate: my two children are healthy, happy and settled. Do I think this is because I'm a WOHM? No. I think they would be the same if I were a SAHM. A lot of it is down to personality, genes, and of course ensuring the key adults in their lives are caring etc
FWIW my mum was a traditional SAHM in the 60/70s and my dad worked long hours so we saw less of him, and mum did 99% of the domestic tasks. I feel closer to my dad than I do to my mum. Probably because personality and a huge number of other variables come into play rather than a black and white equation.
Sorry- went off piste a bit there, but was interested in the book rainrain mentioned
found this in telegraph.
figures come from oecd.
The OECD, which brings together the governments of the worlds advanced economies, studied the taxes on wages in its 32 member countries. It studied the four typical household groups single people earning the average wage, a single parent with two children earning two thirds of the average, a one-earner couple with two children on the average wage and a two-earner couple with two children.
The report compared tax take today with figures from 2009 and 2000.
In Britain, the single parent had seen the biggest fall in tax from 15 per cent of their earnings in 2000 to 8.4 per cent, largely because of the tax credit system. The single persons tax rate fell from 32.6 per cent to 32.3 per cent.
The two-earner couples tax rate fell from 28.3 per cent to 28 per cent now.
However, the single-earner couples tax rate rose from 27.8 per cent in 2000 to 27.9 per cent. They have also seen a large rise in taxes since 2009 far outstripping the increase for the other groups. This is because of the reduction in child benefit and changes to tax credits.
Traditional British families pay an average of 1.7 percentage points more tax than the international average equivalent to £170 additional tax annually for every £10,000 they earn.
In America, a family earning twice the average wage pays only 25.6 per cent in tax 13 percentage points less than in this country. Even wealthy traditional family units in Germany fare better.
The study prompted renewed calls from Conservative MPs for the Coalition to do more to support stay-at-home mothers. Several ministers, including Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, are becoming increasingly exasperated at the failure to introduce the tax break for married couples.
Nick de Bois, the Conservative MP for Enfield North, said: The instincts of the Conservatives is to support families, including through the tax system. These figures show that we need to do more to recognise those families in future Budgets. A good start would be transferable tax allowances. Campaigners have pointed out that Britain is one of the few countries in the world not to
recognise marriage in the tax system
Last week, the Coalition angered stay-at-home mothers by changing its system of support for child care to exclude those not returning to work.
A stay-at-home mother, Laura Perrins, who confronted Mr Clegg on the issue, said on Tuesday night: It is wrong for the Government to be stacking the economic incentive against a mum who may want to stay at home and look after her children. They are incentivising mums to go out to work. Whether she decides to go to work full time or part time is a private decision. Stay-at-home mothers have a contribution to society that you are not able to measure on GDP figures.
Last week, speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, defended the child care plans, saying it was economically beneficial for mothers to return to the workplace.
On Tuesday night, a Downing Street spokesman appeared to play down the importance of mothers staying at home by saying the system was designed to help those who want to work hard and get on. He added: The UKs system of individual taxation provides stronger work incentives than the tax systems of many other OECD countries.
Most sahm mums worked and paid tax prior to leave.
Some higher earner single incomes pay more tax than 2basic rate tax payers.
2basic rate tax payers can get more in befenefits due to their low earnings that tax paid so their contribution tax is negative one if state has to pay 70%of their childcare to allow then to go work in nmw job for huge company , they get cheap labour and state subsidises low earners.
I would much rather have seen child benefit capped at 2kids and I have 3.
Even if more affluent families husbands can be abusive an controlling.
Im a sahm mum not through choice if I had capability of highre earnings and family nearby I would have stayed as working mum.
The new changes dont benefit or incentivise middle income mum to go out find work because
both incomes need to be over 10k I know a lot of part time working mums and pro rata or min wage they be under than threshold.
But because their partner is deemed to earn too much they possibly got child benefit taken away, wont be eligible for new 1200 per child as under 10k but wont be eligible for tax credits once again because their partner earns too much.
worked out on old salary of 20k under new system childcare for 3 i be £1600 worse off by working and thats not even including commuting costs.That was just gross income -gross childcare.
I think people need to stop judging each other.
not every sahm is lazy and being subsidized by the state.
That most time its number crunching so if dads lower paid then sometimes he choses to stay at home.
They need to take a good look at childcare provision across the country as its very uneven.
I was shocked to discover that 3hour session at my local preschool is less than 4quid same amont time in south east essex, lomdon, kent is 14-16quid!
Not every state school has breckfast club or after school club.
Not every area has aqdequate provision on holiday cover and state school holidays 14weeks a year plus inset days not even adding in sickness , bad weather days then thats alot for working parent to coveras most get 6weeks a year so have great sympathy for single working parents.
It smacks to me of stupidy they want all the gains without the investment or checking out the provision.
Lower the rations of childcare wont bring down the costs or increase he quality.
Its bit like the bedroom tax which in principle I agree with but disagree with execution.
