To be slightly annoyed by the phase 'work hard and get on'(169 Posts)
on the budget speech.
Apparently in reference to SAHM.
The newspapers were slating PM's use of this phrase all today. That SAHM would be excluded from receiving child care support because they do not want to work hard and get on.
I was mostly surprised that the chancellor used this exact same phrase at the budget speech today. I thought they would just erase it after the papers raised concerns from parents about it.
I just find it insulting that people generally think SAHM don't do anything, but just lounge around at home.
I'm not watching the Budget on purpose because the mere mention of George Osborne sends my BP a bit high (in anger)...
I work bloody hard. The government pays me £52 a week. How do I get on?
I found it really bloody hard when DS was little!! I longed to work & get a few hours to myself & a job that didn't involve puke or match-sticking my eyes open.
No one's safe from scrutiny with this government though, whether it's justified or not (usually not).
Surely if a SAHM isn't valued for looking after her children, then a childminder is a lazy arse as well? I think not.
I do lounge around at home. But not as much now since my child benefit has gone
YANBU - I did work and bloody hard and for bloody long hours.Went back to work straight after having DS. Not only did I not get on but I became ill through the stress of juggling everything after 5 years.
but if you are a SAHM you don't need paid child care do you? Am not in any way having a go or a moan or anything else and I am probably missing something obvious but the majority of SAHM's will still be in receipt of child benefit but will not be using childminders or nannies, so why would you need a contribution toward it? Please tell me if I AM being thick - I honestly want to know!!
Should SAHMs be eligible for childcare support though, when the purpose of the support is to enable working?
They really are taking the piss. They don't realise how tough it can be being a SAHM (although I love my two to bits!) - different sets of responsibilities and challengers. And to be honest, I probably wouldn't be a SAHM if I earned more than what I would pay a nursery/childminder/nanny for two children!
I don't think it's that SAHM expect help with childcare, I think it's more that they would appreciate some recognition/appreciation for what they are doing, rather than the implication that they are all sitting around on their backsides watching Jeremy Kyle all day.
After 11 years at work having a baby and looking after him was the hardest work I had done - I felt like I'd been hit by a train!
But I agree that sahm does not need financial assistance with childcare - although there was no need for that wording.
Just the phrase 'work hard and get on' annoys me. Its implies that if you dont continue to progress in life then you haven't worked hard.
Many people work their arses off in NMW jobs, unfortunately not a lot of these jobs have a decent career ladder or opportunity to get on, or the employees maybe don't have the capacity to progress past what they are doing. No amount of 'working hard' will change that.
Ha, ha, ha- so is that his personal mantra as well- 'work hard and get on' or is a lot of his personal wealth inherited?
My DH was worked hard and got on. Now he earns above the cut-off for child benefit. So we have lost that. Some reward!
Just the phrase 'work hard and get on' annoys me
I am too angry to post anything further
Hate the phrase too. It should be banned.
As a SAHM I wouldn't expect help with childcare costs as I don't have any. I don't resent being told to work hard and get on either because I did before I had the children and I will once again when they are all at school. Just like my mum and my nan did, I don't understand people like my MIL who gave up working when they have children and never return to work, those people in my opinion should work hard and get on.
Yes by all means SAH when your children are tiny (and maybe at infant school) but really there is absolutly no reason to SAH after this. And don't cite school holidays as there are 13 weeks of them and a couple get 10 weeks leave between them and 3 weeks (or 4 if you take a week as a family) really isn't that much to cover.
In this life it seems that if you do ''work hard'' then you can ''get
walked on'' ie taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers & certain colleagues i'm afraid to say...
"Work hard and get on" is a bit annoying (sahm work really really hard) but I don't see why sahm should get childcare support though.
Working hard never did me any good - i just got exacerbated MH issues & a downgrading of my career as a result.
I work hard.
I was sending work emails before my epidural had worn off (on my work phone), back pt when DS was 4 weeks old and back ft when he was less than 5 months
I am currently signed off sick having had something off a breakdown juggling a job, a toddler, a pt degree and a professional course plus housework, finances etc
Maybe it should be "Work hard and get on beta blockers"?
Isn't he referring to people working though? If you are a sahm then you aren't "in work" and can't progress your career? (unless you choose child care as an option but then would be "in work" not sahm) No one is disputing that looking after children is demanding but you are not employed by the government or your children are you? I am on maternity leave currently and I consider it as leave, I am not working currently am I? so isn't it the same for a sahm, you are not "in work".
Catgirl were you forced to send emails whilst on mat leave and do your company not have a policy about minimum time off? If they did and there isn't the you a very good constructive dismissal claim (if employed in the UK).
I really would love to "work hard and get on" when my current maternity leave finishes.
My take-home pay = £59 per day.
Childcare for 2 children = £84 per day
Commuting costs = £8 per day.
Unfortunately £84+£8 = £92.
And £92-£59 = £33. Yes, it will actually cost us £33 per day for me to go back to work.
Not overtly forced and nothing in writing....just a lot of pressure verbally so I think it would be hard to prove
No policy on minimum time off though
I think the benefit should be for both as it would allow families to decide how to bring up their children. It should assist dual-income families with the cost of childcare and ease the financial burden of one-income families who prioritize having a parent stay at home.
Yes, the wording was annoying though . I don't even live in the UK, so am not affected, but it still irritated me.
Not everyone works because they have to. Not everyone stays at home because they want to (talking specifically about parents here).
Painting one choice as morally superior when there are always so many factors at play is just cynical and divisive.
