To think people who CHOOSE to be SAHPs should not claim income related benefits(277 Posts)
I wholeheartedly support benefits for SAHPs and believe they should be able to live adequately without working if they can't work. When I say can't work I mean when one of their children is SEN, they'd have less money after childcare than they would claiming benefits, they are disabled etc.
What really annoys me is the following situation:
Husband earns 35k, wife earns 25k, they have a baby and wife decides to stay at home and therefore is able to claim 5k in tax credits.
They are just example figures as I don't know how much tax credits realistically are.
IMO if you choose to be a SAHP then you foot the bill.
I will repeat I have no issue with those who need to as they'd be worse off working. Do have an issue with those who'd be "slightly better off" working, don't and still claim. AIBU?
No was probably good thing.
Hope you feel better soon and get baby out before christmas.
I am still pregnant! DS is my eldest. I'm relaxed over the occasional small glass of wine, but think spirits should probably wait till the baby's here.
And sorry, I killed the thread. I'll slink away now.
Hot toddy wouldn't hurt surely- you missed drinking whilst pg.
Seriously one hot toddy would be fine surely(whole lot better than Night Nurse).
Sorry, sorry! DS has a cold, I have a cold, I was up all night soothing his hacking while hacking myself, and I'm heavily pregnant. Rapidly reaching that point in sleep deprivation when you feel drunk. (And I SO want a hot toddy. Life is cruel.)
As you were!
Nah. They're a niche subject. No fair.
AIBU to think breastfeeding a 5 year old at my wedding was a bit weird? It was meant to be childfree anyway, but she just brought her along when I said nursing mothers were exempt. I later found out her dd wasn't vaccinated and three other relatives have since developed smallpox. (They weren't actually at the wedding but you know how contagious diseases are.) She lives a really alternative lifestyle on tax credits as she doesn't think her dds will get the same level of care if she works and her ex doesn't really contribute much. She had a huge go at me for using a p & c parking space on the way to the reception, too, even though my dress needed the extra space and I was frantic for a pee. My MIL told her she didn't want her type lowering the tone and to do one, which was so not her place with my family at my wedding paid for by our money, but my DH says he won't get involved because MIL and DIL often have issues and it's for us to sort out.
Should I LTB?
Have to say I agree with Jack's last post with the addition of them needing to make their minds up re universal benefits.Either get rid of them all or keep them all. The CB just looks petty and ridiculous when you factor in WFA,fsm etc.Incidentally lots of parents without ks1 kids won't get fsm.
The bonkers nonsensical piecemeal approach just causes squabbling amongst groups and fragments opposition but then maybe that is the whole idea alongside rapping those naughty,lazy sahp across the knuckles.
It is a rather clumsy attempt at Mumsnet AIBU gold: benefit bashing and SAHM bashing. All we need now is a spot of p & c parking angst, a wedding 'dilemma' and MIL angst and we'll hit the jackpot.
What a ridiculous statement.
Everyone knows you need to throw in breast v formula and vaccinations, too.
Usually yes I have ishoos,ishoos with unfairness.<shrugs>
No ideas what Janey's are although sahp not sitting back and letting themselves be shat on springs to mind.
Ridiculously high household wage,what utter tosh.
We're on not much more per month in pocket than several who get tax credits etc when you take into account loss of tax allowance,higher tax rate,CB reduction etc.
Yes I do begrudge those on 100k getting state help with childcare,no child benefit cuts and free school dinners when the gov said as a country we were broke and 50k is wealthy.Double standard.
Yes the pp was referring to those on 100k but made up of 2 salaries and stating they're getting more help than a family with 1 sahp and 1 wohp even if they have the same overall income. The only differences in those situations are childcare which a sahp has no need for and cb so throwing the fsm into the mix was trying to deliberately mislead.