If theres no smaller social homes for them to downsize to then what choices do they have?
They not having mass building of social housing like they need to be.
Feel the whole childcares similar analogy of the provisions not there.
Or the costs prohibitive.
then what choice does the sahm have.
I hate the way working parents and sahm parents been pitted against each other.
we all crunch the numbers look at provison and the jobs incomes we have and make choice accordingly who am I to judge those at work but who are they to judge me.
I think in employment when went back fultime after maternity i felt discriminated against.
I cant do my old role part time.
I cant afford to retrain
so at moment im stuck at home trying to be self employed and full time carer to 2 under 4s.
I love them have good days and bad.
I have enabled husband to move companies and possibly inline for promotion his salary has increased but so has cost of living and we lost £40 a month tax credits last april.
I dont think its the financial stuff that sahm are most peeved about although the wealthy getting more is unfair its the negative use of language.
the whole we support those who want to work hard and get on and when questioned about sahm mums they have no answer.
Britains genius policy excludes 1.2 million stay-at-home parents. And to make matters worse, the PM had some very choice words for SAH mums and dads. Good ole Camerons official spokesman (who will probably be unemployed after all of this just sayin!) responded to a comment by press asking if the Prime Minister was concerned that the vouchers penalized SAHMs. And the official spokesman responded on behalf of the PM that the measures were very important as part of supporting those who want to work hard and to get on. Uh, sorry but can you explain again how SAHM or SAHDs are not working hard? And not getting on? Cause to be honest, Im a little confused.
But heres the real kicker the press continued with questions, asking whether or not Mr. Cameron believed that stay-at-home parents were less in need of state help than working parents. The spokesman, who officially dug his own grave with this response, said that the Prime Minister wanted to support aspiration. AGAIN SO CONFUSED. How are SAH parents not aspiring?
Never fear! The insults just kept on comin. The spokesman (can this guy stop talking already?!) added, The announcement is very specifically focusing on helping those who want to work hard and face the very high child care costs. He then said that the Prime Minister stressed that the Coalition wants to direct its help at parents who want to go out to work.
I mean do they not have half a brain to consider a sahm mums reaction to this?
Dont know % of sahm thse days guess we dwindlining numbers and not as powerful as greay bote but guess what being at home I can easily go polling station and vote them out thats if dident hate labour so much.
Rock and hard place springs to mind.
Im so dissaapointed in them I dont think
we all in this together
The word big society long forgotton volunatry work is worthless I guess as doesnt pay the tax man!
Maybe im living in fairy land but would love to see all parents working or sahm campaign for fairness in tax system and greater support towards working parents.
Lot of these changes are unfair and we should fight them.
Im happy to stand up and be counted say thsi childcare change is
unfair to working mums and student mums and im neither of those groups.
Im also happy to say it disadvantes lower earners and my husbands a middle earner.
I dont just care about my old self interest.
At end of day its not about money at stake its our children in their botched policies will affect kids.
I dont see why wealthy oaps cant ease some of burden.
karma I wonder how much your DH is paying in tax that he apparently is covering everything .
If a housewife need validation sort yourself out dont Expect govt to magic a validation potion
I am loving Janey's posts, and could not agree more.
Ultimately people need to own their choices.
No I don't believe that they are discriminated against, but if you choose to stay home, you should not do so relying on state benefits.
It is strange how others are considering that someone else i.e DH are paying their share of tax too....
Tax doesnt work like that, I rarely use the NHS or the state education system which is of course another debate completely. Can I get my money back because I am paying for others to use it who are perhaps not working? No, of course I cannot.
God forbid we start literally counting up what someone has contributed in tax over the years and then decide what they can have but many on this thread are saying that so and so has paid taxes and therefore they are entilted to claim etc etc.
Pensions go to everyone regardless of whether you have paid or not. This means that someone will be paying for others... Its how the system works.
It's not about 'owning choices', it's about not being discriminated against for making those choices. As a hrt payer, dh gets no cb, tax credits for his family, but he and many like him will be contributing to the child care and cb costs of families whose income is higher than ours.
We either view people as individuals for tax or we don't. I have no independent income but am not viewed as separate when it comes to benefits. I don't actually think that's wrong, but by the same token family income should be considered across the board.
The way things are going maisie, I don't think it's a leap for the govt to soon say only direct tax payers can access benefits of any kind. It shouldn't be forgotten that dual earners can pay tax but get more back in tax credits etc than they pay in. Therefore, they are no more valuable, in an economic sense than the hrt payer with the sah spouse.
I don't want validation from the govt, I just want a level playing field.
karma - how much tax do you want to be transferable? what do you think would be fair?
You know I would NOT want to see us judged by how much we put in or have the ability to opt out. Having said that if I had that option it would really benefit our family income wise if we could do that but I know this isnt going to happen in a million years.
From an economic point of view it wouldnt work as I and my DH are effectively the sort of tax payers the gov likes. If they lost us economically who will pay for the services? I dont mean we are single handely paying everyone else's taxes (!!) but when someone doesnt work (and uses education, NHS etc) the money has to come from somewhere. Its not a dig at people who have chosen to be a SAHP but the money has to come from somewhere.