If one income is sufficient to provide for your needs then why should both parents work? Unless they want to.
I have been a SAHM with all my kids in school. My husband worked very long hours at a well paid job he loved, so me picking up the domestic slack worked very well for all of us.
2 parents don't necessarily get 10 weeks leave. Many will have to share 8 weeks. Once you add in the odd day off for car / domestic troubles and maybe medical appointments (lots of employers aren't happy about time off for those things) then you've well and truly chipped into your annual leave. Then you need time off when kids are sick if you don't have any relatives to help.
I've always worked hard and had more than glowing work reviews but I'm still suck where I am. No bonuses, no riches just plodding away.
I just don't understand why you would want to stay home Moomin that's all. Don't get me wrong I love being a SAHM and I can see the benefots of being around whilst children are at infant school but I still think I'd feel a bit redundant. I think it might be one of those what you are used to things, as my mum went back to work my expectation is that I willgo back, MIL never did DHs expectation is that I am effectivly retired.
LOL cockyfox 'And don't cite school holidays as there are 13 weeks of them and a couple get 10 weeks leave between them and 3 weeks (or 4 if you take a week as a family) really isn't that much to cover.'
So by that reckoning it is okay with you if the family only gets one week all together on holiday per year...?
If a SAHP has a partner who earns enough, it is entirely up to them as a couple if he/she wishes to remain a SAHP even after the kids have started school. Often he/she will opt to do some voluntary work.
There are all sorts of reasons why it might be desirable for the family unit for one person to SAH. Some examples: special needs kids, partners who go away on business a lot, deserving a break from 24/7 care now they are finally at school, realising that few people on their deathbeds wish they'd spent more time at the office'....fine if you want to resume your career or need to earn some more dosh but it is not a given that every SAHP will want or need to do this.
I'm pretty sure the wives of most Tory ministers don't need to do this...lol.
I hate the phrase because it implies that people who are poor/unsuccessful are lazy.
It's also a complete joke in respect to childcare costs because it will actually make many worse off.
Well I was perfectly happy Fox. I did some OU studying I'd always wanted to do and quite a bit of volunteering. Plus I am a bit of a saddo who enjoys baking and gardening and stuff anyway.
These days me and DH have our own business so work from home anyway. I suppose I'm just not very outgoing.
..and another thing...the fact that I don't feel the need to rush back out to work leaves a job open for someone else whose family needs the income much more than mine does....see there is some virtue in it.
maybe he really did think it was gone with the wind and lobster bisque day?
But I agree with what you said about family expectations. Me and DH both had SAHMs who had control of the family budget and were equal partners etc. I always felt that being a SAHM was a valid contribution.
cockyfox - I am one of those you dont understand then. I have 2 school age children 1 dd in year 4 1 ds in year 2. I gave up work when dd was born. Went on maternity leave and never went back. Also have no intention of going back either. We are lucky dh earns enough that we can afford for me not to have to work. It means that I am there to take the kids to school every day and pick up every day. I sit with them and do homework, reading and anything else school related as well as play with them if they want me too (not so much now they are older). I am available if they are ill and can be at school in 10 minutes if needed. Last week ds had a nasty accident at school which resulted in a massive nose bleed and concerns he had broken his nose. I was there within 10 minutes to access the damage and bring him home. How easy would that have been if I had been at work. At times I have had other mums call me frantic that they need someone to pick up dc because either child care has let them down or child is ill and they need to come home. This just confirms to me that I am lucky that I dont have to work and can be there when needed at a moments notice. I manage to fill my days easy enough. Currently redecorating the house.
My dh works hard and earns a good salary which enables us to do the above but how has he been repaid. We have had child benefit removed.
you should be more than a bit annoyed with this government.
'Work hard' implies that there are jobs available, which there aren't. Repeat a lie often enough...
I don't think SAHM's should get childcare support but at a time when they can't work out why birthrates across the developed world have collapsed to well below replacement levels, you'd think they would be a bit more appreciative of SAHM's on an ideological level. They want an endless supply of low-pay workers and they want the 'little' people to breed - so they can have enough foot soldiers for the perpetuation of the type of generational wealth that puts them in the position of being able to tell everyone else they are feckless tossers ;)
Well said, Mimi. How have we let them get away with it?
I've ended up being a sahm but its not through choice. I graduated from uni in 2005 with a degree in law.
My ds was born 6 Wks later. In 2005 there were plenty of jobs but ds was a very difficult baby, 3cm & a nursery later i realised i was going to have to stay at home until he settled down & stopped crying.
He did stop crying at8 months but continued to be very difficult to care for. He was diagnosed at 6 with ASD & ADHD.
He was excluded from mainstream school by 5& didn't go to school fulltime until he was 7. He attends an independent special school. He gets 18 Wks holiday per annum. Childcare dosn't exist for ds. I would need to employ a carer at about£12 An hour.
Since my youngest Dc4 started school last October I've been looking for a job. I've applied for hundreds. I don't chose to be sahm. Im bored, isolated & resent the implication of this government that i don't want to work & get on.
Am I missing something or don't you need childcare to go to interviews, volunteer work that could lead to,emploŷment, to,study etc?
I get £0.00 so George can go to hell
I am a sahm with a 9 month old dd and a nearly 3 year old ds. Childcare vouchers benefitted my ds as they helped toward the cost of his preschool.
So my dh works hard, lost child benefit and now childcare vouchers.
