Do the proposed tax free childcare plans insult stay at home parents?

(320 Posts)
Jac1978 Tue 19-Mar-13 23:21:41

Working families will receive £1200 a year per child up to a maximum of 20% of their total childcare costs from 2015. Both parents or a single parent must be working and earning less than £150,000 a year to qualify.

Is this a welcome boost to help parents who can't afford childcare or does it insult parents who choose to stay at home and look after their children themselves? Should they be encouraging parents to work or stay at home or should they not help parents at all as it is their decision to have children?

lisad123everybodydancenow Tue 19-Mar-13 23:26:48

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Trekkie Tue 19-Mar-13 23:29:17

Don't understand.

Why is it insulting to families with a SAHP if they get the money as well?

I can see that it means a single parent who is not working cannot claim but presumably the 15 hours will stay which will help while looking?

Think i need this explained a bit more, why is it insulting?

morethanpotatoprints Tue 19-Mar-13 23:34:28

I don't think it insults sahp's. Don't forget it is only this generation of parents who have had any childcare subsidy at all. It certainly wasn't available when my 2 older ds's were small.
I think any help or support in this climate is fair.
Does everybody still get the 15 hours at 3.5 years for pre-school

lisad123everybodydancenow Tue 19-Mar-13 23:36:45

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Marrow Tue 19-Mar-13 23:40:59

Not sure what you mean. How does it insult SAHPs? If a parent has chosen to stay at home then why do they need help with childcare costs?

CogitoErgoSometimes Wed 20-Mar-13 06:02:54

I'm sure there will be some group or other that regard any help for working parents as being 'discriminatory' against those that choose to opt out of paid employment and stay home, but I don't agree with them.

TheSteveMilliband Wed 20-Mar-13 06:56:27

I can't work out how this is a good thing unless you have 3or more preschoolers. Given this will replace childcare vouchers which I think are worth more to most people (?)

meditrina Wed 20-Mar-13 07:11:33

It's a not remotely well thought through part of the policy.

Not all parents who at at home are lifestyle-choice SAHPs: redundancy is common and securing a new post can take months.

Will childcare becomes unaffordable because the payment ceases, exactly at the time a wage is lost? Or will there be a grace period?

BooCanary Wed 20-Mar-13 07:12:12

According to moneysavingexpert, families with one or two preschoolers will be worse off under the new scheme than with ccv's. Single parents will be better off, and the scheme will be more widely available.

Why would it be insulting to sahps? For those who don't want to work, why would they care. For those who do, but can't afford the childcare, surely its a good thing??

Many em

TiredyCustards Wed 20-Mar-13 07:15:37

I think it's the fact that the govt seems to be trying to socially engineer all parents into work, ignoring the fact that childcare isn't the best environment for all children, that makes it a slight towards sahps.

Also the fact that single-earner families can currently claim childcare vouchers, but wouldn't be able to take advantage of the new scheme.

Imo, the voucher scheme gave out the message 'pre-school education is beneficial to children and society' but the new one says 'get a job you layabouts, your kids will be fine.'

Sorry, meant to say, many employers still don't do CCVs, neither mine or DH's do, so they aren't available to all working parents.

Also, when I was previously made redundant my CCVs and tax credits stopped the same day, no grace period there either if I had wanted to keep nursery places whilst looking for another job.

meditrina Wed 20-Mar-13 07:27:40

I was wondering if it might be like contributions-based JSA.

CCVs were no use if your employer didn't offer them, and cannot offer a grace period as they are a salary sacrifice scheme. But thus isn't, and there is potential do to it better. (Not holding my breath, given how administratively appalling this lot are).

5madthings Wed 20-Mar-13 07:36:13

Well i am a sahm parent for now and not bothered by it.

Quite a high threshold of income to be able to claim. Given they are cutting back on si many other areas that seems strange and unfair on parents who have children with sn's who would iften like to work but cant find suitable childcare for their child so they have no choice but to be on benefits.

