To think people who CHOOSE to be SAHPs should not claim income related benefits

(277 Posts)
DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:17:25

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?

Mim78 Fri 29-Nov-13 12:21:09

Not sure what figures are etc, but a bit unsure as to why someone should get any money for being a SAHP when the husband earns enough for them to live on.

pianodoodle Fri 29-Nov-13 12:21:36

No I don't have an issue with that whatsoever.

Ladymuck Fri 29-Nov-13 12:22:40

"They are just example figures as I don't know how much tax credits realistically are."

Why don't you find out then?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Fri 29-Nov-13 12:23:39

YABU. Tax credits also protect the child. If the mother chooses not to work does that the mean the child should live in poverty.

Also if mother went back to work she may well be in receipt of tax credits anyway.

SAHP also do a valuable job in the early years development of future citizens.

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:24:04

This thread has been sparked off by a friend who is debating giving up work to be a SAHM (single parent) as she'd only lose a couple of quid a month. I think SIBVU, benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice IMO. Maybe then we'd get fairer treatment and more resources for those who actually need it.

gamerchick Fri 29-Nov-13 12:25:07

If you're on 35k you're not entitled to tax credits are you?

Too much meepimg from people these days over who they think should be skint or not. Keep your shovel in your own garden.

WorraLiberty Fri 29-Nov-13 12:25:33

You really should have researched the figures before starting the thread.

As far as I'm aware, if he was earning £35k the only benefit available would be child benefit.

I think this boils down to having a society that in some way values the asset and importance of SAHP for young children. I'm glad there is some financial incentive as that supports the value of the role

Fakebook Fri 29-Nov-13 12:26:19

You can make the same decision too. Nothing is stopping you.

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

livinginwonderland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:26:52

Well, I'm going to be a SAHM - mainly because I want to be at home with my children, but also because DP and I are going to be better off with me staying at home because childcare would cost more than my monthly salary.

I think a lot of lower-income families (who would qualify for benefits) have a SAHP for financial reasons. For us, there would be no point working until all our kids are in school FT. The logistics (practical and financial) just wouldn't be worth it for us as a family.

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:27:01

BTW I'm not saying they shouldn't get them, I'm saying they shouldn't claim them. I think it's pretty immoral.

I'm sure SAHPs do a very valuable job, but I'm sure a nursery/childminder could also (whole other debate!).

But then again I'm in the "don't have children you can't afford" camp.

If anyone can link me as to where I can find out, I'd appreciate it.

Ladymuck Fri 29-Nov-13 12:27:24

Just gone on calculator. Nil tax credits if he is earning £35k. Only CB which they would get even if she worked.

StephenKatz Fri 29-Nov-13 12:27:34

Well said somedizzy

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Fri 29-Nov-13 12:27:34

In that case maybe your ire would be better directed at the astronomical cost of childcare in this country.

Also you need to stop seeing benefits in isolation. They are a social investment along with other benefits like free education and free childcare.

Ie the money is invested in the person as they are likely to more than pay it back in future years and because good social investment can help minimise some of societies (costly) problems.

pianodoodle Fri 29-Nov-13 12:28:11

Oh, and yes YABU

Keep your own house in order.

jacks365 Fri 29-Nov-13 12:28:43

With 2 children in full time childcare you would be worse off working on a salary of 25k and a lot of women earn far less than that. Yabu to make statements when you can't actually back them up with figures.

Shellywelly1973 Fri 29-Nov-13 12:28:57

With the greatest of respect- what's it to do with you?

As a parent of two ds with SNs I would be better off if my dp didn't live with us. But he does.

Its a free country- individual choice & all that...

Ladymuck Fri 29-Nov-13 12:29:07

And redoing the figures if he earns £25k per annum, then they only get £1k in tax credits.

AngelaDaviesHair Fri 29-Nov-13 12:29:08

Unless there is such a pronounced social benefit for all of us in very young children being at home with a parent and not in full-time childcare that it is worth subsidising?

I'm not saying there is or there isn't, by the way, just that it's a relevant part of the discussion.

WorraLiberty Fri 29-Nov-13 12:30:09

But then again I'm in the "don't have children you can't afford" camp.

Well if your circumstances change after you've had them, you can't exactly stuff them back up your chuff, can you?

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:30:26

itsallgoingtobefine whole other debate. But yes the cost of childcare in this country really gets my goat!!

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:31:30

No worra and I'm in complete support of giving people in those circumstances all the help possible. It's people who do it knowingly that irritate a little.

MortifiedAnyFuckerAdams Fri 29-Nov-13 12:32:13

OP you may have got a decent debate here if you had actually bothered to find out some facts and figures.

FantasticDay Fri 29-Nov-13 12:32:21

The cut off point for tax credits is a household income of 26K. Your friend may well be better off as a SAHM, but that's because she wouldn't be paying fir childcare and commuting - Not because she's getting tax credits.

Pointeshoes Fri 29-Nov-13 12:32:59

Your view seems pretty black and white. What if like me, tax credits were the only way to put food on the table as I'm in full time uni. Wouldn't be able to study without them. Therefore wouldn't be earning a decent wage in the near future.

You do realise tax credits basically props up income because minimum wage is so low?

gamerchick Fri 29-Nov-13 12:33:11

But its none of your business.

livinginwonderland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:33:19

But then again I'm in the "don't have children you can't afford" camp.

Yeah, because people never lose their jobs and childcare/living costs never rise, ever. hmm

TarkaTheOtter Fri 29-Nov-13 12:33:27

I don't think the govt is providing financial incentives to be sahp. If I were a childminder I would receive govt funding (through) the parents' tax credits to look after children. Because I look after my own children instead of other peoples there is no govt subsidy.
We manage fine without but it annoys me that childcare seems to only be respected in an economic sense when it is other peoples children that you are looking after.
I've often wondered if I would be better off if I registered as a childminder to look after my neighbour's children and she did the same for mine.

Hullygully Fri 29-Nov-13 12:33:43

What ARE you talking about OP?

You know what pisses me off?

I would like to go to the moon but I don't have a rocket and maybe my neighbour does. Or not.

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:33:45

I didn't actually realise that they took partners income into account and the threshold was so low blush. Feel like a bit of a dick now as if household income is under 25k obviously they won't be better off in work! I'm assuming people in these circumstances can't claim income support?

livinginwonderland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:34:48

Oh and also, by your logic, nobody on minimum wage should ever have children. Minimum wage alone is barely enough to support a single person living alone, let alone a family with children.

Your argument should be "minimum wage needs to be higher", not "get rid of tax credits to support families with a working parent".

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:35:14

I've heard it mentioned on mumsnet about people losing TCs when they hit 40k - hence the start of the thread!

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:36:16

living I'm a massive advocate of minimum wage increase! But I don't think that alone would solve it.

FantasticDay Fri 29-Nov-13 12:38:32

Hi. No they couldn't claim income support either. Im in phone so can't link but the hmrc /Gov.UK website is surprisingly helpful. (Btw, not surprisingly you were misled - the papers often make out that the benefits system us far more generous than it actually is).

livinginwonderland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:38:41

Why not? I'm confused by your argument. If one person earns enough money to support a SAHP and children, why should the other partner go out to work if they don't need or want to?

If minimum wage was higher, we wouldn't need tax credits and child benefits. People could work full-time and earn enough to support their family without the need for government top-ups.

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:38:54

point well obviously you fall into the can't work bracket since you're at Uni!

What's it to do with me? I vote and pay tax therefore I am well within my rights to have an opinion on the matter, as is every single other person in the country!

Are you getting mixed up with child benefit? At one point 40k was going to be the cut-off but the it got bumped to 50k. That was for a sole earner not joint income so your friend's circumstances don't apply here.

Pointeshoes Fri 29-Nov-13 12:40:18

Well you seem to of learnt a lesson here.
Do a bit of research first before you make a story up. Clap clap.

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:41:08

living they shouldn't go to work, but they shouldn't claim benefits either!

YY to your point about minimum wage, but SAHPs wouldn't earn minimum wage so may not solve the problem?

FantasticDay Fri 29-Nov-13 12:41:17

I think you might be confusing tcs with child benefit?

NoComet Fri 29-Nov-13 12:41:20

Sorry, but I am old fashioned I believe every DC has the right, at least until the end if primary school to have one parent at home.

I brought my DCs into the world I want to care for them.

I don't have a well paid, child care covering job to walk into, I don't have granny round the corner for holidays and illness, when both DDs got CP I'd probably have been sacked.

Once the DDs were to old for our lovely local nursery, there was nothing, but over subscribed CMs and very very limited holiday care. Most likely DH would have to take leave, I would have to take leave and we'd get zero time together.

Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

In fact we are incredibly lucky DH earns over the threshold for even CB (just) so we have never been able to claim diddly squit.

But if a bit of his insane tax bill is subsidising another family to be able to spend time together, not working every hour to cover child care or is allowing a child like DD1 who needs space not to be stuck in an after school/holiday club they hate. Then good, they are welcome!

DixieWest Fri 29-Nov-13 12:42:09

So what about the thread in here were the poster is going to be on 40k and people are advising her to check if she can get tax credit? It's things like that that have lead me to believe the threshold for claiming is high!

fifi669 Fri 29-Nov-13 12:42:31

Personally I don't think anyone should be a SAHM unless they can afford to be independently, have children with special needs or will actually be worse off if they were employed.

Staying at home is a choice, not a right.

Bluecarrot Fri 29-Nov-13 12:43:59

If I went back to the same job I had before, we would be worse off than if I stayed at home. Not taking into account the added non-monetary benefits of being at home with my dc, the availability of someone to care for a sick child etc.

But I guess you could argue that I could find a better paid job, which would take us out of the tax credits threshold.

My kids are only little for a short time. I plan to be here for them. I will hopefully restart my career once they are older, abd the taxes I pay will support the next generation in the same situation as I am in now.

Pointeshoes Fri 29-Nov-13 12:44:04

No , I could work on top of uni. But I choose not too. I'm a SAHP and at uni.