I am aware that I am lucky that financially i am able to do this and that the choice is mine but surely any new child benefitting policies should be fair to all children.
Preschool has helped my ds in so many ways and I am sure will benefit my dd too, but this time without the help of childcare vouchers .
YABU and over-sensitive. Helping those who go out to work in paid employment doesn't mean discriminating against those that opt to stay home or are economically inactive. It's like saying that helping disabled people is discriminating against the able-bodied. Of course we should support people who want to work hard and get on..... what's the alternative?
I didn't hear the comments, so I don't know how they were said.
But I think women should be encouraged to work as much as possible. Paying more for childcare now means paying less welfare later for women who fell behind and didn't earn enough because it didn't make sense to go to work due to child care.
I think child care should be heavily subsidised and made more available so that women have every financial incentive to work.
I'm sick of reading posts on here by mothers who can't leave their abusive cock because she has no job and hasn't worked in X number of years. She's been stuck in the house, financially dependent on someone who makes her feel like shit instead of being an autonomous adult.
Maybe some families are fortunate enough for the mum to stay home, but she's still depending on the benevolence of her husband.
Agree with Cogito and Katie's posts.
What annoys me about it is the correlation between working hard and getting on has now disappeared, irrespective of whether you have children. The only way to "get on" today is to have the right "network". Ordinary people need not apply.
So have you given up on that basis, quesadilla? Told your kids not to bother at school? No point for 'ordinary people' to have any ambition or put in any effort... so why do an exam or put yourself out?
Bit defeatist isn't it?
Really Katy, the benevolence of my husband? really?
We each take a different role in our partnership at the moment to suit our needs. Is he relying on my benevolence in allowing him the chance to work whilst I provide childcare? Nope, that would be a ridiculous way to view things.
People should not be classed as not wanting to get on and work hard because they have taken a career break to look after their children that if circumstances allow.
Government and general society should not view this as laziness.
Both working mothers and sahm should be supported in society for the benefit of all. Different strokes and all that
Cogito No of course I haven't bloody given up: I work 45 hours a week, look after a toddler and apply for jobs before and after work. But despite 16 years experience in my field and a good degree I am apparently unemployable because my "network" isn't good enough. That's what a recruiter said to me. It seems to me that the strides we made in opening the world of work up beyond the old boys club over the last 40 years are all being reversed. So any hard work my dd does to get on in life will likely be futile because she doesn't have the right connections. And that's a very bad and depressing message to have to give to one's kids.
When did SAHMs get so touchy about what they do? Why do they need recognition from anyone else about how hard they have it or about what they do? I find this a bit pathetic actually. SAHMs don't need to have their choice to have children validated by anyone else, they don't need their choice to stay at home to be validated by anyone else.
As they won't get this support because they clearly don't need child care, then the comment wasn't aimed at them and I don't understand why people are trying to make it all about themselves.
Since having DC I find the world of work tiresome. Don't know what to do about that. Worked FT out of financial necessity post DC1 but now after No 2 I just want a PT job, though I suspect it will be disastrous in terms of undermining all the efforts I have out into building a career till now. Working full time meant I never had enough time for my real life outside the workplace. What goes on at home now seems 100% more important than work. Would love to know how to trn myself back into the work obsessive I once once - but suspect I am much more normal now. I wish there were more interesting part time roles that would potentially fuel that passion without causing complete burn out, as I found my FT job did...
Not arguing that I need this benefit to pay for childcare that I don't need, I am arguing that something that has benefitted my ds is being taken away.
Preschool isn't always about childcare it can benefit the child in so many ways and childcare vouchers provided a less expensive way to do this.
Hmm, and yes of course I am touchy and feel the need to defend my choice in life. How silly to say that we should not need to have our choices validated by the wider society. As part of society, I want to feel I have a place that contributes to society and that this is recognised to ensure that our sons and daughters feel that they have a choice in the future.
I feel sad that future generations may feel that the care of children by a sahp is a lazy choice and looked badly upon.
"That's what a recruiter said to me."
They mean 'go out and get talking to people who might be useful to you'.... not 'give up because you're not part of an old boys' club'. That's what you tell your DD as she's growing up... use your contacts... not 'it's futile'.
childcare is heavily sunsidised
SAHMs do not need free childcare
I never said sahm's were lazy. Quite the opposite.
But should a marriage break up, the husband still has his job and an intact cv.
Staying at home is a luxury. Some people can afford it. But, it's a fact that the mother who stays at home loses out on future pension and their value in the job market declines.
I stayed at home for several years. I am now working full time. It's brutally exhausting, but I am happy knowing that I am earning money and supporting the family. Some people truly enjoy being at home with the kids. But why is the default the mother?
Mum stays home, her world shrinks, and the husband gets to go out, talk to adults, have what he does validated through pay, and increase his experience and value on the job market.
Childcare is not subsidised enough, and there's not enough of it. I used to live in an area where the nearest nursery was 20 miles away and there were no individual carers. That's how I got stuck at home.
I have a BA with highest honours from the University of California, Berkeley. It's worthless on the job market because I haven't used it in a decade. But, I don't say "there are no jobs." I make fairly good money cleaning houses. (About £12.50 an hour after expenses).
There's work for those who are willing to do it.
Work hard and get on...
We are all in this together...
I understand your problems/issues....
The most utterly annoying thing that is said however is:
'The public want....' And fill in whatever you wish after that because its never ever what I actually want (or need come to that) and its not what anybody I know wants and frankly, how would Mr Cameron or Mr Osborne know what the public wants? Because all too often they do the exact opposite of what we all want... Sigh....