AThingInYourLife Wed 20-Mar-13 07:41:35

Only in the sense that gay marriage insults straight people who are married.

ie not at all. And you're an asshole if you feel insulted by it.

If you don't need childcare, you are losing nothing.

Who gets "insulted" at help for other people? Particularly help you could access if you were really that insulted by the whole thing.

Are childcare vouchers being abolished? I read Liz Truss saying they would still be an option (for the far smaller number of parents that have them as an option).

dreamingofsun Wed 20-Mar-13 08:17:11

since SAHM aren't contributing towards the tax free element, I don't see why its an insult to them. They can take advantage of them if they decide to work, otherwise they are nothing to do with them.

cogitosum Wed 20-Mar-13 08:24:40

But it's not just the sahp that doesn't qualify it's their partner who is working and do are contributing. That's the bit that some people find unfair (and will be difficult to police) under the current scheme a working parent can claim even if their partner doesn't work.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 08:53:52

I wonder if all the people who sacrificed salary to get CCV will get that salary back now. And I wonder if they will think the missed pensions contributions were worth it.

I can see the point about parents with a SAHP feeling this is unfair, but then they don't need childcare.

Also, how are they going to know who has a working partner and who does not? As with the child benefit cuts, which partner will get the money, how will they know if that person's partner stops working, will yet another tranche of people have to start doing self assessment?

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 09:26:07

There's a discussion on Five Live about this now. The usual "don't have children if you can't afford them" wibble from some of the contributors. And an over-focus on the fact that a couple who both earn up to £150k will be able to claim it. As if the vast majority of people who will claim are earning anything like that much.

But the woman representing SAHMs (the editor of this website is not making a very good case. She's just said that taxpayers money is being spent on criminality, poor health and anti-social behaviour, implying that if we supported more women to stay at home with their children, we could spend less in these areas hmm

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 09:32:36

Some much more dignified contributions now from some single mothers - one of them is this woman - who have pointed out how hard it is to work and care for children if you're on your own. They've just demolished a splutterer......

And - thankfully - one of them is stressing that the majority of people who will be claiming this aren't earning nearly £300k.......

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 09:38:10

Why is it unfair? If you are not working, presumably you gave up working to look after your children - so why expect any form of funding from the Govt? Free childcare is still available in the form of 15 hours a week after all.

SoupDreggon Wed 20-Mar-13 09:40:18

Equally, if you chose not to look after them yourself, why expect tax payers to fund that choice?

EmmelineGoulden Wed 20-Mar-13 09:42:21

I guess the argument that it's unfair on families with stay at home parents is that they have forgone lost wages in order to look after their children, quite possibly more money than families with both parents working will spend on child care. So why should families with both parents working get money from the government to make their decisions more affordable when families with a stay at home parent don't?

And the (sensible) counter to that would be that it's considered to be in the country's best interests to encourage people to stay in paid employment. And the subsidy is intended to encourage parents to work as much as possible, rather than to ease the financial burden of having children.

But the real answer will be that they think it will buy the most votes for the cost.

SoupDreggon Wed 20-Mar-13 09:42:31

I am sure there are child free tax payers for whom some form of tax relief would be most welcome.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 09:42:35

Tax funds all sorts of things - this Govt and the previous one decided that this would support parents to work - work being the crucial word.

I do think it's unfair on couples where one parent is working and the other is studying, though. Under the CCV system the working parent could claim CCV to offset against childcare, but under the new system (if I read it correctly) any subsidy to the family will be cut off entirely.

SoupDreggon Wed 20-Mar-13 09:49:32

Children are a choice though.

The other thing that I wonder is where all these jobs are. The government say it will help Xmillion mothers back to work but where are these Xmillion jobs?

BTW, I don't feel at all "insulted" as a SAHM. I am just trying to see it from another point of view.

ByTheWay1 Wed 20-Mar-13 09:53:12

It is not unfair - when mine were small I was a SAHM - purely because we wanted to NOT have them in paid for childcare - to be cared for at home -by me... I don't get why people complain about some people getting money....