Chunderella Fri 29-Nov-13 12:45:41

On phone so can't link, but in OPs scenario with a 35k earner, they could claim 1685 child tax credits annually only if 3 DC. Sod all if 1 or 2. There is no scenario in which someone on 35k would be entitled to 5k in child tax credits alone. They might, however, be entitled to a lot in the working tax credit element that pays for childcare, if it were needed. Which it isn't with a SAHP. You cannot always assume that more parental hours worked means less cost to the state. Doesn't always work that way.

So yes, yabu. Not only on principle but because the premise of your argument is wrong. I'm a WOHP for the record...

livinginwonderland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:47:32

Absolutely being a SAHM is a choice, but there's a huge proportion of people who are worse off if they work. DP and I both earn minimum wage. I work part-time (between 20-30 hours) and DP is full-time. When I get pregnant, I won't be going back to work after maternity leave. We don't have family nearby. The amount we spent on childcare would be more than I bring in a month, so why bother? We'd be worse off and I wouldn't be able to see my DC as much as I'd like.

We'll be able to claim tax credits and child benefit. Which, y'know, will benefit our child. Ideally, minimum wage would mean DP could work full-time and I could stay home without claiming extras, but until minimum wage increases, that's not going to happen for a huge number of families.

expatinscotland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:48:21

You start a thread from a point of complete ignorance about tax credits, income support and everything else and expect it to be in Any way reasonable?

Income support is a means tested benefit for lone parents of children under 5, for starters.

Do some research before spouting off half-cocked complete nonsense.

FantasticDay Fri 29-Nov-13 12:48:53

Well, of course it's worth checking what you are entitled to and at 40K you would get CB and perhaps tax relief on childcare through vouchre schemes - but the 26K cut off had been in operation for a few years now. (It was higher before the election)

expatinscotland Fri 29-Nov-13 12:50:10

What about a thread like that? The poster will find out sharpish that the threshold for tax credits is lower tha £40k.

Rockchick1984 Fri 29-Nov-13 12:51:38

Tax credits cut-off is £26k, unless BOTH parents are working minimum 16 hours a week when they may get some help towards childcare costs.

Do some research before you make yourself sound like a twat!

JoinYourPlayfellows Fri 29-Nov-13 12:54:16

I think people should make whatever choices make sense for them and make full use of our wonderful welfare state.

I think being a SAHP is a choice of occupation that is valuable for our society and if people are able to afford to use their time in this way because of tax credits, then that is fine.

I am getting a pain in my fucking face with the idea that we only support people when things BEFALL.

Should we reserve Child Benefit for children who can be proven to have been born of a contraceptive failure?

jacks365 Fri 29-Nov-13 12:54:26

Lets spell things out sahp with a working partner do not qualify for income support. Sahp with a working partner do not qqualify for help with child care costs. Sahp with a working partner may get tax credits but only if the partner is on a very low wage. A sahp with a working partner may not even receive cb.

Sahp with a working partner get a lot less help than you think. Single parents are a completely different ball game entirely and you can't compare the two.

DoctorRobert Fri 29-Nov-13 12:59:50

I think YABU. I chose to be a SAHM for 2.5 years after having DD and we were eligible for a small amount of child tax credit, so we claimed it. DH's wage at that time was between 18 and 23K, so hardly a fortune.

The tax credits enabled me to look after her whilst she was little, what on earth is wrong with that? I'm glad to live in a country which does put some importance on family, and as a taxpayer (again) I am happy to pay into that system and enable others to do the same if they so wish.

Rinoachicken Fri 29-Nov-13 13:00:37

^ ^ this

Rinoachicken Fri 29-Nov-13 13:01:19

(That was for jacks post)

jellybeans Fri 29-Nov-13 13:06:28

Middle earners can get TC but not much unless they have zillions of DC. YABU.

Why is it OK to get money for childcare etc but only if it isn't the parent doing it? Not all workers pay tax. Maybe families with a SAHP wouldn't need to claim if the cost of living hadn't gone up so much more than the paultry minimum wage.

Chunderella Fri 29-Nov-13 13:07:26

Just to clarify, people are posting that the tax credits cutoff is 26k- it isn't. I think they're confusing it with the benefits cap ie that nobody can get more than 26k in benefits. But you can certainly get tax credits on 26k if you have more than one child. If you have 3, you'll get over 5k a year in child tax credit. If you're a single parent or are both working and the 26k is your combined salary, you could also get a lot in the childcare element of working tax credits too. Table suggests up to about 15k max.

That said, OP is still talking crap.

NoComet Fri 29-Nov-13 13:08:19

Staying at home until your DC is 12 and can be left alone in the Holidays, should be a right!

(Wether it's Mum, Dad or a combination of both parents flexible child friendly jobs, all DCs should have a parent there when they want as well as need one)

That's what all children deserve!

Not just my DCs because they are lucky enough to have a Father who can make computers do back flips on a tight rope, but all DCs!

As well as your figures being completely out.

I know people who declare (to less close friends), that they are choosing to stay at home, whereas I know that would of liked to have gone back to work, but the cost of child are means one of them has to stay home.

As a society we should be supporting people to parent well, so if there are two people out if work and one doesn't jab young children, but the other does, surely you see that it makes sense to support the young parent to not be employed?

I can remember when the Tories was at the height of their campaign against Single Mums, yet every Single Mum I knew was getting up every day, caring for their children, attending education/training, looking after older relatives as well. We, as a society could not afford for every person to work, we couldn't afford the bill for social care, or provide employment for all.

Yet every Pub and Betting shop I walked past during the day, had the same unemployed able bodied men rolling in them at dinner time. Twenty years on, life hasn't changed for most if them.

It makes sense to support some groups of people to not be employed, it builds a better society, seeming as the wage levels and coat of housing are never going to be addressed.

Take a good look at what tax money is spent on, spending our tax money, in our own country on the people paying it in (we all pay tax), is a non issue, or problem.

MadBannersAndCopPorn Fri 29-Nov-13 13:14:58

YABU

^^what she said

sunshine401 Fri 29-Nov-13 13:15:49

If you chose to work then you should foot the bill for child care costs. Ie no child care element of tax credits.
Now of course I do not belive that but that is what you are saying right?

volvocowgirl Fri 29-Nov-13 13:24:11

YABU to start a thread without basing your claims on facts...

Fabsmum Fri 29-Nov-13 13:26:29

"But then again I'm in the "don't have children you can't afford" camp."

For the majority of people living in the SE and other areas of high housing costs, that would mean not having children at all. Because most families in London claim some sort of benefit.

Would you be happy if only middle-class professional people on good incomes had children?

Maybe we could ensure this happens by organising mass sterilisations? hmm

WhereIsMyHat Fri 29-Nov-13 13:35:26

I guess your friend would have to pay out childcare if she went back. If 'd gone back to work, childcare would have cost more than my monthly salary.

Did she say that benefits would make up almost as much as her slalary or does she mean, childcare + commuting costs + CB= almost what she earns?

NorthernShores Fri 29-Nov-13 13:39:08

Star ball you are very lucky indeed. Your husband beinga high earner has enabled you to securely live as a sahm and provide a home for your family.

I'dlove to do similar but my husband has been made redundant and is unlikely now to earn above 22. Its just not possible. Life is so stressful.

THere's lots and lots of families without a high earning partner to support the choices of the mother (or the other way around).

fifi669 Fri 29-Nov-13 13:39:39

I def don't agree that staying at home til your DC are 12 should be a right! You seriously thing someone that chooses to have say 3 kids, 3 years apart should be supported by the state for 20 years to stay at home? Obviously there are benefits to staying at home, but children of working parents aren't all deranged either. If you can afford to stay home great, if not, go to work. I'm not sure why everyone seems to think they are owed or entitled to everything. You're not.

mrsjay Fri 29-Nov-13 13:44:10

you cant get benefits on 35k apart from child benefit your friend is chosing to give up work that isnt the same as what you initally asked, TBH i dont care if a parents choses to stay at home to look after their children and get some top up benefit

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 13:56:51

Child tax credits should be completely scrapped and childcare should be heavily subsidised through childcare providers.

That way everyone that contributes to the system benefits when they have children, and people won't choose to not bother working on the basis of their tax credits.

Working would pay.

jacks365 Fri 29-Nov-13 14:03:54

Woowoo but why should my tax subsidise your childcare costs.

pianodoodle Fri 29-Nov-13 14:06:33

Yeah. Some people only spend all day running themselves ragged after little children and babies because they're so terribly terribly lazy... grin

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 14:10:36

To enable people to pay their own tax at a particularly expensive time of their lives.

I'd much rather my tax enabled people to work and pay their own tax than have it enable people to have children they can't feed, clothe and house without claiming benefits.

Bubbles1066 Fri 29-Nov-13 14:13:19

OH earns 27K; we get no tax credits at all as his income is deemed too high. I'm a SAHM and the only thing we qualify for is child benefit. I don't think someone in the situation you describe would be entitled to anything other than child benefit in that scenario OP.

YouTheCat Fri 29-Nov-13 14:18:36

OP, you have started a thread with bugger all knowledge and righteous indignation.

Husband on 35k means no income based tax credit top up. If your 'friend' wishes to leave work and be a sahp then that is her business and not yours.

Woowoo that is a very idiotic idea and doesn't take into account those who might well work fulltime but don't earn a living wage because the minimum wage is a crock of shite. Or do you believe that everyone earns £30k? hmm

Babyroobs Fri 29-Nov-13 14:22:28

The threshold for tax credits rises with each child. Therefore you can have 4 kids and choose to be a sahp and have a partner earning £45k and still get child tax credits.

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 14:22:33

I said I think CHILD tax credits need to be scrapped, not WORKING tax credits. They are an unfortunate necessity.

If you can't afford to have children on two wage packets, plus two wage top ups, plus subsidised childcare, plus child benefit, then you shouldn't have children until you have improved your earnings.

YouTheCat Fri 29-Nov-13 14:24:17

Some people will never improve their earnings. You might have a nice little career going, with opportunities but not everyone does.