I hate being told what I want when nobody has bothered to come and ask me what I want. Or they have and they just don't bother to listen to the answer...
...and when they are feeling a bit in need of some love , the rallying cry 'Britain is open for business'
F**k off Tory Wan*ers
The phrase is in shockingly bad taste and v ill-considered.
This should not become a SAHM vs WOHM (Divide and concquer, anyone? ), but about the connection of 'working hard' and 'getting on'.
I know many people who are working their backsides off, and are getting absolutely nowhere - not through lack of effort, but lack of opporturnity.
Where are all these jobs??
I have never been so appreciative that I have a recession-proof job than in the last 5 years or so.
GO is a knob, and self-righteous to boot.
Yanbu-what an arse!
Sorry being a sahm bloody shouldn't be a luxury.
Many women want to do it and feel it would be best for their dc but can't due to it not being financially viable and worries re career being there after a break.
Nobody ever in these discussions acknowledge the young children involved.
Not all children and families benefit from 2 working parents.Jobs,personalities,circumstances etc differ.For some families the stress,time restraints,resentment etc can be a negative thing but acknowledge this and help women choose what they think is best for their family and children no let's start stigmatising and hammering sahp instead.
That phrase. "Work hard and get on"
I'd tell him all about "work hard and get on" given a ten minute opportunity the slimy, supercillious little pond weasel.
If you're a SAHM on benefits, you're also expected to go back to work once your child turns five - so when they start primary school. Now, I'm not cut out to be a SAHM, but if that was what I'd wanted to do, I'd be looking to have another child pretty soon, because that would buy me five more years. As it is, when I start working again, my pay will be almost completely negated by childcare costs.
The ideal scenario is DP staying at home while I work, but unfortunately that's not possible. With a string of shitty temp jobs and a four year gap in my CV, I can't match his management pay, if I can find a job at all. It seems even McDonalds don't want me
Yanbu it was a horrible thoughtless comment.
It's also a kick in the teeth for services families, dh works long hours often months away at a time. I decided to sahp to give the dc stability, planning to retrain when dh left the forces for a better paid job.
I think we work hard and get on, or we try. Dh has decided to put his notice in, so next year I planned to go to uni and put younger dc in childcare and find wrap around for older dc. But without childcare help this will be impossible.
We also have a house in a deprived area, it was a starter home but after the collapse and recession we can't sell, we struggle renting it. So we have no hope of selling and freeing capital to buy a family home, we rent which is very expensive. Our other property is like a millstone.
All we do is work hard and try to get on. Unless your lucky or loaded this term will be insulting. Especially to sahp who are doing a very valid job, some sahp may have no choice but to choose not to work, in not working they may sacrifice a lot. Little spending money, no holidays, no free time for themselves.
I think its very hard not to take the statement personally. In his latest budget it has only made our families life harder. So yanbu.
yanbu. If only life were as simple as working hard and getting on. Naive twoddle from the wallpaper millionaire.
My mother did that and I'll always be grateful. She was sent to live on camps miles from anywhere with no car,constant upheaval etc and she gave up her much loved teaching career for us.I'll always be grateful.
We put everything into Dp's career.It isn't always possible to push 2 careers,somebody has to take a back seat and it made sense for it to be me.In my sister's family her job comes first.
Now after supporting dp(who still needs support) sacrificing my career and putting the needs of my dc and our family as a whole first I'm deemed as not hard working and not having a desire to get on.
Up yours GO!
there are lots of poeple working hard and never getting on the goverment should be talking to the cleaners and care assistants in homes and hospitals and all the other equivelently low paid jobs to see if they ever have hope not making empty statements its so easy for the people on a decent wage to turn ther backs
Yanbu. George Osbourne is an idiot along with the rest of this government.
I am a Sahm (although have a small business i run from home) and currently have no need for child care but when my dc3 turns 3 I would like him to go to preschool. Not just for me but for him. There are no jobs that will fit in with this and looking after my dc4. I might consider getting a job when they are all at school but only one that is flexible with my children.
The problem is that we are now in a situation where to get by as a family with a good quality of life you need to have two people working unless one of you earns a good salary.
I hate the contradictions of this government. Talking about family values and the big society and then slating mothers who choose to stay at home and look after their own children.
"I think the benefit should be for both as it would allow families to decide how to bring up their children. It should assist dual-income families with the cost of childcare and ease the financial burden of one-income families who prioritize having a parent stay at home."
Are you kidding me?
Why should the government assist you if you choose to stay at home? If you choose to stay at home, you should have the means in place to support yourself. Why does the responsibility fall to the government to pay you to stay at home? If you can't afford it without government help (and there aren't other circumstances...illness, SN and all the rest of it) then you go back to work.
If you want to be a SAHM, brilliant, fantastic, do it. I would love to have done it when my children were younger but I couldn't afford not to work.
If you choose to work, you should get help towards childcare to stop this ridiculous business of being worse off for going out to work.
"I hate the contradictions of this government. Talking about family values and the big society and then slating mothers who choose to stay at home and look after their own children."
They are not slating SAHMs. They do a valuable job. What is changing is the financial help they get. You want to stay home and look after your own children, you make sure you can afford to.
I'm not mad about the phrase either. It also seems strangely old-fashioned and not really applicable to our times anymore...