What will be interesting is how much this will cost to implement - currently anyone working can claim.... I'm guessing another layer of bureaucracy will be needed to ask if their partner is "working" or not. (Though, from my understanding - if you get into the current scheme NOW-your rights to use the current system will be preserved)

It will have a BIG effect on the voluntary community if both partners "working" only includes paid-for employment...

racmun Wed 20-Mar-13 09:58:05

I'm a SAHM through choice. I think the point OP is trying to make is that she feels the role of SAHP is being continually undermined by govt. policy and I agree.

I'm not saying that I want to paid for looking after my son but equally I don't see why DH's tax should fund child care for other people.

You only need to look at the child benefit changes to see that families with one high earner are an easy target. There are NO incentives at all for one income families and that is because the govt. clearly doesn't value IMO having a SAHP.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 10:00:40

Having children is a choice - but one that the Govt needs to encourage for the future economy. It may not encourage SAHPs to get back to work, but it sure as hell makes it easier for parents to stay in work and contribute to the economy from a financial POV.

I read that the same ByTheWay - if you are in the current scheme you can continue with that. The new scheme will help people like my friends whose employers currently don't offer CCV iirc.

CockyFox Wed 20-Mar-13 10:04:16

I am a SAHM through choice, it would never occur to me to be insulted by this. I stay at home therefore I don't need childcare; if I chose to go back to work I would be able to get this help. I really don't see the problem.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Wed 20-Mar-13 10:06:50

What on earth would be insulting about it?

mumarchy Wed 20-Mar-13 10:07:00

Completely agree with you Racmun!

solveproblem Wed 20-Mar-13 10:07:50

The government need people to work to stimulate the economy. That's way they need to encourage parents to work.

And we are all in this together so try not to think of your DH's taxes paying for somebody else's childcare. Think of it as your DH's taxes being used to better the economy and creating jobs.

blueshoes Wed 20-Mar-13 10:09:41

It helps reluctant SAHPs who are at home because they cannot afford childcare.

LittleBearPad Wed 20-Mar-13 10:18:38

Hang on a minute Racmum the taxes that your DH pays already subsidise people's childcare for example the 15 hours free childcare etc. You can't pick and choose what your taxes pay - they pay for the army; you may be a pacifist, they pay for hospitals; you may use private healthcare - same re education.

The £1,200 can only be spent on childcare. The government aren't writing a cheque that can be spent on anything. As a SAHP you don't need childcare. You may like your DCs to go to play school etc but you don't need them to.

Ahh, now I see why it's phrased as 'insult' Check out DailyFail headlines today. Mumsnet-tastic

sweetkitty Wed 20-Mar-13 10:19:30

I'm a SAHM with 4DC, two at school, two preschoolers. The sheer logistics and cost of childcare means that for now I chose to stay at home.

Yes it was entirely our choice to have 4 DC but I am hoping that those 4 DC grow up, are hard working and contribute a lot to society.

I do feel that this present government is very anti stay at home parents in general, especially with the gross unfairness of the child benefit cuts.

Will this allowance count for breakfast clubs, after school and holiday clubs? Childcare isn't just for the under 5s?

A lot of SAHMs look after elderly relatives, disabled children, do a lot of voluntary work, this is being overlooked as well. It's as if all the government care about is getting being paying tax (unless your mega wealthy and can exploit some loophole of course) and working until you drop.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 10:22:41

I think the Daily Fail is missing the point...again.

LittleBearPad Wed 20-Mar-13 10:28:45

Agreed SirChenjin but then they so often do.

ddsmellysocks Wed 20-Mar-13 10:34:20

Governments give mixed messages all the time. In the end they are only looking out for themselves and not what is best for families while claiming that they are wanting to assist the family. Some families choose to have working parents because other options are not an option available to them while other families choose to have a sahp because that is the only option available to them - governments should stop penalising choice, stop exclusions happening, and be fair. Yes to be fair the government does not have a money tree and in the present climate it must be hard to make changes for the good but in the end we are talking about children and aiming to get people to vote for you must go to the back of your decision making process - if only that were possible!