You live in a bubble.

fizzoclock Fri 29-Nov-13 14:25:18

We get tax credits on 28K with two children. I am a SAHM looking for work. If we didn't have tax credits we couldn't eat. We live in SE and rent (obviously we can't buy a house on 28k) is astronomical. Rent plus bills = DH salary. Tax credits and CB is food, nappies and shoes money.

Some people do need to credits, but I do get what OP is saying to some extent. I have worked out that having a third child would net me the same income increase as going back to work. I am choosing to try and find work because obviously the long term prospects are better, plus I have professional qualifications with good prospects. If I didn't have good prospects I guess having another baby would be the most profitable thing I could do. That is a bit crazy.

I don't think the answer is to end tax credits though. Looking at housing costs might be a better starting point.

LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot Fri 29-Nov-13 14:26:31

Yes and WooWoo, someones gotta do the minimum wage jobs, how would things get cleaned or purchased, if someone wasnt there to do it.

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 14:27:13

No, I earn a low wage actually.

I just don't think that having children is a right that we are so entitled to that other people should have to pay for us to have them.

Really, what is so wrong with people being provide for the children they have chosen to create?

LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot Fri 29-Nov-13 14:30:03

Fizz, im in Essex and the rent here is disgusting, im worried all the time, when i go back to work im gonna pay more rent than i do now, and more if my landlords decide to whack another £25 on my already £595, tiny 2 bed house, and my house is the cheapest among others the same as mine, some can go for £100 more than mine.

FreeWee Fri 29-Nov-13 14:30:45

She's looking at things in a shortsighted way because she may be only a little worse off financially on benefits vs her current role and salary but benefits levels are currently frozen and her earning potential while still employed is likely to be better than 'frozen'. And I'm sure others will agree that once you get off the employment wagon it's really hard to get back on again. Then what she is getting from benefits vs what she could be earning in future would be much more than a few quid. I'm always disappointed when people do their sums and think they're 'better off' on benefits because they don't see the long term earning potential of being employed and the salary increase above inflation (in some companies) or a promotion with a better salary. Benefits levels get set by the government so you have no control over your 'earnings' that way. YANBU to think that choosing to go on benefits should never be a positive choice compared to being in work with the potential that brings.

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 14:31:21

Yes, someone has got to do the minimum wage jobs, but it doesn't have to be parents!

I think everyone who works full should be able to have a decent standard of living, and if wages are too low and these workers have to be topped up by the state, then so be it. If they want to have children, then they have to do it on their wages and their top ups, and should get subsidised/free childcare to enable it.

Fairylea Fri 29-Nov-13 14:31:48

If jobs paid an appropriate wage we wouldn't have a need for tax credits.

That is the real problem.

LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot Fri 29-Nov-13 14:33:02

Yes, someone has got to do the minimum wage jobs, but it doesn't have to be parents!

Minimum wage is all im likely to get right now!!

Fairylea Fri 29-Nov-13 14:33:40

Oh and I'm one of the mums who chose to sahm when dh is earning minimum wage in a job that years ago would have paid very well.

comemulledwinewithmoi Fri 29-Nov-13 14:34:42

I think you should only be a sahm if you can afford to support yourselves, unless exceptional circs.

MPB Fri 29-Nov-13 14:35:06

Yes let's bung all the kids in childcare FFS It is not the answer.

So becoming a parent has now to be based on your income, so what should be the minimum wage before we are allowed to breed? DO we have a north/ south divide? Forced abortions for those that don't meet the criteria.

MN is fucking nuts today.

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 14:39:56

Becoming a parent should be based on your ability to provide for a child, yes.

Providing financially is a normal part of being a parent, seeing as how children need stuff that you have to pay for. It's not rocket science.

And what are you on about with forced abortions?! We have free access to contraception in this country, we have morning after pills. And if we had free childcare, then there would be no reason why people couldn't work to provide for their own children.

comemulledwinewithmoi Fri 29-Nov-13 14:43:13

You need to be able to provide financially for your children

comemulledwinewithmoi Fri 29-Nov-13 14:43:49

Agree, free contraceptives are available.

Aquariusgirl86 Fri 29-Nov-13 14:44:20

Yabu and haven't thought this through or done any research before posting.this fictitious friend wouldn't be getting any benefits except cb and if you look at childcare costs and factor in commuting ect you may find she would actually be out of pocket if she returned to work. When I calculated it to go back to work after first born I would have been paying out more than I was earning on childcare and and second baby there was really no point! But no one is paying for this decision! Infact I'm actually saving the gvt giving me the childcare element if I had used childcare. As it happens I do work but around my husbands 65 hour week so I work nights and early sand lates between us working a 95 hour. 7 day week anyway I digress...

LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot Fri 29-Nov-13 14:45:13

My DD is conceived and born at a time where her dad worked a good job, and i stayed at home, then he left when she was 18 months old, leaving me with 100% care, so i never walked in parenthood with the expectation of having others support her, I've been a SAHM with her and now looking for work to support us both, but its not easy.

I forgot life is perfect when you live in a bubble.

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 14:48:31

Perhaps it would have been easier for you Lucius if you had been able to access free childcare when your dd was 18 months old, and there was a better system to ensure that non resident parents also pay for their children.

DH earns £30k and we're not entitled to anything except child benefit so I would do some research before you go throwing figures around OP.

Rinoachicken Fri 29-Nov-13 14:48:53

woowoo

What happens if you were able to comfortable support tousve when you had children, but then one parent got made redundant? Or just cost of living rocketed a ate up that 'comfortable' cushion? Or any number of other unforseeabke/uncontrollable circumstances change.

Should the kids then be put up for adoption on the basis that the parents can no longer afford them??!!

LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot Fri 29-Nov-13 14:50:25

It would have been WooWoo, but its not, i have to make the best of a shit situation, like alot of parents.

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 14:52:57

As you're asking me, I would have to say that if I were in charge of the system then I'd make job seekers allowance much more generous than it currently is, and I'd include an element that gave extra payments attached to JSA to support up to two children.

That way there would still be a safety net for people that lose their jobs, but there would also be the expectation that they still have to be very active in looking for work.

gamerchick Fri 29-Nov-13 14:53:28

I am chuckling at the idea of an experiment where all those in low incomes were prevented from breeding. Only those comfortable be allowed to produce offspring. 40 years of that would show some interesting results when these people realise they won't be able to have vision for their kids because there would be no service workforce.. nobody to wipe their arses when they get old. Nobody to serve their Starbucks or open supermarkets. Then their kids wouldn't be allowed to breed and provide them with grandkids because they'll be stuck in low wage jobs.. because somebody will have to force them into that workforce.

Still It might trim the population down a bit.

Not a correct ins and out thought but amusing anyway

LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot Fri 29-Nov-13 14:57:10

Its people who have kids just so they dont have to work are the ones that should be tackled.

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 14:57:45

The population needs to be trimmed down a bit!

At the moment we have a huge surplus of unskilled workers, hence the high unemployment figures.

If we ever got to the stage where we didn't have people to do the low wage jobs, then we could recruit from other parts of the world.

The argument that we need more people to do the low wage jobs is ridiculous at a time when we have so many people fighting over those jobs.

PGTip Fri 29-Nov-13 14:59:56

My DH & I chose for me to be a SAHM, honestly never crossed my mind to claim benefits when we had chosen this life!

gamerchick Fri 29-Nov-13 15:00:34

It wasn't an argument... read my post properly.

prettywoman78 Fri 29-Nov-13 15:02:26

Yabu for not bothering to research your figures alone. Even based on the 25k figure 1k tax credits alone is hardly giving a huge subsidy. Plus many people in work claim tax credits too.
Personally I would have been £20 a day better off going baCk to work with 1 child. So I didn't bother. However, I didn't need support from the state so in your eyes op Thats ok. Yet if my dh earned less I couldn't have that choice withour being judged. That is imo unfair.

wigglesrock Fri 29-Nov-13 15:13:35

My husband earns 31k, at the minute I'm a SAHP, we've 3 kids & don't qualify for tax credits - we get CB.

Just to put it into perspective for you OP, when dh earned 22k two years ago, and I was made redundant at 7 months pregnant we were entitled to just 20 quid per week.

Our rent was 750.00, our outgoings overall were 1200.00 pm. And that was BEFORE the benefit cuts.

Picking figures out of the air is not a helpful exercise.

justtoomessy Fri 29-Nov-13 15:26:55

erm I'm a single parent bringing home about £28,000 and I am not entitled to anything but child benefit so you're friend with a husband on £35,000 won't be getting anything but that either.

meandbumpy Fri 29-Nov-13 15:28:13

Maybe your whole outlook on having children needs to sway from purely financial considerations to thinking more about the purpose of starting a family. It is of course a persons social responsibility to manage and work hard at their own money situation but personally I can't see the point in having children if you don't also take responsibility for their upbringing. Which I would say means investing a lot of your own time and effort into educating and nurturing them. What's so bad about one of you doing the majority of the earning whilst the other does the majority of the parenting.

No state help or support is free, that's what taxes and national insurance are for. We ALL dip into this insurance pot at some point in our lives and I don't see why raising children isn't a legitimate reason to do so. Having children is not a selfish, economy draining, terribly bad thing to do. And neither is wanting to take personal responsibility for bringing up a healthy, decent member of society and not leaving it to someone else to take care of.
Why is it that people continue to insist on the importance of being able to 'afford' having children whilst at the same time openly dismiss the importance of a parent's responsibility to ensure their offspring become useful members of society.
I'm sure SAHPs do a very valuable job, but I'm sure a nursery/childminder could also - For example

Agree with a lot of others, you need to get your facts right and look at the bigger picture; of the society you're living in and the way it works for instance.

YouTheCat Fri 29-Nov-13 15:30:59

High unemployment is so much more than too many people looking for unskilled work. It has an awful lot more to do with the ridiculous amount of cuts to services and jobs in both private and public sector. Plus the rise in the pension age, which leaves many older people now having to work more years or having to look for work. Do you know many employers chomping at the bit to employ and train 60 year olds? Because I don't.