Re. the SAHM debate - actually my world enlarged when I stayed home with my son! Not all SAHMs find it boring and isolating. I found it wonderful often times, certainly compared to the company of many dreary ex-colleagues! I know the pleasure of bringing up children is often obscured by the sheer hard work involved especially if you do it your own as I did (why grandparents perhaps appear to enjoy it more) but I am often wistful over those early years.
Errr Social by that logic if you choose to have children you should have the means to pay for the childcare ie save beforehand,cut back on holidays etc.
If we're going down the route of stuff those that need support it goes both ways.
"They are not slating SAHMs. They do a valuable job. What is changing is the financial help they get. You want to stay home and look after your own children, you make sure you can afford to"
instead of all these sweeping statements both off the government and posters on here, is there actually any statistical information to point to the majority of sahp's actually getting financial support? I just don't know anyone who does and I have posted this on another thread. Most people I know who are sahp's are either pretty comfortable OR they have made sacrifices in order to do so (no fancy cars/holidays etc) It seems to me it's just another stick to beat women with that hasn't been backed up by any statistical information or factual evidence
Socialclimber If you choose to work hours which do not suit your circumstances then you need to factor in the price of childcare in the same way as you expect SAHPs to have factored in their lack of a wage.
This SAHM gets no financial help outside of CB. Hubby earns a set wage. Set for the past 4 years in fact.
Work hard and ... be made redundant, repeatedly
Work hard and ... find that only fixed-term contracts are on offer so you:
Work hard and ... have to start again at the bottom of the pay pile every time you begin a new contract, which means you:
Work hard and have no chance of ever buying a house, getting a pension, or obtaining any other form of security.
That's been my experience, and I have worked bloody hard - sometimes doing three jobs at once - for the last 20 years, getting a science PhD along the way. Feck off, Cameron, and take your inherited privilege with you.
It's 4 years,not a lifetime and frankly when they start school the bills are a fraction sooo hardly worthy of money going to wealthy families over 60k.
Errr not really the same, since you're contributing to the tax system. Not comparable at all.
This family is just over the thresh hold so losing CB.However 2 income families on the same keep it and families on up to 300k will get help with paying for after school clubs.
Still Samcam needs all the help she can get making those designer hand bags
Kazooblue, I agree with you re the thresholds. Absolutely crazy.
Errrr my family is contributing to the tax system,bloody 40%worth.
Agree OhLori after 20 yrs in a well paid but stressful and unrewarding job I was determined to bring up my children when they finally arrived and have enjoyed every minute (well almost ) Mine are 12 and 10 now and I am considering part time work but I will never work full time again.
Also, my poor old Dad "worked hard" all his life but as a builder he certainly didn't "get on", but not for the want of trying.
I think I work hard but do you know what? I don't particularly want to "get on". I am perfectly happy with the pace and the quality of the life we have.
Being a SAHM isn't a job though, it's looking after your own kids, so why do you need money towards childcare? SAHM aren't paying tax etc working mums pay tax, and contribute to other people's jobs ie childminders, nurseries so of course they need child care costs.
SAHM get help from 3 yrs.
Noone is saying it isn't hard raising children or working and raising children isn't hard but I don't see why SAHM should get the child care help.
and mine, thank you. Contributed for 15 years before I had kids too.
As did I Ankle,worked all my life.
I'm talking about the individual and you know it.
I don't want it and have no problem with others getting it. I just resent the prevailing negative attitude towards anyone not currently contrbuting to Osborne's Tax coffers. I will live my life the way I think best and I will not be bullied into taking a minimum wage job and paying someone else to look after my children.
wont women who earn below the tax threshold be affected as well though?
stickingattwo no staying at home isn't a job but by bringing up my own children I hope I am contributing to society by developing well rounded individuals rather than paying someone else to take over that responsibility whilst I work (I am not having a go at those who work).
What the actual fuck JenBird?
Well it would be great news if we both earned £49k. Then we could keep our CB and get help with childcare.
Or if we both earned a massive salary - still going to benefit from this.
Seems like Cameron and Osborne are really looking after their own here.
Jenbird, oh you did make me laugh!
A roundabout way of saying what mopswerver said, just not very well put. I choose to stay at home and look after my kids. I am lucky that I can and that it is my choice but I don't like being made to feel I am not contributing, working hard or getting on because I am not paying tax right now. I was also replying to a specific comment not making a general one.
Very ignorant and sweeping views you have there socialclimber. This isn't about people complaining that they aren't being paid to look after their own children and needing financial contribution towards it.
I am totally offended by your remarks.
I am very sorry that you were not in a situation of enough financial security to stay home with your children as you would have liked (and stated) but let me be free to complain about how I am viewed as a sahp.
If I were to reverse your logic and extremity of thought; then how silly of you to have children before you were able to afford to stay home with them as you would have wanted. Total twaddle of course, as much twaddle as what you said in fact!
Other Tory phrases that get my goat "Hard Working Families" and of course the new one "Aspiration Nation"! I think I will get a t-shirt with "I am part of the exasperation Nation" printed on it. Twats!
Perhaps some women who travel around and never settle in order to support their children and dh, who leave careers they loved, who don't drive as they could never afford to learn who live a distance away from a decent job and who dream of maybe one day retraining or going back to uni will find the whole budget quite demoralising.
It's not about childcare or the descion to support your kids, moving every 2 years is quite hard for dc. It's about the perception your contribution isn't valued, that your perceived to not want to work hard and are perceived to not want to help the country get on and out of recession.
It's also insulting when you in the past have contributed tax and that your dh who pays tax aren't entitled to the same things other people are entitled to.