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 10:34:36

"Mothers who stay at home to look after their children do not need as much financial help as those who work, according to the Treasury"

Failing to see the issue here. If you stay at home and don't need childcare, why do you need to be able to claim money towards childcare? confused

SpringlingSpaniel Wed 20-Mar-13 10:36:16

I don't understand why it would be insulting either.

People who can afford to choose to stay at home and don't have to work to support their family don't need childcare and therefore don't need help with it.

People who are not working, want to work to support their family but struggle with how much childcare would cost them are helped.

People who are working rather than going on benefits but struggling to make ends meet because of the prohibitive cost of childcare are helped.

I think the ceiling is far too high though - people earning at the top level really don't need help paying for childcare.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 10:38:18

It's not about penalising 'choice' - it's about allocating tax incentives to reduce the cost of childcare to parents who work. It means that parents whose employers do not currently provide CCV will be able to claim, which will help more parents, and those in the current system will be able to stay in it - it would appear.

dreamingofsun Wed 20-Mar-13 10:39:00

sweetkitty - but surely they are helping people help themselves by enabling them to go to work and improve their standard of living. SAHMs now get credits towards their pensions - those who work don't get double credits whilst their kids are growing up because we have looked after them and worked.

Racmum - loads of people are contributing towards this tax break though not just the husbands of SAHMs. And you could benefit from it if you wanted. those of us with older or no kids couldn't.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 10:39:15

Agree with the earning ceiling height though Spaniel - that needs to come right down.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 11:01:19

Sorry OP,

I have looked at this and can't see how it penalises sahp's. I think if they weren't entitled to the free 15 hours pre school it would be wrong, because it is education not childcare. But as they are I don't see a problem.
I paid for my dd to attend nursery for one session a week before pre school to have friends to play with and socialisation. She didn't need childcare so why would I be sending her more often?

SpringlingSpaniel Wed 20-Mar-13 11:01:23

Wonder what the logic is in having the ceiling so high, seems a bit bonkers.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:08:38

I agree Spaniel. Thank goodness they are still helping parents, does anyone remember Gordon Brown in his dubious wisdom planned to remove CCV altogether? He only relented after a mass outcry.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 11:09:19

The message I'm hearing generally is that SAHMs don't count in society. They are perceived either as wives whose husbands earn plenty or as single Mums who should be working not getting benefits.

Nowhere do I see representation for the very real bracket of Mums whose husband does not earn a fortune but who does work anti-social hours/spend 6 months in Afghanistan/move every 18 months who stay at home because it's the only practical choice. Or even for the Mums who think <looks left and right and whispers> " I had them, I want to raise them and be there for them like my Mother was for me" .

Not insulted though-just think it's another example of how society is still preaching 'stuff not substance' and how we've forgotten about what's really important in life.

Besides, the SAHM was doomed when they took more tax of hubby than they gave back in child benefit back in the 60's.

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 11:12:04

Am I right in thinking that familes claiming tax credits/universal credits will not be eligible to claim this 20% either? So it's only middle earners that are going to be able to?

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:14:14

So what is really important in life then? And what really important things should the limited purse of the state fund in terms of SAHPs and childcare?

Sillyoldbagpus Wed 20-Mar-13 11:16:03

Yes it is fair. If you don't think so get to work!

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 11:19:07

"Or even for the Mums who think <looks left and right and whispers> " I had them, I want to raise them and be there for them like my Mother was for me" . "

Um.. then why would you need a tax break for childcare?

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:22:57

Actually - does the fact that I work mean that I am not actually raising my children or I'm can't be there for them??

<narrows eyes>

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 11:26:54

I didn't mean that SAHMs should get others have said what's the point?

Besides, for me to go to work I'd need weekend and night childcare potentially at a moments notice..let's see them legislate for that hmm

As a human being the important thing in life should be your family.