Many people are not paid a living wage.

So you'd have the working poor not allowed to have children? People don't claim tax credits for the laughs and holidays you know. It is so they can eat and heat their homes. How about capping energy prices and stopping the massive profits? How about the government stops 'tinkering' with the inflation figures and puts wages up accordingly?

AmberLeaf Fri 29-Nov-13 15:31:44

OP the example in your opening post is totally different from the single friend scenario you mentioned in your following post.

What a silly uninformed thread.

tinkertaylor1 Fri 29-Nov-13 15:41:17

Child care costs force people to become SAHP. We don't qualify for credits but we just about manage. It's a factor for me not going back to work.

The system is shit, I'm glad there is a cap. People who have children with the knowledge what they will be entitled to before had isn't so great.

People that need to have credits because of unforeseen bad circumstances are fully entitled to it.

People that have dc with the intent to never work make my blood boil.

DeepThought Fri 29-Nov-13 15:52:58

in the OP you refer to a hypothetical DC who is SEN

I know it's boring, and semantics, but please remember that the child is not their special needs. In the same vein as someone with a physical disability who uses a wheelchair isn't 'wheelchair-bound'.

As you were.

custardo Fri 29-Nov-13 15:54:08

THIS has got to be the most fucking stupid thread ever.

" oooh errr ahhhhhrrrrr, I um, disagree with um wimen 'aving babies through choice and then stayin at home,.....I um arghhhrr dunno how much my taxes pay for...the scroungers.....um, not sure what they get um errrr arghhhrr but they um get sommat - um maybe they don't get anything, truth is I no nothing but I want to get all hoisted of my bosom over it... blardy squeezed middle people who may or may not get tax payers money - knit some lentils you barstards"

DeepThought Fri 29-Nov-13 15:58:24

custy I have proper guffawed at your post

YouTheCat Fri 29-Nov-13 16:16:51

I have no lentils sad

I shall have to knit peas instead.

Pointeshoes Fri 29-Nov-13 16:48:58

I have yogurt , shall I share it out

AnyBagsofOxfordFuckers Fri 29-Nov-13 17:30:07

Regardless of the ignorance of the OP over the most basic info about tax credits and benefits, etc., could people PLEASE stop peddling the fucking lie that people become SAHMs are ones who can easily afford to do so. Every family with a SAHM I know, myself included, has made enormous financial and personal sacrifices to facilitate this. No-one is asking for a bloody medal, just that people stop with the bullshit about it being some luxury lifestyle choice, FFS.

As for the idea that a childminder could do exactly as good a job of looking after children than the children's own mother, do not make my arse laugh. It's not like it's terrible for children to be in childcare, but a parent will always be better for them than some outsider paid to care. In all this talk about who should or shouldn't claim what, or work, or whatever, where are the questions about what is best for the children? Or is financial gain the only thing of value nowadays?!

People pay taxes so we can support each other when it is needed. Every time you have seen your Dr, OP, you have done so at the expense of other people's taxes. Why not get angry about the real reasons behind the massive disparity of wealth and wealth distribution, and the financial mess in this country? Because it is not down to SAHPs claiming benefits that they are legally entitled to, or any other sort of benefits recipient.

For the record, my partner earns £22K pa and we are entitled to £5 a week tax credits. I go on sprees in Harrods on it every week hmm

icingmyback Fri 29-Nov-13 17:43:59

AnyBagsofOxfordFuckers agree with you 100%. in fact i think i love you for posting that.

chocolatecrispies Fri 29-Nov-13 17:44:45

Yabu and it sounds like like you have an axe to grind about SAHP - a WAHP can get help with childcare costs. Some children need a parent at home and a nursery or childminder is not the same. I would prefer to work and we would be better off but my son was desperately unhappy when I worked and his behaviour was terrible - is that just another 'lifestyle choice'?

utreas Fri 29-Nov-13 17:57:07

YADNBU I think that tax credits should be abolished and the income tax threshold raised with the savings. Tax credits are a mechanism through which the Government chooses to financially reward certain client groups at the expense of others.

Joysmum Fri 29-Nov-13 17:59:09

I'm a SAHM and get nothing in benefits.

It pisses me off no end that this government pushes people to go out and work so that somebody else can provide the childcare.

The first thing society shouts when a child has committed a crime is 'Where were the parents?' At work, that's where! Schools are expected to take on the role of educating children in life skills, rather than academic subjects, that used to be the responsibility of the parents. The school day isn't any longer to support these extra topics and standards in traditional subjects are falling, I believe because schools are being forced to spread themselves to thin thanks to a crouded curriculum.

The value we place on childcare today is though of only in terms of cost, not in terms of the family unit and investing in the people of our future.

comemulledwinewithmoi Fri 29-Nov-13 18:19:13

Perhaps sahm who feel they can't work should look at jobs that can be done when other half is home. I know this doesn't apply to all.

comemulledwinewithmoi Fri 29-Nov-13 18:21:00

Sahm shouldn't be supported by benefits if it is through choice.

saulaboutme Fri 29-Nov-13 18:48:08

op I've tried to see if you've made any sense but sorry yabu. Wth???

maleview70 Fri 29-Nov-13 19:01:30

When you give up a job then surely you free up a vacancy....one person stops work to receive benefits and do a job that 99% of men wouldn't want to do and a very valuable job it is too! At the same time someone maybe ready to go back to work steps into their shoes and maybe even stops claiming benefits....

I really don't see a huge problem in this!

usualsuspect Fri 29-Nov-13 19:03:30

Pointless thread.

Next...

IamFatherChristmasNOTsanta Fri 29-Nov-13 19:10:56

I am struggling to see the sense of the thread also.

Its built on sand not fact.

As many others have pointed out your ire would be better spent elsewhere.

idiuntno57 Fri 29-Nov-13 19:23:40

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.

By the way OP YABU and WRONG

inabeautifulplace Fri 29-Nov-13 19:23:44

I want to live in a society which values the contribution of ALL of it's members. Millions of those people will never earn more than the bare minimum. Millions more will slip in and out of relative poverty. I think it's fair to say the massive majority of them have much of value to share with the next generation. This makes them worthwhile parents, and it is the role of the state to facilitate that activity. Some of that involves direct financial support for parental choices, such as sahp.

I don't want to live in a society which places financial values on a pedestal whilst ignoring other key aspects of life. I detest the idea that fundamental life choices are separate from state activity and thus only available to the chosen few. I can't process the suggestion that we should entice a huge number of immigrants in times of plenty, only to discard them when things got tough as anything other than feeble thinking.

Chunderella Fri 29-Nov-13 19:28:31

I agree with most of Oxford's post except for the bit about a parent always being better for a child than childcare. Not necessarily true. Depends very much on the parent, the child and the quality of childcare being offered.

MammaTJ Fri 29-Nov-13 19:32:07

I'm not even a SAHM, but I have given up a full time job to claim more benefits and become a ....................................student!

grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin grin

Meglet Fri 29-Nov-13 19:35:13

Yabu. If she's a single parent then giving up paid work isn't a bad idea. She'll never be rolling in it on benefits, but if she's doing the job of 2 parents then paid work on top of that may be too much for her. I'm a working single parent and I cost the country/NHS far more by working and being mentally and physically burnt out.

jellybeans Fri 29-Nov-13 20:53:41

Great post oxford

It's basically OK to look after kids and give benefits and help EXCEPT if you are the mother..crazy!

It's almost taboo to suggest a mother may be special to a small baby and that many women want to SAH or work p/t..

Agree also that many people sacrifice material stuff to stay home,not all, but many.

People accept the 'norm' too readily. Who came up with the current ideas of work? Who says that 40 hours is the magic number of contributing. What about in the past when work in and out of the house was valued?

And not everyone can 'fit work around their husband' if their husband is away at work or works rotating shifts.

SeaSickSal Fri 29-Nov-13 21:03:44

I actually have a big problem with the way that society at the mo ment will pay for children to be in childcare while their parents work but won't pay for their parents to stay home and care for them. I hate the way the state treats children as chattels who's care should be farmed out to a professional regardless of whether a parent wants to stay home with them or not.

Women should be able to do what is best for them and their family, whether that is working or staying at home. But at the moment for most women unless they are a single parent entirely dependent on benefits or have a wealthy partner there simply isn't the choice. You have to go out to work.

I would certainly support the widening of tax credits so that the childcare sum could be paid directly to a parent if they choose to do it themselves rather than employing a professional.

It wouldn't cost much more money, would free up jobs and give women a genuine choice.

JoinYourPlayfellows Fri 29-Nov-13 21:04:32

"No-one is asking for a bloody medal, just that people stop with the bullshit about it being some luxury lifestyle choice, FFS."

I have recently come to the conclusion that anyone who uses the phrase "lifestyle choice" is thereby proven as a complete and utter wanker.

If being gay is a "lifestyle choice" and having children is a "lifestyle choice" and being fat is a "lifestyle choice" and not being able to find a job is a "lifestyle choice", then "lifestyle choice" just means LIVING YOUR FUCKING LIFE.

When did we become a nation of begrudging misers, constantly looking at our neighbours and wondering how much they are COSTING us?

It is really starting to do my head in.

And what ina just said too. That is all exactly how I feel, but without enough swearing.

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 29-Nov-13 23:02:54

"I'd much rather my tax enabled people to work and pay their own tax than have it enable people to have children they can't feed, clothe and house without claiming benefits."

I agree. Children fare far better in life if bought up in working households than on benefits. Why would anybody choose it as a lifestyle choice knowing their childrens outcomes would be affected is beyond me.

Nobody is made to have children and the clap trap that they suddenly cant work is sheer nonsense, dont want to work yes but cant no. Childcare is expensive but its not like it comes as a shock and there are jobs that can be done around partners etc.

