To think that it's ok to want to bring up your children and to be a mother, just as it's ok to go out to work instead?

(432 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread. Read here.

bronya Thu 05-Dec-13 17:22:14

I was brought up to 'have a career' and to think about work not babies. I admit I'd be bored doing nothing, and love the tutoring that I do - but I have no wish at ALL to be the main wage earner and leave the childcare to someone else. When my DS was born, it felt like I was complete. I'm happier, have more self esteem and confidence than I've ever had. I've met many other mums who feel similarly. Surely, our choice is just as valid as those who are WOHM? The point of feminism was that we should have that choice - whichever one we choose is our decision, surely?

Chunderella Tue 10-Dec-13 20:50:52

Late reply retro but you asked what i was on about. I'll summarise:

1. It is a bit rich to be complaining about other people being supported to make choices that don't put any money back in the pot, when you yourself were happy to trouser 5 figures in child benefit whilst doing just that. It is a pot kettle black situation.

2. You said everyone should get the same support from the state, be it a lot or a little. I think this is a bad idea, because there are people who need much more help than I do. I don't feel like I ought to get 60 quid a week child tax credits simply because some other people do, for the sake of equality. The country couldn't afford to pay us all at that level of child tax credits, but if the amount that some poorer people are getting was reduced in order to provide me with money I don't need, there would be children going cold and hungry. As a supporter of universal child benefit, I don't even mind people with 3 getting more than I do for 1. Even though, applying your theory, why should you pre CB means testing have been entitled to more than me just because you have more kids? All families should get the same regardless of need! (but not free school meals for key stage 1, though).

Philoslothy Tue 10-Dec-13 18:51:18

Retro, why would you want help with childcare costs when you don't need childcare? If you went out to work, you most also be able to claim for help with childcare - you have chosen not to work.

It would be like me moaning that I don't get Boots Advantage Card points because I choose to shop in Superdrug.

I think if you post strong opinions with passion people are going to direct questions at you and remember your posting history. Most of us don't feel that strongly and therefore you stand out. Most of us experience life as a SAHP or a working parent and therefore do not see things to be quite as black and white.

I think you may have a point about tax allowance.

As a poster above said this is more about the cost of childcare than having a pop at SAHP. I have benefitted from a very expensive state education, I was expensive to train as a teacher. If I had trained as a doctor I would be even more expensive to train, it seems daft to spend all that taxpayers money on training me and then have me out of the work place for decades to look after my children .

One person who earns 50K is on a very good wage, that is what I earn and I do see my wage as a very good wage? It is about double the average wage, the difference is that you are choosing to support your whole family on that wage. For many families being able to support their whole family on one wage is a luxury.

I agree that childcare should be available to help people train for the work place.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime Tue 10-Dec-13 16:43:09

i cannot find the reference. but it was in the news a while back. but its not inconsistent with your figures (its not looking a SAH on young DC).

BitOutOfPractice Tue 10-Dec-13 16:37:33

It keeps coming back to the top of my "threads you're on" list PE! I must have the attantion span of a gnat

jellybeans Tue 10-Dec-13 16:24:57

'the problem you have is SAH is only 10% of women so you wont win in a democracy.'Where did you get that stat? is that of all women?

I read that of mothers with young children, roughly 1/3 stay at home, 1/3 work part time and 1/3 work full time. So 2/3 have a SAHP or p/t worker which could be anywhere from 1 hr a week to many hours.

Permanentlyexhausted Tue 10-Dec-13 15:16:45

Exactly that, Bumble, as helping SAHPs to be SAHPs doesn't stop skilled workers dropping out of the workforce; quite the opposite.

Bumblebzz Tue 10-Dec-13 15:12:18

Retro

I see what you are looking for but unless it's economically viable I don't see it happening. It is in the government's interest (and by government you can read country, us, our collective bank balance, to pay all our national bills/debts etc) to encourage more women to work outside the home as its boosts the economy (cf. womenomics) but other than being seen to help couples, there is no economic value (that I can think of) for the government to help SAHPs be SAHPs.

normalishdude Tue 10-Dec-13 15:03:06

I think it depends on who pays for it.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime Tue 10-Dec-13 15:00:30

the problem you have is SAH is only 10% of women so you wont win in a democracy.

but I wont get my improved corporation tax idea either. really if business taxes went up, I would not be complaining months/years later.

that's the bit I don't get.
what's the point in being annoyed?

Retropear Tue 10-Dec-13 14:50:03

You yes I agree,similar amount and with the same income threshold.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime Tue 10-Dec-13 14:37:30

I would like to see a transferable tax allowance up to the same income ie 150k.

but the help for WOHP is up to £1200 per child per year.

to be fair the SAH scheme could only cost the same amount.

monicalewinski Tue 10-Dec-13 14:36:00

Bit to be honest the last lot of posts have been exceptionally non argumentative and I've learned a lot from the 'other side' that I'm not privy to in my normal everyday rl.