To a certain extent in this current climate I think we are all on a lose lose.
Unless you are fortunate enough to be a millionaire, then it has become harder and harder to have a reasonable standard of living without a dual income - this I think is a reality for many families.
The government wants us to consume to keep the economy running, but this inevitably means two incomes as if you have one income these days, unless it is in its 6 figures, you are not able to consume as much as you were 10 years ago - and this includes the costs of housing, which are astronomical.
The tax transferable idea. It would be a nightmare to administer.... What would be classed as a relationship? A marriage, a gay relationship, a relationship that is permament after say xx months. What would happen if the relationship broke down etc etc. Who would be informed? There would need to be 100's of extra gov people to manage this.
In my parents generation it was easier. Marriage was far more common, single parents were not as common.
Thank you iceberg
I also believe strongly it's about looking at the bigger picture.
If the govt are incentivising dual middle income families over the traditional set up of high earner father and SAHM then ideologically I have no problem with that. It's not that long since the pendulum was firmly swung the other way and women had very little choice but to find a husband and then remain at home. And god knows there are enough women on here bemoaning the fact that they've had to sacrifice their work life to support a high earning husband, doing 99% of child and home related stuff so they can facilitate his career. Is this really what you aspire to for your daughters? To have the pressure of university, career choice and then the pressure of giving it up to enable the husband to fly high? And do you want that pressure for your sons?
I think incentivising families to have more equal roles is a step forward,
not backwards. If a husband doesn't have the pressure of having to earn the big bucks single handed, it will give him more time to do the childcare and home stuff which all these high flying husbands we keep hearing about aren't able to do.
If in a couple of generations it's more the norm for couples to be more equal, sharing parental leave, domestic things and earning, then RESULT! Of course, it won't be our generation which directly benefits which is why so many people don't welcome change- unless they are the direct beneficiary. But I would like to think my children and grandchildren have more balanced lives. And of course for those who still want the set up of a career husband and SAHM, well that's fine too, it's still a choice if you want it, but I think it will be progress if it's not just seen as the norm.
If Laura Perrins had explained her concerns in less sexist language (ie referring to SAHPs not SAHMs) I might listen to her more sympathetically. As it is she seems to be saying the government should exped taxpayer's money to support a parenting choice (stay-at-home motherhood) in the absence of any clear evidence that this leads to better outcomes for children than the alternatives. She cannot seriously expect the government to make policy on this basis.
maisie, because dh is a hrt payer, I do think that he is subsidising me to be a sahm, not the state. I can see that it would be viewed differently if we were topped up by tax credits. But then, there would be no need for tax credits etc if the govt forced big business to pay a living wage.
As for amount of transferable tax allowance, maybe 10k. Just enough to compensate a bit for the 40% tax rate. Although I would much prefer an end to the 40% tax rate, certainly at the level at which it is applied. Truthfully I don't have any hard and fast figures in my head regarding that - it's more the principle of it, really.
Just read start of thread (sorry, will catch up, but first thoughts ....)
Early on supperline said that SAHM's aren't discriminated against any more than people who've been unemployed And that "it's the gap in the CV that makes things difficult" Others have suggested that filling that "gap" with voluntary work or P/T work may help. But to me it shouldn't just be seen as a gap
It's time that's been very purposefully, busily, and positively spent on the important task of raising the next generation ! It's silly if being a parent governor or some other relatively small voluntary commitment is viewed so much more positively than what our main job (raising our DC's) has been.
It needs to be recognised, especially by employers and government, as a perfectly legitimate and respected endeavour in it's own right.
janey, I would hope for that too, in the long term, but I honestly don't see it happening because it would require too much from companies who are invested in keeping things exactly as they are.
I don't see transferable tax allowance as that hard. As for changing it if circumstances within a relationship alter - that happens all the time within the benefits system, or even from tax year to tax year, people's tax codes alter.
"The tax transferable idea. It would be a nightmare to administer.... What would be classed as a relationship? A marriage, a gay relationship, a relationship that is permament after say xx months. What would happen if the relationship broke down etc etc. Who would be informed? There would need to be 100's of extra gov people to manage this".
In the same way that we currently make it work for the benefit system. It works well in the rest of Europe, and they manage to define who a family is perfectly well.
People will be complaining in a minute that transferable parental leave discriminates against the higher earning husbands, because they can't afford the drop in earnings as easily as a dual middle income family!
Honestly, you have to wonder whether some women actually want greater equality. Yes, if you partner a guy who earns big bucks and your career pays second fiddle, then when you have kids you'll no doubt have more pressure to take the 12 months leave rather than split it between you, because his income will drop further. But it's a CHOICE isn't it? Swings and roundabouts.
Sorry NN should have been Snuppeline not supperline.
You can blame it on my poss mild dyslexia/ADD or that I hadn't had any breakfast yet !
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.