I wonder how many SAHM's would be happy if their partner quit work too, after all his child needs him to be home 24/7 and he cant work and parent hmm

inabeautifulplace Fri 29-Nov-13 23:06:42

A house with one sah parent is a working household. How can you possibly be ignorant of this fact?

JoinYourPlayfellows Fri 29-Nov-13 23:10:12

Exhibit A

MoominsYonisAreScary Fri 29-Nov-13 23:10:49

stupid pointless thread

fifi669 Fri 29-Nov-13 23:13:37

I agree happy. Money should be provided to people to help them if they help themselves first. Not to fund a parenting choice.

LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot Fri 29-Nov-13 23:18:04

When these magical jobs appear that means no childcare, let me know!!

FudgefaceMcZ Fri 29-Nov-13 23:32:09

Are you daft? You don't get £5000 in tax credits with one SAHP and one on £35k, I barely get that annually and I'm on considerably less than £35k as a single parent with full time childcare to pay for ffs. Why are you bothering to work yourself up about something that's not even true? Was there not enough bollocks in the Daily Mail today for you to froth about rather than pulling random numbers out of your bottom and pretending they make a political argument?

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 23:32:30

I actually have a big problem with the way that society at the mo ment will pay for children to be in childcare while their parents work but won't pay for their parents to stay home and care for them.

But society does pay for parents to stay at home and care for them.

People can and do live quite easily on benefits until their youngest child is five years old. They make a choice, and society pays for it.

LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot Fri 29-Nov-13 23:36:30

and its a choice that we are made to feel ashamed about, whilst also being made to feel ashamed that we are dumping our kids on others, parents cant win either, SAHP is lazy and wanting free money, Working Parents are crap because we dont wanna raise our kids ourselves.

Rufus44 Fri 29-Nov-13 23:37:06

Agree with the comments about SAHP not always being a "lifestyle choice"

I gave up work 15 years ago and as far as I know (and am prepared to be wrong) that help with childcare costs was not available back then

What I really don't get, and this may be pure ignorance but I have had some wine and am feeling brave, but why is it ok to say that being supported financially as a SAHM is wrong but being supported financially as a WOHM (with childcare help) is not wrong. Are they not both choices?

And I know that people feel financially that they should work and others feel that it's better to not work, but I am confused (and possibly a bit pissed)

morethanpotatoprints Fri 29-Nov-13 23:50:52

Seasicksal

Totally agree, you said it so well. thanks

HappyMummy

I believe my dcs childhood would have been affected if they had had childcare. We the parents are the best people to bring them up 24/7. Other people can think what they want too, its a choice.

WooWooOwl Fri 29-Nov-13 23:55:28

Lucius, if you feel that as a parent you can't win either way, then you will do what you feel is right. People's opinions on what is right differ.

Rufus, the diffence is that while both are taking form the state financially, only one is contributing financially.

Rufus44 Fri 29-Nov-13 23:56:49

happy mummy I chose to SAHM but not everybody does, sometimes it feels like there is no point working when you get no benefit from it, either financially or mentally

WooWooOwl Sat 30-Nov-13 00:00:54

And that's where the problem lies Rufus, there isn't much point in working with the system the way it is.

People would be able to feel they benefit from working if childcare was free, and child tax credits didn't exist.

Rufus44 Sat 30-Nov-13 00:04:16

I see what you mean woowoo

I'm not going to post again cos my brain has literally stopped working, will probably look again tomorrow and think of a fantastic argument

Night grin

inabeautifulplace Sat 30-Nov-13 00:04:39

"Rufus, the diffence is that while both are taking form the state financially, only one is contributing financially."

No, that's one difference. At the same time, one is contributing more to the upbringing of a child than the other. Either contribution to society is valid.

Retroformica Sat 30-Nov-13 00:05:18

My DH earns 35k but actually we need the credits. We live in a very expensive place!

The main thing for me is to bring up happy well adjusted children. This means being mostly a stay at home parent (for me) and providing a fantastic base. They in turn will contribute to society and pay your pension.

WooWooOwl Sat 30-Nov-13 00:13:36

I don't think that parents who WOH contribute any less to their children's upbringing than SAHPs do.

Children who have working parents still grow up with their parents values and ideals, and with their love and support overwhelmingly being the biggest influence in their lives. They have their childcare carefully chosen by their parents, they don't just get dropped in for random allocation of childcare which may or not fit in with the parents.

The stuff that a SAHP does in the hours they could be at work can be done just as effectively in the hours they are not at work when it comes to the bits of parenting that really matter. The person changes the nappy and provides the lunch is not the person that does the actual parenting.

inabeautifulplace Sat 30-Nov-13 00:43:26

"I don't think that parents who WOH contribute any less to their children's upbringing than SAHPs do"

Well they're in direct contact for a significantly smaller amount of time. Stands to reason that personally as a parent you are not directly responsible for what your child experiences whilst in child care. Rather, your labours are enabling those positive experiences. As I said, either is valid, neither is inherently superior.

"They have their childcare carefully chosen by their parents"

I trust that the nappy changing and lunch menu at your selected childcare provider is of an exceptional standard...

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 07:27:16

Woo TA is just ridiculous.

You spend all day loving,giving values,teaching,comforting,encouraging,knowing and nurturing your child's personality(a peronality only you know the best),educating yourself,giving yourself,teaching your child about yourself,showing your child the world in a way only spontaneity can,showing your child his community.......

I could go on forever.

You can't do it to the same extent in 2 fractious hours before bed and sorry there is no childcare facility on the planet that can do it as well as most parents.

I've worked in different settings(some Outstanding),I know there isn't a single setting that could have done as good a job as me or provided what I did.More importantly there isn't a single setting my dc would have preferred to spending the bulk of their time in over their own home with me or dp.

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 07:43:28

I do find this issue interesting as having been lucky enough to be a sahp without any tc etc I'd like all parents to be able to have the same(let's face it most will be a wp too eventually).I can't see that without TC etc(which as a policy I disagree with)it would be possible.However it gets my goat when the middle income families who get nothing get stung with CB yet those on far more keep it and get help with childcare.

Those that are really vilified in this country are middle income families with a sahp. Those either side or with a wp get support.It isn't fair and it bugs me when sahp losing CB are vilified by some who are happy to take TC yet could go out to work.confused

Lets value all SAHP,they do a valuable temporary job which goes past in a blink of an eye.

merrymouse Sat 30-Nov-13 07:45:18

AIBU to think the state shouldn't give additional benefits to people with hamsters? I haven't got the exact figures but my neighbour has a hamster.

merrymouse Sat 30-Nov-13 07:46:15

I expect you get about £100 per hamster

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 07:47:15

Would they be working hamsters or stay at home hamsters?

Norudeshitrequired Sat 30-Nov-13 07:56:17

Retropear - how do you work out that families on a higher income than those losing CB are keeping their CB and getting help with childcare?

I'm presuming you are talking about two people earning more than 50k between them vs one person earning above 50k?
If that's the case then I don't think either family will get help with the cost of childcare (although the dual earner household will get CB as long as they individually earn less than 50k).

brettgirl2 Sat 30-Nov-13 08:04:34

Tax credits are exactly that TAX CREDITS. Namely an identification that at this point in their lives the person can't afford exorbitant taxes. You need to be on 40k to pay childcare for both.

I have nothing against sahms (apart from the smug ones who think it makes them better biscuit ) but if mum works she is also paying taxes. Therefore adding to the pot for everyone else. Staying at home is a choice, if you want more money find ways of earning it. Do a party a week and sell ridiculously overpriced cookware to all your mates or something, Best of both worlds. It's much harder for those on lower household incomes.

Of course the whole things a joke, people who are self employed and have a company can earn what they like, make sahm a director, ensure they both earn 49 k and keep the child benefit.

brettgirl2 Sat 30-Nov-13 08:06:34

not rude she's taking about childcare vouchers. Which of tax credits are a handout these must be too.

Oh not to mention schools and people on 100k a year using the state sector.

Norudeshitrequired Sat 30-Nov-13 08:10:36

Oh yes I forgot about childcare vouchers.
It makes sense now.

differentnameforthis Sat 30-Nov-13 08:13:53

Staying at home is a choice, not a right.

What about my child's right to have a parent available to them at all times? I believe my children should be raised by me.

I am a SAHM, dh now earns a good wage so we only get the minimum here (Australia) which is similar to CB. So we are comfortable. But in the early days we did have TC until dh reached the threshold.

I had children, I will raise my children by being with them as much as humanly possible. Now they are both in school I volunteer in the community while I look for something that will fit in with their hours. I also have to change my career due to medical issues, so it isn't easy finding something.

brettgirl2 Sat 30-Nov-13 08:15:41

That is your belief and therefore it is your choice.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 08:26:40

These debates usually descend into a pointless round of trying to add up the minutes per week spent under the same roof as your child, and whether you can impart 'more' or 'better' values to your child in x, y or z minutes

Look, surely the bottom line is that the important thing, for children and society as a whole, is to be raised well, with physical and emotional needs met, to become well adjusted successful members of society? THAT is what matters.
And that can be done in a variety of ways. You can be a brilliant WOHP or a brilliant SAHP (or conversely you can be a bad WOHP or SAHP)

If there were clear evidence that the problems in society- people turning to drink, drugs, forming poor relationships, ending up jobless, depressed, with criminal records etc- were caused because of having parents who work: then yes; there would be a very clear argument for saying that society should fund a parent to stay at home. And actually if the above were true, I'm damn sure the govt would be doing that already because it would be more cost effective than picking up the pieces of those damaged lives.

But it isn't the case. Some parents may want to stay at home, and believe it to be the best thing for their children- which is fine. But you cannot extrapolate from that a whole argument to say that it's better for society.

I have no issue with a family agreeing to one parent staying at home if it suits them. No problem. I do however have a huge problem when they try to make a generalised judgement from that and think that it's 'best' for everyone else to do so. I know that being a WOHP has worked fantastically well for our family but I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else what they should do

As a bit of an aside, tax credits were a total utter mistake. NMW should be far higher. Someone working in a NMW job should be significantly better off than someone not working. And the more hours someone works, the more they should be ^ tangibly^ better off as a result. None of this fannying about being able to play the system by deliberately keeping hours to a minimum to then get topped up by tax credits. It doesn't take a huge amount of brain power to see that a system which doesn't incentivise people to work is screwed.