Plus it's yet another thing against families who are not in tick box catagories and its bloody annoying that that is not seen or considered by those voted for who are meant to be the voice of the people. Cameron and Osbourne do not represent me but yet govern every inch of my life and to kick it off they use a throw away comment which to me is deeply insulting.
Oh my supporting and doing what is best for your kids is no longer valued.Children no longer matter.
Beginning to think I might be depressed. This budget has just reinforced this feeling.
The £1200 available towards childcare isn't for free, you would have to spend £6000 on child care out of your own pocket to get it, if SAHM want to pay that much on childcare then I think that they should be entitled to it also.
Just had this article pointed out to me on another thread and thought many on here would like to read it. It sums up how I feel exactly.
so does this mean that universal credit will not fund 70% of childcare like wtc used to.
All SAHM should become childminders and look after each others' children to prove that they're not sitting around at home being lazy but are getting on and working hard. The gov can give you all tax breaks on your child care costs. Let's all live in an utterly bonkers, impractical society.
Or... the government could introduce a proper living wage and 40 hour week, so so that more people are in full time work and families can afford to live on one salary, as they used to, allowing two parent families the option of having one parent stay at home and do the crucial job of taking proper good care of family and household, and allowing one parent families the option of earning a proper living not being squeezed out of the workplace by oppressive rents and childcare costs.
"Very ignorant and sweeping views you have there socialclimber. This isn't about people complaining that they aren't being paid to look after their own children and needing financial contribution towards it."
I directly quoted WhinyCrabbyPeople's post, she was "complaining that they aren't being paid to look after their own children", as you say. So your first paragraph is untrue. That kind of post is what irks me, not that thread on a whole.
"If I were to reverse your logic and extremity of thought; then how silly of you to have children before you were able to afford to stay home with them as you would have wanted. Total twaddle of course, as much twaddle as what you said in fact!"
You have a point. Except what I should have said in that post is that I would have been very, very silly to give up my job because of the benefits and the income it generates. I was poor while my children were young because a massive portion of my income went on childcare. However, now they are at school I have my income back again. If I had stayed at home, I would never have found a job like I have got now, if I could find one at all.
I'm sorry if I offended you, I think SAHMs play a valuable role. I don't believe I gave the impression that I don't value SAHMs at all. I don't believe the government are saying their role is worthless. I believe they are saying that aren't willing to subsidise that lifestyle choice as they aren't contributing as an individual.
To be honest, my issues are not whether a sahp needs this or that but the way the government is supporting unhealthy view points. I feel they are encouraging a selfish nation where people are being forced to justify there own positions with an ultimate of only using their own situations as a reasoning, justification or detriment of new policies.
We are all people and our ultimate goal should be fairness where possible and achievable and not just policy passing to ensure election or re-election.
I feel a like we are ping pong balls and the government are rather skilled batsmen.
But that aside, I would still give Boris one
Should be 'for new policies' not 'of new policies'.
Rant over and I shall give myself a
I believe they are saying that aren't willing to subsidise that lifestyle choice as they aren't contributing as an individual.
Fine then don't take away my DC's child benefit because of what my husband earns - if I am an individual
albeit non contributing why look at household income.
I don't have an issue with not receiving money for childcare as I am a SAHM. Why not implement the married tax allowance? That's just as fair as the way thy have decided to allocate CB
as in not at all.
My DH could get a lower paid job, I could get a job - we would actually be better off doing that as we would then pay much lower tax and receive some nice tax breaks.
But my DH is on the brink of a very successful career break and often works away. So we sacrificed me working for him to achieve this, which I am happy with. But I do object to the intimation that I don't want to "get on" or "work hard".
The problem is that Mrs Cameron and Mrs Clegg work and the PM and cronies are convinced that they are representative of working mothers. They are not. It all just goes to show how out of touch this government is.
I am just fed up with the unfairness of many if these policies not the fact that I am losing household income hand over fist.
I don't understand why the govt (ie all of us) should be paying for CC for children's whose parents don't work.What is the logic?j
Bang, that's not what this is about
It is about that actually because you can only get it if both parents work over 16 hours and earn £10,000. I work two evenings and one day to enable me to stay at home as otherwise we can't afford it, I need Childcare for the one day - why am I not entitled to help because I am only working for 12 hours?
I agree, I don't think they should have taken away child benefit at all.
and the false logic in it is it was kept for years because it protected children whose mothers might be financially abused by their husbands/partners and it meant they had some money that could be spent on food/the children. The cut has affected those(from what i can see) where a mother will be staying at home and not earning and surely they are the most likely to be financially abused anyway?
But I just think the coalition hates women. I can't see any other explanation
QUOTE Jenbird 'staying at home isn't a job but by bringing up my own children I hope I am contributing to society by developing well rounded individuals rather than paying someone else to take over that responsibility whilst I work (I am not having a go at those who work).'
I agree sort of....you could also look at it this way, namely that 'staying at home is a job and your partner is in effect 'paying you' to make the whole family's life run more smoothly. I am the CEO of our family say, I control the budget, research and book the holidays, do the cooking, do the housework (or when kids younger employed a cleaner), volunteer in the local community, take the car in for a service, wait in for the repairmen and am taxi-driver to kids and am in a really good mood 100% time because I am not under stress from my former job with long commute and reasonable salary.
I am not into tax dodging but no doubt this kind of 'Family CEO' arrangement could be 'formalised' in some way thereby giving SAHP a bit of respect.
I paid into the system for 17 years before having my kids late and at that point there was no way I could have left them to return to work...so good job we didn't need me to financially.