Thanks for the responses Retro, it makes sense to me what you're getting at now and I absolutely agree re the help with childcare etc for retraining/studying etc.

It would absolutely make sense for a transferable tax allowance between wages/all on one - there's something in the back of my mind about did that not used to happen? It got switched to tax credits from tax allowance I think, something to do with it being fairer on women? I can't remember and am probably waffling - but it would definitely be easier, surely, if it was all done on tax and pay.

Retropear Tue 10-Dec-13 14:16:14

No it's the lack of thought re helping sahp and gov rhetoric(actually most of my gripe is with the gov policy and rhetoric).

Re tax relief my partner does pay tax and I do his/our childcare so I would like to see a transferable tax allowance up to the same income ie 150k.Families with a sahp take a financial hit to look after children they chose to have just the same as those with 2x working parents.

I'd also like to see some help re childcare for those retraining,studying and on work experience whilst having time out as a sahp.

Re the cost of means testing they manage it with CB so it's not an argument to not do it with childcare,WFA or anything else.The fact is they want to send a message out which we all get loud and clear.

Bumblebzz Tue 10-Dec-13 13:22:36

Retro, are you annoyed because:
- working parents get some (minimal!) tax relief on childcare
--> i don't understand why this bothers SAHPs - if you want tax relief on childcare, you have to earn money to pay tax to then get relief, no-one actually gets given money here.

- the model for working out CB isn't perfect and some households do worse than others that have a higher HH income depending on the income combinations
--> It's a less than perfect model because it would be very expensive to do it differently and that would eat into the benefit. You seem obsessed with the definition of rich/wealthy, if you replace those words with ineligible, would that help, because that's all it comes down to really. There are rules/thresholds and some people benefit because they meet the eligibility requirements and some don't. Back to my roads/schools analogy..

Permanentlyexhausted Tue 10-Dec-13 13:15:32

For the same reason you bothered to come back and comment, I guess.

BitOutOfPractice Tue 10-Dec-13 13:13:18

How? How can the same people have the time, and more importantly the inclination, to still be arguing on this thread after 6 days?!

Permanentlyexhausted Tue 10-Dec-13 13:11:18

I meant to link to this article about comparative childcare costs in European countries:

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/21/child-care-costs-compared-britain

Permanentlyexhausted Tue 10-Dec-13 13:10:16

It is about recognising that access to good quality childcare is very expensive in the UK, in comparison to many of our European neighbours. It is about recognising that this puts the UK as a whole at quite a disadvantage compared to those countries we compete against on the world market. It is about recognising that there is a significant and costly loss of skilled workers because childcare is not accessible to all.

It is not really about helping struggling families and it certainly isn't about having a pop at SAHMs. It's bigger than those petty concerns.

janey68 Tue 10-Dec-13 13:02:45

Bumblezz- you make a very good point. Lots of people are paying through their tax for things they won't directly benefit from. Childless people are still contributing towards schools. People who take care of their health and never visit the doctor are still paying for hospitals.
If you obsess about whether life is 'fair' you'll probably live a miserable, unfulfilling existence. Life is about making choices from those available to us, within the context of our own lives. Govts change, Policies change. If id had my children a few years later id have been entitled to 6 months off work instead of 3 and my DH would have had a fortnights paternity leave. I could stamp my feet and cry 'unfair'- but what's the point? That way of thinking just leads to bitterness. I made my decision to be a WOHP and like Monica said earlier, although it was hard at times ( physically tough to be ebf and going to work, and mentally quite tough to pay my entire wages on childcare) I am comfortable with the choices we made as a family

Retropear Tue 10-Dec-13 12:50:40

So it's not about helping struggling families with childcare bills then?

If it's just a money making scheme I can think of better ways to make money than by giving families on as much as £300k help with childcare.

Families are already paying childcare,the gov helping out isn't going to make more jobs.The same people will be working,the gov will just be paying some of their wages.hmm

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime Tue 10-Dec-13 12:38:57

But you those jobs will more than likely be under the tax threshold

yes - but creating low paid jobs helps reduce the benefits bill

^ creating jobs isn't exactly the point is it.^

I think this is the point.

Retropear Tue 10-Dec-13 12:34:32

But you those jobs will more than likely be under the tax threshold and creating jobs isn't exactly the point is it.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime Tue 10-Dec-13 12:26:06

but isnt that up to 20% of the costs of childcare? up to £1,200 per child.

so the WOP pays 80% (creating more work for someone else).

what could the govt subsidise in an equivalent way for SAH? that would create jobs?

Retropear Tue 10-Dec-13 12:11:08

Wp are and will be having financial help with their choices from voicing their perceived unfairness re the cost of childcare.

soverylucky Tue 10-Dec-13 11:55:49

It all leads back to the same question for me though - how are sahp's treated unfairly compared to wp?

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