Personally We never benefited from any childcare subsidies, and actually even when We paid the equivalent of my income in childcare, looked on it as a long term investment and the nursery my two went to was so wonderful I saw it as money well spent but I do think childcare should be tax deductible- that would make a big difference to many people.

Chunderella Sat 30-Nov-13 08:33:34

Retropear no family who got stung by child benefit is middle income. Even a one wage household with 50k is miles above the income of the large majority of families. I don't like the policy much, and I can believe that as a fairly large family living in an expensive rural area you did need the money despite your relatively high income. Possibly more than I do. But being squeezed and being middle are two very different things.

Brettgirl the name tax credits is pretty misleading. They aren't a credit for the tax a person pays. You can get them without ever having paid any tax, or you can get them as a taxpayer but be given more than you paid in. And you could still get them whilst paying exorbitant taxes, if you have enough children and childcare costs. As you say, it is a very clunky system with a lot of lacuna and loopholes!

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 08:34:04

I agree Janey re tc and I don't thinks helps re aspirations in secondary ie if you know you'll just get topped up why bust a gut to get exams?

NorthernShores Sat 30-Nov-13 08:37:26

We've sacrificed quite a lot to have a stay at home parent as we thought it best young children (just as others may sacrifice a lot for private education if that's their belief). If we didn't think it the best environment for small children we wouldn't have done it and kept two incomes going.

There isn't a doubt we'd be better off now but we feel we provided the best start we could by having asahm.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 30-Nov-13 09:55:28

Tax credits were the worst thing ever introduced. They allowed people to quit work or reduce their hours to the bare minimum whilst other tax payers paid for that choice. The sooner they are scrapped the better and people will have to start financing themselves and the choices they make.

Childcare is a cost of working and should be tax deductible. The more workers we have the more tax we have. Keeping people in jobs should be the aim. People dont stop being a parent just because they work, they di all that plus provide for themselves and show their chidren its very possible to do both. I dont want boys to grow up believing they have to work as male whilst the girls get the luxury of not working. Seems a waste of education and leaves them very vunerable should things go wrong.

Given stats show that children bought up on benefits fare worse in life, i dont think having a SAHP is the ultimate goal and certainly not a choice the state should pay for.

apocketfulofposy Sat 30-Nov-13 10:03:30

i personally dont think you should expect help from the state if you want to stay at home OR work,but then imnot a fan of depending on the state full stop really,thats just me,id o everything i can to not have to.In my ideal world taxes would just pay for theings like the emergency services and general maintenance and education,healthcare would be private and the standard would be a lot higher.

WooWooOwl Sat 30-Nov-13 10:04:39

I agree that SAHPs do a valuable job, but I don't think that it it so valuable that it should be state funded.

When children start school there is no difference between the children who have had a SAHP and those that haven't. If having a SAHP was that important that it was worthy of the state paying for, then there would be a significant difference in the development and abilities between the children that have a SAHP and the children that don't. But there isn't. Both groups of children can be equally happy and well adjusted and ready to learn at school.

Having a parent at home all day just doesn't make enough difference to a child that it is worth the state paying for. That is why it's a choice that families should make based on money they have, not money they are given by the state.

Rufus44 Sat 30-Nov-13 10:07:18

Remembered what my question was supposed to be about

What I didn't say, and should have said, was relating to the completely disgusting phrase used by an earlier poster.

They said , referring to SAHMs at the time, was " people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them"

The OP said that if some one who choose to stay at home should fit the bill. So why don't people say that about working people who are paid so badly or the childcare costs are so expensive that even though they work their socks off they need to claim for childcare vouchers

They both made the "choice" financially to work or SAHP. So is it still the whole taxpayer bit? Are tax credits and childcare vouchers given to part time workers? In which case they may not be paying tax

And by the way I don't agree with that phrase at all, should never be that only the rich have children, wages should be much better than they are for lower paid workers and childcare is incredibly expensive ! I am just curious as to people's thoughts

apocketfulofposy Sat 30-Nov-13 10:08:22

happy mummy you can say what you want but statistics show children bought up by their parents and not in a nursery or childminder are happier and healthier.

If your aim for your kids is a little robot who will eat and sleep when you tell them to who will grow up to be a good little worker who "works hard" and pays tax to the government like a good little boy,then you are right,but i dont want my kids to grow up thinking life begins when they leave school get a job.

WooWooOwl Sat 30-Nov-13 10:15:30

Because if we said that about working people then we'd effectively be saying that some people aren't worthy of having children, even though they are contributing to society and doing jobs that society needs someone to do.

That would be wrong because it comes too close to eugenics to be right.

By subsidising childcare for people who work and pay tax, we are just using the system we pay into to support people at the times of their lives that they need support. Its a service that all working people could benefit from because its a service that all working people contribute to. The same as we all benefit from the existence of the police, the fire service, hospitals etc. Except that people will only benefit from free childcare if they are also contributing to paying for it.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 10:16:07

Lmao at the idea that there are 'statistics' which show us that children are happier and healthier if they are brought up by a SAHP and that going to nursery turns them into robots!

By all means don't work if your partner can support you and you are both happy with the arrangment. Be confident in your decision! You don't need to make up bizarre stories to try to justify it.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 30-Nov-13 10:16:27

Apocket, i doubt there are any stats that show children are healthier if they have a sahp! There are bugs all arounds and certainly they are rife in schools.

As for DS being a robot as i expect him to work and not lounge on benefits, words fail me. I want him to do well in life, be responsible for himself and to not expect others to pay for his choices in life. PMSL at the thought of all workers being robots. Am sure all the males providing for their wives to stay home will be thrilled with that description.

SeeYouNT Sat 30-Nov-13 10:19:15

Well if your circumstances change after you've had them, you can't exactly stuff them back up your chuff, can you?

^^ worra grin

and yabu op.

mumofbeautys Sat 30-Nov-13 10:28:50

Hmmmm knew there was a reason that my kids were unhealthy ... what a laughable made up stat.

On the other hand
I don't agree with people choosing to live on the state unless valid reasons either.

mumofbeautys Sat 30-Nov-13 10:31:11

But I do get 6 k a yr in benefits so probably a hypocrite lol

katese11 Sat 30-Nov-13 10:32:54

I'm very confused at this thread. I'm a sahm (but I chose to freelance and get some extra cash) and dh earns about the same as the dh in the example. Afaik we can't claim any benefits, even if I wasn't freelancing. Don't you have to be actively jobseeking to get JSA?

Monetbyhimself Sat 30-Nov-13 10:35:03

Apocket could you give me a link to those stats please ? Thanks smile

Seff Sat 30-Nov-13 10:38:55

I can't believe people think that kids won't try as hard at secondary school because they can just get tax credits.

There is a ridiculous attitude in this country in that you are only worthwhile if you are working. Let's stop believing the lies in the media and the crap spouted by the politicians. Most of them barely know what hard work is anyway.

Instead of supporting parents, we instead choose to guilt trip anyone who dares to make a different "lifestyle choice" to ourselves. "how dare you stay at home and steal my taxes" "how dare you go to work and let your child become a robot" (seriously, robots? wtf?)

Here's a shocker - raising children is hard work. No matter whether you work or stay at home. It's costs are both financial and emotional.

But whilst everyone is arguing about who is the best mum, the real problems get pushed aside. Divide and conquer, isn't that what they say?

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 10:49:28

Seff- it's not as simplistic as kids consciously thinking 'I won't work hard and aim for an interesting career because I can get topped up with tax credits'. Values and attitudes are formed in a far less black and white way.

But there is absolutely no doubt that the daft system in this country can act as a disincentive. If someone can work, say, 16 or 20 hours and end up topped up with tax credits to have almost the same in their pocket as if they worked 30 or 35 hours a week, then undeniably people will take advantage of that system.

Tax credits are an insidious thing- not simply because of the reasons stated above but also they can lull people into a false sense of security. They provide no long term benefit. At least with earnings, you are paying into your pension and making some long term as well as immediate financial gain. Also, the moment tax credits are reduced or pulled altogether, you're stuffed. You are at the mercy of govt policy.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sat 30-Nov-13 10:52:57

apocket Did you know that 78% of statistics are made up on the spot?

merrymouse Sat 30-Nov-13 10:57:56

I have no idea whether they work or not, but I thought tax credits were brought in to make the 16hrs work more financially rewarding than no work at all.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 11:06:07

Merrymouse- I think that was the reasoning behind them: that someone should have an incentive to work 16 hours rather than none. The problem is though, that unless you have a system whereby people are always better off the more they work, then people will abuse it. At the end of the day, 16 hours is very part time, only the equivalent of a couple of days a week. If someone doing the same job full time is only marginally better off, because tax credits and other fringe benefits are reduced, then there is very little incentive to work full time. Society has also become very short term oriented too which compounds the issue. If people have money in their pocket in the here and now, they tend to bury their head in the sand about the long term and whether working more hours will lead to promotion, more interesting work, better pension etc

I can understand the reason behind tax credits, but I still think they were a massive mistake. The gap between benefits and earnings needs to be bigger. Benefits should be a safety net providing the basic requirements. Working in any job, however lowly, should make one tangibly better off.

Bonsoir Sat 30-Nov-13 11:08:34

"Working in any job... should make one tangibly better off."

I agree! I wish!

Rufus44 Sat 30-Nov-13 11:12:37

Sorry woowoo I thought you were in the "shouldn't have children if they can't afford it camp"

My mistake, but some people who quote that (not yourself obviously) are saying that people on benefits who can't/don't work at all shouldn't have children, and as you say that is close to eugenics

TarkaTheOtter Sat 30-Nov-13 11:22:17

woowoo even if you believe that sahp have no benefit over childminders etc, why is it fair that if I looked after three of someone else's children I would receive taxpayer's money through childcare credits paid to the parents then paid to me. But not for looking after my own three hypothetical children. Why is looking after someone else children if more value to society than looking after my own?