I am making a contribution to the emotional wellbeing of the whole family/society (I know where my kids are) and thanks to whoever introduced stakeholder pensions (Labour I think) - have still got contributions going into one...so haven't lost out there too much.
I have, I agree, lost out in the career stakes....but it seems pointless to seek out a school hours friendly job just to satisfy feminist principles when we as a family don't need the money.
So I don't mind losing the child benefit (as don't need it) but agree the formula is skewed unfairly and I wouldn't want help with childcare as a SAHP BUT in common with others I resent the attitude from Labour and Tories that everyone should be in the paid workforce, especially when there are some 3 million people unemployed who need the available jobs more than I do.
If jobs were unfilled across the board, you can bet your life that the Government (in common with other EU countries) would make childcare free/massively subsidised to address the gap in available employees...alas not an issue and never really has been.
I still do not understand. If a SAHM wants to "get on" then obviously she needs childcare to go to interviews, training, and so on. Without childcare how can she do this?
she can leave them in the car outside, preferably in a parent and child parking space
i dont have a car, part of the reason i send my 2 year old to nursery using government funding is so i can do driving lessons hopefully.
the two year old will have to be tethered to a lampost outside then if you have no car
[howls with laughter] at Owl
people are reading waaaaay too much into this. Why would this comment imply as slight to a sahp????
and I can't stand Osbourne ......you're all seeing problems where there are none.
There is nothing for sahp who have been unfairly penalised before, GO said "this is a budget for those that want to get on" so clearly in his view sahp don't want to get on.Ergo annoyance- and lots of it!
I'm getting a bit tired now, so sorry for being rude but Kidderminster Kate and all others who have ignored all other posts in this thread explaining why the phrase is annoying, please feel free to bum right off
But you are getting on, all the SAHM comments on here are saying that you are able to cope financially by not working. If you are able to cope financially, why do you need additional benefit? If your child benefit has been cut you (as a family) are earning a significant wage. It might not seem it to you, but you honestly truly are. Some families rely on child benefit to live each month and if you can afford to go without a whole salary, the CB can't be making this sort of difference to you.
I don't understand what the "recognition" is you're seeking? Do you think working Mum's feel recognised for their contribution? Why are you looking to be validated when you all clearly feel you have are the right decision for your family. I earn around about £60 a day, my childcare costs £45. I continue to work because as a previous poster said, I recognise the long term effect a large gap will have on my future earning potential. I realise that some people don't care about working again, and that's great for you but why be expected to be financially rewarded for it?
As for the poster who said they are contributing to society by raising children who are well rounded, you must be smoking something marvellous.
"As for the poster who said they are contributing to society by raising children who are well rounded, you must be smoking something marvellous."
Soul = My new best friend.
Excellent response Zookie, you contributed very well there. You might feel your point has been made incredibly clear, but to me it's not, and I've read the thread twice now.
I fully agree that SAHM is a great choice for some but you can't expect to continue to gain all ways: stay at home to raise your children, being financially secure, have access to a financial benefit to go to job interviews/training (whatever the hell that comment was all about), and be able to work again whenever you choose to as if you've never left? We're in a bloody recession and the employment market at any level is hugely competitive and fast paced. If you don't keep up to date with changes, you're going to have to face the consequences of taking a lower paid job or one vastly different to the one you left and that thought must have occurred to you, why the shock now?
We all know GO is a twat, did you honestly expect him to stand up there and say "and as for the SAHM's...words fail me - have the keys to bloody Disneyland?" If you're looking for validation, you're looking in the wrong places to look to our current Government.
Shuffles up to Ruby and Social, offers crisps.
I think its great they are encouraging women to work. Surely we encourage girls at school to aim high and want them to have great jobs rather than be reliant upon a man. A man that could at any point up and leave them and the woman finds herself unable to support herself.
People can make the choice to be a SAHP but should expect that choice to be funded by themselves and not the state. It is a choice regardless of if childcare costs mean you dont balance as its a choice to have that number of childrenin the first place and its not like children are cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
Why is CB being mentioned? I have never mentioned this.
My problem is the attitude of society as a whole and the continuation and increase of selfishness within it which this government seem determined to support and further.
The country does have problems and we are in a recession, thank you ,I was totally unaware.
I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been mentioned. There is a website www.mothersathomematter.co.uk which explains the arguments for the state supporting one earner families which pay proportionately more in tax than dual earner families - therefore working hard, getting on and contributing. Families like mine in fact. One income families with a sahp don't need money for childcare but that doesn't mean there are not costs involved in bringing up children - and these families are now on ONE income. I think we should challenge why the government are only incentivising one model of family life - smacks of social engineering to me.
Who's selfishness is it supporting?
"These families are now on one income."
Through choice, however.
"And there are costs for bringing up children outside of childcare..."
We all encounter these costs, and child benefit helps to ease those costs apart from those earning a significant wage.
I was just watching Osborne's pre-budget interview with Jeremy Vine and he used it a few time. It irritates me on a very visceral level, especially coming from him. Has he ever had a job before the one he's got now?
Politicians speak gumph. Them having little life experience or social awareness is a different topic. It's a stupid line invented by some twatty PR team and to be expected from a Conservative mouth.
Through choice, yes. Which should be preserved for the future and which the government are eroding with these policiesMany, many mothers would LIKE to stay at home in the early years and possibly could do so if there was any help!! And not every wohm does it because she HAS to. The point is to have a level playing field so that families can choose what is best for them. The uk is almost alone in refusing to recognise the family as a unit in taxation terms and it's the wrong way entirely for them to be thinking.