Personally I've given up worrying about what the Govt give to whom as they seem to live in their own deluded bubble.

I automatically assume that it'll be 4 reams of paper to apply, impossible to understand how it's worked out and if I do qualify that I'll need to save at least half of any monies gained for when they write to say there's an overpayment.

SpringlingSpaniel Wed 20-Mar-13 11:28:00

"Or even for the Mums who think <looks left and right and whispers> " I had them, I want to raise them and be there for them like my Mother was for me"

Glad to hear I'm not raising my children hmm

Leaving that aside, that's a wonderful sentiment, but thinking this country can afford to financially support every woman/man who would like to make that choice is completely deluded.

Times have changed since our mothers raised us. Then it was possible to afford a decent family home on one income, for example, and although many mothers made the choice to stay at home, (and without knowledge of the benefits system back in the 1970s/early 80s), I'm pretty sure those mothers who did choose to stay at home didn't expect to receive benefits to fund that choice.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 11:29:05

SirChenjin not at all. That is absolutely not my point. Not even a little bit.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 11:31:20

My word! before I get lynched let me qualify.

The point was, it's their was in no way meant to be a reflection on other people's parenting..flippin 'eck

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:36:46

Exactly - their choice to stay at home. Why on earth should the Govt contribute to that choice when SAHP are not actually contributing to the financial pot?

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 11:41:23

Oh sorry, misunderstood smile

Indith Wed 20-Mar-13 11:41:54

It is help to pay for childcare for most of all those who need childcare. If people have made the decision to stay at home then they do not need subsidised childcare.

However. It is not all that much help.

Personally, I think that a better option would be making a salary sacrifice scheme like the current voucher scheme available to all so that parents actually have the choice. With the new scheme if a parent loses their job then they will no longer get childcare help which will seriously hamper their return to work as they will have to remove children from childcare and risk losing their places while they job hunt. Current voucher scheme the parent who is still working would be able to continue getting the vouchers. Also both parents have to be working so students can't claim but again, under the current scheme the working parent can get vouchers.

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 11:43:10

I did read that this will not apply until 2015, and that people who are already involved in the scheme won't have to change over (annoyingly I can't remember where I've read that though!)

So if you have the scheme, it looks like you can stick with it, if you would be worse off under the new one.

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 11:44:36

sorry, people who already use the voucher scheme (shouldn't talk on the phone and type at the same time!)

Indith Wed 20-Mar-13 11:45:22

Course really what we need is affordable childcare generally or at least a proper living wage that covers lliving expenses so that when people stay at home it really is their choice and not because they can't get a job that will cover childcare.

eg I have spent the past 6 years or so at home because I know that I can't get a job that would cover childcare whereas dh could so he works. Now I'm done having babies I am going to uni so that I can get a better paid job. Or at least that's the idea. But my childcare bill is going to be over £16k shock. Dh earns too much for me to get dependents allowance. But quite clearly one decent but not huge salary can't pay that plus the mortgage plus feed the family. We have some savings to get through the first year.......

Indith Wed 20-Mar-13 11:47:42

Yes you can stick with the voucher scheme until 2020 I believe. Of course this could all be a moot point because it is planned for after the next election so if labour are elected then they will being in their own idea. Which will be similar. But slightly different. Which will make some people better off and some people worse off. Because you can't win them all. One size fits all is impossible. Unless you actually change the wages and the costs rather than trying to give people money back after they have spent it.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 11:51:24


Heelo. I am similar to your example above, except my husband isn't in the forces.
I am a sahm because it suits my family and most of all myself.
He doesn't earn a fortune but with the TC/WTC and cb its always been enough for me to be a sahm as our outgoings are minimal, and we are not materialistic.
The benefit cuts are not going to affect us as in my own right I have never received any, my dh meets all the requirements for UC so we will continue the same. I am not available to seek work so I will not meet the requirements.

I am not assuming others who work are materialistic, not there for their kids or any other negative thoughts that wohp's usually tend to believe.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:51:26

Agree - living wage and affordable childcare is definitely the best way forward. No Govt will do that though because that's too - erm - sensible?!