BitchyFestiveFace Sat 30-Nov-13 11:22:22

What I really don't get, and this may be pure ignorance but I have had some wine and am feeling brave, but why is it ok to say that being supported financially as a SAHM is wrong but being supported financially as a WOHM (with childcare help) is not wrong. Are they not both choices?

Puritan work ethic, IMO. We might be less overtly religious now, but I think the idea is very ingrained that "hard work" and moral rectitude are inextricably linked. And enmeshed with this is the use of remuneration as a measure of "hard work", which leaves the more nebulous worth of an unsalaried SAHP an unknown quantity.

I was a SAHM when my kids were small. DP doesn't earn a lot, but we have no debts and low outgoings (no car to run, reasonable rent etc). But even so, tax credits made it possible. Do I feel guilty? HELL no. I'm not qualified for anything, so any work I got would've been low-paid and unskilled. Would I really have been more of an asset to society serving coffee or flipping burgers, my babies in nursery at the state's expense, than caring for them at home (at far less expense to the state) to a far higher standard than any childcare setting could provide?

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 11:43:15

But the point we are making is that any job, no matter how unskilled, ought to pay enough that you shouldn't need topping up. A combination of high living costs (I'm talking house prices and essentials like utilities) and low NMW mean that people who are working need to be topped up by tax credits. It's ludicrous.

Also, the issue about looking after other people's children is a red herring because if you do that, you are doing a job, it's regulated and subject to all sorts of conditions and market forces. As has been said countless times, looking after ones own children isn't the same, it's something we all do.

Bonsoir Sat 30-Nov-13 11:45:53

"But the point we are making is that any job, no matter how unskilled, ought to pay enough that you shouldn't need topping up."

The problem is not one of wages but one of living costs (notable house prices) that have spiralled out of control.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 11:54:37

On that point about looking after other people's children being 'the same' or even comparable as looking after ones own: it really isn't.

When I had my children, I went back to work 3 days a week and used a cm and later nursery for childcare.
I guess as an alternative, I could have stayed at home with my children but registered as a cm myself, and would actually have been better off during those early years as I would have been earning without paying childcare.

However, I didn't want to- for many reasons. I adored being with my own children, but didn't feel any burning desire to look after anyone else's. As a cm, I would have had to meet various standards, complete all sorts of paperwork and ultimately subject myself to market forces by proving that I was better than alternatives such as other local cms or nurseries, in order to get, and retain, business.
This is not something I wanted to do. Which is fine. But it proves the point that becoming a registered childcare provider is totally different to the experience of looking after ones own children

Bonsoir Sat 30-Nov-13 11:57:29

I agree entirely that taking care of other people's DC is not the same as taking care of one's own. Increasingly, taking care of other people's DC means working to external public standards which may be entirely unrelated to the standards one sets oneself.

FraidyCat Sat 30-Nov-13 11:59:17

Childcare is a cost of working and should be tax deductible

Childcare is only a cost of working if the job could only be done by someone who had children in childcare.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 12:07:20

That is true fraidy- unless you need to have children to be able to do a particular job then it isn't a cost of working directly; however many people (me included) believe the rules should change to make it tax deductible when it's childcare directly enabling a parent to work.

SoupDragon Sat 30-Nov-13 12:13:57

why is it ok to say that being supported financially as a SAHM is wrong but being supported financially as a WOHM (with childcare help) is not wrong.

I agree with this. Perhaps it would be better to say that all people who choose to have children should not claim state funded benefits for them.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 12:28:48

Yes- though I think a really important distinction needs to be made between tax breaks (as I suggested above) and benefits. I think tax breaks on childcare would make a real difference, and it doesn't mean 'giving' any money to parents: it's simply allowing them to pay their childcare our of gross income, rather than taxed income (and then the cm or nursery gets taxed again!)

Norudeshitrequired Sat 30-Nov-13 12:50:41

Soup dragon - what about people who have jobs and get made redundant / become too ill to work, should they be able to claim state benefits for their children?

pianodoodle Sat 30-Nov-13 12:56:58

Perhaps some of you could just take it as a given that someone has to have children grin

It's pretty much... life.

Also, presumably if you don't choose to have children you may at some point in your life find yourself reliant on the children of those who did.

Perhaps the doctor who operates on you in 30 years time might be one of those children you didn't think your money should help to bring up?

Ffs. I can't believe the way people get so het up about another person receiving what usually amounts to a bloody pittance anyway.

intitgrand Sat 30-Nov-13 13:12:37

'With the greatest of respect- what's it to do with you?'
I can't believe the way people get so het up about another person receiving

..Because as a taxpayers they are working their butts off to pay for your choices!! And some of those taxpayers will be working mothers who would prefer to be at home with their DC

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 13:49:58

What Soup said with bells on.

Kids cost,everybody knows that.

The costs for both sahp and wp are temporary,both are responsible and both could save,wait and limit their family/lifestyle to what they can afford prior and after.Thus both should be treated the same ie if the state is going to help one they should help the other.

Oh and having been a rec teacher with friends still in the job in many cases you can tell the kids who have been in poor quality nurseries of which there are many.

If I had had to have been a wp I would never have used a nursery.Sorry I make no apologies for that.

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 14:06:03

Happymumofone I am and a sahp and have never in my entire life claimed benefits,aspiring to be a sahp for a while is not aspiring to be on benefits as most households will have a working parent.

You say you work and claim 6k in benefits.

This is what gets my goat. Sahp are likened to benefit cheats,accused of being lazy etc yet most work hard and many don't claim a bean.

How is state help ok for one sector but not another?

Also children who don't do well on benefits generally have no wp,are living in poverty and have poorly educated parents which isn't reality for most families with a sahp. We're talking 1 sahp not 2 here,you seem to be treating both as the same.

TheOnlySeven Sat 30-Nov-13 14:23:48

When I worked FT before having DCs I earned 12k, my wages wouldn't even pay for childcare. DS has a life-limiting medical condition, I'd rather be at home spending time with him. Sometimes you don't know all the facts.

MyMILisfromHELL Sat 30-Nov-13 14:38:42

Where the Jeff did you pull those figures from, op? The threshold household income for claiming tax credits for 1 child is something like £26k & £31k for two.

In the example you've given, the family would not be entitled to benefits & would live off one salary.

I haven't bothered to read the thread. It's simply ridiculous that children should suffer because you have some kind of vendetta against sahp's.

Many can not afford the extortionate childcare costs for under 5's and or have no familial support. I find your POV totally short sighted at best, ignorant at worst.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 30-Nov-13 14:44:38

Retropear, please point to the post that say i work and take £6k in benefits as i can guarantee you wont find one but feel free to make up statements like that hmm

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 14:47:55

Apologies 'twas mum of beauties but the point is made none the less.

An awful lot of 2x working families claim more in benefits than those with a sahp.

Having a sahp is nothing like having 2 parents out of work.

mumofbeautys Sat 30-Nov-13 15:17:36

It was me who said I work and take 6 k a yr in benefits

mumofbeautys Sat 30-Nov-13 15:19:41

I do think there is a difference between working and claiming and not working.
If it's a choice if that makes sense ..obviously benefits need to be there .. redundancy etc

pianodoodle Sat 30-Nov-13 15:22:44

Because as a taxpayers they are working their butts off to pay for your choices

That's nice. I do hope they get to keep some money for themselves though, you know, as a sort of thank you for being so saintly.

mumofbeautys Sat 30-Nov-13 15:24:46

I do think it's changed though over the years because what is deemed enough money for a quality life is higher and includes more things .. on another thread that stated what was deemed as a a person's needs including something like 90 pound leisure activities lol like seriously

lanbro Sat 30-Nov-13 15:51:17

OP, do you realise that most SAHMs have worked prior to having children so have also paid taxes? I paid into the system for 15 years before becoming a SAHM so I am simply benefiting from that now for the good of my children. Once they are in full time education I will work and pay taxes once again up until retirement so for a maximum of 6 years I'll take out compared to approx 35-40 years of paying in!

lanbro Sat 30-Nov-13 16:02:20

Oh, and presumably the WP id also paying taxes!

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 16:20:08

I'm sure a reception teacher can spot which children have come from homes where there may be one or both parents at home but there is a lack of stimulation or good quality parenting. So I'm not sure what the point of the post singling out nurseries was (unless it was another tired old dig at WOHP of course!)

The points made earlier on this issue is that there is NO clear divide between children with WOHP and those with SAHP, in terms of their skills on starting school, leaving skills, health, happiness and so on. There simply isn't- despite the fiction spouted earlier on about there being 'statistics to prove children with a SAHP are healthier!!!'

If there were a clear link between better outcomes for children with SAHP then I would take seriously the suggestion that there should be some kind of govt support for it. But there isn't. Good parenting is what counts whether its by WOHP or SAHP

I'm also not a fan of govt top ups at all; it's not an answer for anyone, working or not. The answer is quite simply to make hard work pay off, so people have an incentive to earn, to go for promotions to harder, more challenging / difficult jobs which we need people to be prepared to do. If you know that what you gain in higher wages will be lost through tax, loss of any top ups or fringe benefits then why is it surprising that this country is in the mess it is

Madmammy83 Sat 30-Nov-13 16:30:20

OP mind your own business. I stopped reading after this:

I'm sure SAHPs do a very valuable job, but I'm sure a nursery/childminder could also (whole other debate!)

You're a fool if you think any nursery can 100% replace the care a parent can give a child. If there are supports available for parents who choose to stay at home, that's a good thing. If you don't agree with it, don't do it. You sound jealous of your friend tbh.