Personally I don't agree with the universal fsm because I don't trust the quality so would rather provide a packed lunch instead. It also smacks of the nanny stateto me. Should childcare be universally subsidised, no because I think that would impact on market forces and selection.
The only answer is increase nmw to a living wage but that also has knock on effects on cost of living, businesses survival in this economic climate, number of jobs available etc etc.
One thing this government has got in its favour is an ability to turn people on each other so everything is the fault of another sector of the population and not mismanagement of the national budget for the past x years by all parties. There isn't an easy answer and we will never find it if people just squabble about perceived inequalities.
I thought the same gluezilla as I thought the OP was referring to people on 100k getting it
Oh sorry I though the comments were being made about the new system.
It is going to be universal so the comments about certain people getting it and not others was in relation to the current system not the new one. It just highlighted though how much misconception there is about state help.
Isn't that a universal proposal though for all KS1 children? To prevent any stigma which puts people off claiming FSM? Very good idea IMO.
Isnt the reference to FSM the bringing in of FSM to KS1 children in 2014 ?
exactly jacks365. I'm a LP, earn £8k a year and I pay for the DC's school dinners (I don't have the time to shop and prepare packed lunch). If you receive WTC you aren't entitled to FSM.
Can we clear the air re free school dinners you can not get free school dinners if you get working tax credits even if your income is below £15, 000. Basically you need to be on income support or income based jsa or esa to qualify so a working family with a sahp will not qualify. There is a lot of misconception around about what a sahp with a working partner gets help wise and it's really sad because everyone seems to think everyone else gets more than they do and it's simply not true but it does cause resentment.
I personally think that the levels for tax credits and withdrawal of help should be looked at because if that was more graduall then it would make it worthwhile for people to improve their situation work wise.
just to make clear - I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that policy, and personally I would have no issue with subsided nursery hours for all at age 2. That would really blow a few people's minds... Would they turn down the hours on the grounds that they've always slagged off nurseries, or would they be unable to resist a freebie?!
It's not the policy itself I was posting about... It was the dog in the manger attitude of some people who say they don't want or need something, yet can't bear to see others getting it
Well actually that's precisely the job of the govt... One may not agree with a particular policy which is a separate issue
I just found it a tad ironic and amusing that people's views sway so drastically... One minute a high earning job is so demanding that it needs a partner home full time to facilitate it; the next moment there's raging envy at the couples who do both juggle high earning jobs
One minute nursery is a terrible thing and they'd never let their children darken the doors... But hang on, if a working parent might get a few free hours there for their child then it's not fair...
There are no inconsistencies, janey68. Either everyone gets subsidised childcare or no-one does. It is not the business of governments to pick and choose segments of the population to "help" according to ridiculously limited criteria.
annieorangutan- The other thing I find ironic is when certain posters make a big deal of needing to be at home because it 'facilitates' their partner earning the big bucks, yet they're happy to point the finger at working couples on good incomes, earning say, 50 or 60k each, and complain that they're getting a few quid in childcare help. You can't have it both ways. If commanding this sort of salary is so tough that some families can only manage it by the other partner not working, then frankly the couples who do manage to both do it are likely to be paying huge amounts in childcare, commuting etc I doubt any tiny amount of childcare subsidy makes much of a dent in their costs.
There was a similar thing a few weeks who when someone started a thread complaining about proposals for WOHP to get a bit more help with nursery costs, on the grounds that it was unfair to SAHP. So- one minute nursery is the work of the devil, it will damage children blah blah blah... Yet when there's a sniff of WOHP getting it, it's suddenly discriminating against the children of SAHP who might miss out on the experience!
when I spotted this thread had got to 11 pages, I guessed it had become a sahp vs wohp thread and I guessed the names of a couple of posters who'd inevitably be thrashing it out on page 11. I was right. So predictable.......
Am 1000% sure that anyone who needs to contribute so regularly to these wohp/sahp battles, has ishoos.
That was to annie btw!
^ I know! Fucking bonkers.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.