But what would that system be? How could it really be made a level playing field? Seems too idealistic to me. I agree though, of course most Mums would probably prefer to stay at home if they had the means to - for me, it just seems shortsighted.
I would worry for my children to go back to a society where it's deemed the norm for women to be at home raising children, because that's what would happen in your scenario. We've already established the problems that presents to women who eventually want to return.
piles and piles of well regarded research to show, without a shred of doubt thy children are far far better off with a sahp, especially in the first 3 years. It might hurt feelings to say it, but doesn't make it any less accurate. And does make me wonder why Mothers, the vast majority of whom would much prefer to work part time at most, are being sold the line that working and outsourcing their kids is the new default setting.
that, not thy. Lol! The last big study done showed that almost zero Mothers want to work full time. Do we ignore what women want, and what's good for children, in order to 'get 'em back to work' as some new (anti) feminist ideal?
I wondered how long it would take for someone to roll out the "well regarded research for SAHP."
Care to link weewifey?
I wish I had the answers! What I do know is that these policies are deeply divisive (hence this thread!). We shouldn't be fighting each other but working out what is best for the children and therefore what policies and financial support should be. I have to go now I;m afraid, dh needs the computer!
Thanks Zookiemay! Sorry I have to go!
Soultrain, who really thinks that we would go back to a society where women are condemned for working outside the home when married or have a family? Now that is simplistic, shortsighted and more than a little hysterical.
But what's good for your children, may not work for mine. I mean that in a broad society sense, not to you personally JoJo.
google it. I'll link later when not on a mobile phone.
There's plenty of evidence. Separation anxiety, attachment disorder, depression in later life, violence, boys in nursery settings. Google Dr. Carole Ulanowsky.
You can hope that a kid is as well cared for in a nursery, but unless they're being a used, every kid is better off at home. Every one.
I don't understand your point Zookie, sorry.
Oh, and what is wrong with being idealistic?
JoJo, what's better for the children is to have a sahp. That's not always possible, so the next best thing is a grandparent or childminder. Hurts feelings to say it, but pretending that daycare is equal to the care of parents is offensive and wrong.
No thanks weewifey, just from your description of the research I can see it would be entirely biased and based to support one style of parenting. I hope you're not friends with anyone who has to work, what a horrendous show they'd have to see that's what you actually believe. Or heavens forbid, have to work yourself. Think I'm done here
Zookie - being idealistic is lovely, but in politics and a modern society, it's simply just not going to ever happen.
Anyway, must dash, off for a quick - work in the morning for me.
I think that working or stay at home, most parents are trying to do the best for their families and I don't believe that one way is better than the other.
This isn't a debate over which is better, I have been both.
This is a request for a fairer society.
This idealist hippy is off to bed now. Love and peace to all
I've worked too, used holiday clubs and childminders. But these daycare providers were always inferior to the care I gave. They were happier and better cared for by me, no question of it. It hurts the feelings of some working parents to say this, and some seem so hellbent on justifying the 'career' they can easily pretend their childminder or nursery is better for their child than they are. It's just not true though. I'm sick of women and men being force fed this new default setting for parents, and the idea that stay at home parents are oppressed minorities with 1950s style sensibilities.
anyway, I agree that sahp's have been sidelined. I think the government is hoping to make daycare for all children from 6 months + compulsory. I'm waiting for them to fuck about with maternity leave next. Breastfeeding, bonding with your child? Pah, that's for wimps.
Or Lean In.
It will backfire eventually though, just as almost enforced cheap daycare has backfired in Sweden.
nope still don't get it.
I'm a lone parent who works full time. I work hard and get on. People can't get subsidised childcare so they can clean in peace or go to the gym......how on earth is that logical.
and I don't think there should be tax breaks for Sahp....you already get free healthcare and education for children plus police force, fire brigade, etc...all paid for from taxe
What's gone wrong in Sweden?
what's gone wrong in Sweden?
They miss their children, is what.
And tired of being told they must work and leave kids in full time daycare.
Sweden, where you can drop your kid in a 'night nursery.''
The much hated (on Mumsnet) phrase
'why have 'em
springs to mind.
I am a SAHM and also working as a dinner lady in a local school kitchen during term times so I can look after my child (nearly 11) as I cannot afford to go out full-time until he is old enough to be at home full-time and even then will there be any jobs? In my area of Greater Manchester there are hundreds going for the same job I used to be an OFSTED Registered Childminder for 19 years but local nurseries were offering 'free' childcare places which I could not offer.
I watched 'This Morning' tonight as I missed it due to me being at work and this snobby woman was implying that SAHMs sat at home in their slippers!!!! Doesn't she have children? Does she not know that raising your own children is a hard job too? The fact that people such as her look down their noses at people like us who look after OUR OWN CHILDREN!
I used to get parents phoning to see if their child/ren were ok, worried that they may be crying. I don't know what people think childminders do all day but we feed, entertain, teach and love your little ones as well as doing the paperwork that the EYFS demands in our own time, time WE should be spending with our families. We have to go on First Aid and Safeguarding courses as well as many others and many of my friends are studying for Early Years Degrees We do NOT sit around drinking coffee and tea all day.
@weewifey40 - of course they were happier, they were with YOU, their mother!! .
Some people do not have the luxury of being able to stay at home with their child and some don't have Grandparents or any family nearby to help either.
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.