Madmammy83 Sat 30-Nov-13 16:32:45

Oh and by the way, we all pay tax, whether we work outside the home or not. This uppity attitude of people with 9-to-5 jobs of "I pay your taxes so I get to pass judgement on you" drives me up the wall. We all pay tax every time we do a grocery shop, or pay a bill, or buy fuel. Just because someone may have a different less structured schedule does not entitle you to dictate how and where taxes are spent.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 16:33:43

I have never met a parent who expects or even wants a nursery to be an equivalent to parental care so tbh I think that's a red herring. Ime parents see nursery as another dimension of the child's experience: not an alternative for anything or an equivalent

tinkertaylor1 Sat 30-Nov-13 16:43:34

We all pay tax every time we do a grocery shop, or pay a bill, or buy fuel. Just because someone may have a different less structured schedule does not entitle you to dictate how and where taxes are spent

agreed!

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 16:48:14

For under 2s that life experience is not ideal.

Grennie Sat 30-Nov-13 16:51:59

My SIL is a SAHP and says quite openly there is no point her doing paid work, as they would lose benefits.

Grennie Sat 30-Nov-13 16:52:48

My niece and nephews are all of school age.

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 16:53:14

There has been research that nursery from a very young age can cause aggression in the early years.

Re stimulation and good parenting.The vast majority can and do provide both.It isn't hard.Re ad parenting,sorry but nursery can make it worse.Seen that on more than one occasion.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 16:53:27

In your opinion retropear. Many parents choose nursery for a certain proportion of time during the week, from a certain age. You are in absolutely no position to judge whether those children are having an overall 'lesser' experience than they would have if they were not in nursery at all.
You can talk about your own children and your own experience as much as you like but you cannot possibly make a judgement about other people's

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 16:56:26

.... And has been said many many times before, we could also produce 'evidence' to show some children in some nurseries in some situations have more advanced early language skills etc etc .... We could bat this back and forth all day! But actually what matters to most parents is their own children in the setting that they have chosen. Not some research paper that can prove or disprove whatever you want to find

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 17:03:10

The benefits of nursery and language skills were only for very disadvantaged children which the maj aren't.

Yes we could go back and forth all day but I have an early years degree and have spent all my working life prior to children and after working in a variety of settings within that sector and beyond.

I'll go by my own experience thanks and will never except bullshit re parents not being qualified to look after their own children.

I have seen the alternatives in every shape and form.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 17:05:40

Wow! You really have got about then if you managed to see the wonderful nursery my children attended. Shame you didn't rate it... But my children loved it and have not been disadvantaged in any shape or form. And actually their lives are what matter to me- not your opinion smile

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 17:10:57

Great so considering that is your only experience of nursery and babies perhaps neither you or anybody else are best placed to undermine the value of parents looking after their own children or extolling the virtues of every nursery in the land.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 17:14:45

I'm not. I'm not undermining anyone who wants to be a SAHP and has a partner who wants it too and will support it. Not at all. Never have. Nor do I speak for the quality of childcare which I haven't used and know nothing about.
You are the one who continually generalises about WOHP retro, and also pop up periodically to complain that you feel hard done by as the stay at home partner of someone on a very high salary

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 17:20:07

Sorry I don't rate or income(which you don't actually know) very high when you consider house prices,the loss of one tax allowance,higher tax rate,CB restrictions and the income of those who get 2 x salaries supplemented by benefits and help with childcare.

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 17:21:45

Oh and you pop up on every thread putting down sahp.

gingganggooly Sat 30-Nov-13 17:28:32

I don't get why it is ok for the government to pay childcare and vouchers (out of taxes) for parents to put their young babies in Nurseries. Then really really bad for the government to give a few pounds in tax credits for a parent in a couple, staying at home to support the breadwinner.

These frugal Mums obviously don't spend spend spent to boost the economy. Stop reading the Daily Mail people! They are indoctrinating people!! It is ok for a Mother to stay at home for a few years and raise her family.

As it is ok for a parent who gets bored with their baby or has to work for their own sanity, to use my taxes to pay for their kids' childcare.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 17:30:25

Lol except I don't put them down retro. You just seem to want me to do that just because you judge WOHP. Or rather WOHM!

As for salary... Well you've made no secret of the fact that you have lost CB which means your partner must be on 60k minimum. To most people's way of thinking that's a lot of money and most people wouldn't have the gall or self serving attitude to consider it unfair to lose a benefit. And I speak as someone who has also lost CB, also has to pay a mortgage, all the other high costs of living and actually never received a penny towards our childcare bill.
I consider myself as a HR tax payer to be fortunate compared to people on low wages and I would be really questioning my sense of perspective if I started bleating about losing CB

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 17:34:56

Oh and Janey if our salary is very high which it it most certainly isn't then quite frankly it's absolutely bonkers that those on double get CB and childcare help and free school dinners alongside those on 6 times as much household income getting help with child care and free school dinners.

Bonkers but hey there are 2 working parents so they deserve it and must want to get on unlike the feckless,lazy rich families with a sahp.hmm

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 17:37:13

Wrong Janey.

Oh and you've made no secret that you pay more tax than anybody else so quite clearly we're different ends of the spectrum and our experience is nothing like mine.

tolittletoolate Sat 30-Nov-13 17:41:22

I'm disabled and get ESA and DLA, I also have a 2 yr old daughter and I am a sahm too. Do you begrudge me getting my money?
My dh is a higher rate tax payer too but it's not enough for us to live on without my benefits too which are contribution based not income based.

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 17:41:54

How much help do a couple earning 120k between them get? And why aren't you prepared to earn 60k yourself, with all the childcare costs, pressures and challenges which that entails, if you're so envious of a few quid off the childcare bill and a free school dinner?!

Honestly, the self seeking attitude on here is disgusting.
And you know if I gave up my job tomorrow, we still wouldn't get CB as my husband is a HR tax payer I certainly wouldn't start complaining, oh poor little me, someone give us more money...life's so tough and all those families where both parents are working as well as bringing up children have got it so easy!!

tolittletoolate Sat 30-Nov-13 17:41:57

btw we don't get child benefit or any tax credits at all.

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 17:43:16

Oh and I'll bleat as much as I like re unfairness and crap policy thanks.

Rufustherednosedreindeer Sat 30-Nov-13 17:44:43

You both appear on every WOHP and SAHM thread, do you have an alarm that goes off?

You both make sense and half the time seem to agree that loving parents with the child's best interest at heart are best

Rufustherednosedreindeer Sat 30-Nov-13 17:45:36

Sorry that was directed at retro and janey

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 17:45:43

Those on 100k get the lot.

Great Janey,give yourself a medal and a sainthood.Those of us lower down the chain feel differently.<shrugs>

Retropear Sat 30-Nov-13 17:47:38

Rufus yes we do agree on that and the tax credit issue.Good observation.

On other issues not so much.smile

janey68 Sat 30-Nov-13 17:48:21

Yeap rufus- spot on: it's about loving parenting which meets a child's needs. And there's more than one way to do that smile

Norudeshitrequired Sun 01-Dec-13 09:03:51

. We all pay tax every time we do a grocery shop, or pay a bill, or buy fuel.

We all do pay taxes on lots of things. However for a family surviving solely on benefits (no working adults) the money they are paying in tax on any purchases is from the state.
They get money from the state and pay some of it back to the state in tax. I really don't think they can be considered to be actually paying taxes as it's just out of one govt pot and into a different govt pot.

BTW, I have nothing against benefits and am glad that we have a good social security system in this country that provides for those who need the provision, but I do disagree that technically everyone pays taxes.

Norudeshitrequired Sun 01-Dec-13 09:05:46

Retropear - I don't know about Scotland and Wales, but in England you don't get free school dinners if you earn more than £16k, so I don't know who these families earning 100k getting free school meals are.

annieorangutan Sun 01-Dec-13 09:13:57

Retropear you are on a ridiculpusly high household wage but are still jealous of the teeny amount of people in 100k+ households hmm

Bonsoir Sun 01-Dec-13 09:28:47

janey68 - stop taking the moral high ground. The UK has terrible family policies - the worst in Northern Europe.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sun 01-Dec-13 09:33:38

^ I know! Fucking bonkers.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sun 01-Dec-13 09:34:02

That was to annie btw!

usuallyright Sun 01-Dec-13 09:42:34

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.

janey68 Sun 01-Dec-13 09:46:48

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!
Most odd.

Bonsoir Sun 01-Dec-13 09:52:34

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.

janey68 Sun 01-Dec-13 09:59:09

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...

janey68 Sun 01-Dec-13 10:07:38

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

jacks365 Sun 01-Dec-13 10:28:26

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.

Meglet Sun 01-Dec-13 10:44:50

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.

Gluezilla Sun 01-Dec-13 11:35:53

Isnt the reference to FSM the bringing in of FSM to KS1 children in 2014 ?

janey68 Sun 01-Dec-13 11:49:26

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.

jacks365 Sun 01-Dec-13 11:58:32

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.

Gluezilla Sun 01-Dec-13 12:18:01

Oh sorry I though the comments were being made about the new system. blush

Rufustherednosedreindeer Sun 01-Dec-13 12:40:38

I thought the same gluezilla as I thought the OP was referring to people on 100k getting it

jacks365 Sun 01-Dec-13 13:41:40

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.

Retropear Sun 01-Dec-13 13:50:38

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.

Retropear Sun 01-Dec-13 13:56:29

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.

perfectstorm Sun 01-Dec-13 14:04:27

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. hmm

Everyone knows you need to throw in breast v formula and vaccinations, too.

Retropear Sun 01-Dec-13 14:06:16

And grammar schools.wink

Retropear Sun 01-Dec-13 14:14:59

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.

perfectstorm Sun 01-Dec-13 14:16:11

Nah. They're a niche subject. No fair. sad

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?

perfectstorm Sun 01-Dec-13 14:19:30

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! smile

Retropear Sun 01-Dec-13 14:33:59

Hot toddy wouldn't hurt surely- you missed drinking whilst pg.smile

Seriously one hot toddy would be fine surely(whole lot better than Night Nurse).

perfectstorm Sun 01-Dec-13 14:41:50

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. blush

Retropear Sun 01-Dec-13 14:45:31

No was probably good thing.

Mulled wine?

Hope you feel better soon and get baby out before christmas.

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