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 11:52:31

I don't 'usually tend to believe' anything Potato

pigletpooh Wed 20-Mar-13 11:57:14

I think its very divisive of this government to bring this up now. It brings the age old argument of working mums versus SAHM. Already on Vernessa Felts talk programme we had a working mum calling SAHMs lazy or rich etc. Mr Cameron wife is a working mother designing handbags when she could afford to stay at home, which is more important handbags or your children. But don't forget she can afford excellent child care which many can't. And not everyone's got a granny around the corner. In France nearly all mother's work because they have an excellent child care system in place but I for one could never afford to work when my children were little as the child care was thin and expensive and I knew that I could do a much better job myself although I did manage to work p/t with my husband covering but it was unsocial hours.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 12:01:52

SirChenjin Yup..agreed..common sense is absolutely not on the table grin

potato I don't think working parents are materialistic or absent, hopefully I've now made that point.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 12:14:43

Pigletpooh which is more important handbags or your children

Samantha Cameron probably rightly thinks that the most important thing is to ensure that her kids don't grow up thinking a woman's place is in the home, barefoot in the kitchen and kept by a man.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 12:15:06


No ankle, I didn't think you had. I had read several heated posts above and wanted to make it clear that wasn't what I was saying, moreover just relaying my families position in the scheme of welfare cuts.

SirChenjin I am very glad to hear that grin. So many times somebody will relay their own experience and others will presume they are having a go at others who decide to do things differently. It is a shame really when all of us are only doing whats best for our families in the situation we chose or find ourselves.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 12:15:33

Piglet - perhaps she just really enjoys working and finds it very rewarding and stimulating? Why should she give that up?

pigletpooh Wed 20-Mar-13 12:38:14

I didn't say she doesn't enjoy working but she doesn't have to put her values onto every mother in society. And as for being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen I feel very sorry for mothers who feel that what a SAHM is about and undervalues child care and is falling into the Government's plans of making working mothers look down on those that are SAHMs. Just as they try and make out that all the problems in society are due to the unemployed and not the greedy bankers. Don't fall into the government trap of thinking just because you work or have a career that your so much better than those that don't.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 12:43:54

piglet I for one could never afford to work when my children were little as the child care was thin and expensive and I knew that I could do a much better job myself although I did manage to work p/t with my husband covering but it was unsocial hours.

That sounds like you would have worked if you had been capable of earning enough to afford childcare. You sound somewhat bitter to be honest.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 12:45:14

grin potato and piglet

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 12:51:19

In what way is Samantha Cameron putting her values onto every mother in society??!!

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 12:53:44

SirChenjin In completely NO way. grin

pigletpooh Wed 20-Mar-13 12:57:08

Samantha Cameron is in the public eye and tries to make out she is a career women, but really designing hand bags, luckily my daughter is studying engineering and not making hand bags for posh women

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 12:58:47

I am insulted that my child benefit was taken off me, I couldn't care less about childcare as I have no reason to use it unless hospital appointments for my daughter coincides with school pick up for the youngest

polyhymnia Wed 20-Mar-13 13:03:29

Perhaps I'm being thick but I can't see for the life of me why parents who stay at home to look after their child need any help with child care costs. Seems as simple as that to me.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 13:08:30

I must admit that child benefit cuts seem to be the most unfairest. It should be per family not parent.
When there are people earning up to 98K still receiving it, there is something wrong.

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 13:11:48

exactly, my husband doesn't earn much over the threshold and I had to give up work because I could no longer cope emotionally or physically with working and caring for my dd, who is severely disabled. But I am sure the Camerons have empathy for people in mine and my husbands situation hmm <sigh>

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 13:19:46


I'm not sure but I think you might have been making the same point as I did up thread.

When my older dc were little there was no help with childcare and it was also sparse. If you couldn't afford it or find it, you didn't work, unless you had extended family for childcare. I think that people should be grateful for any assistance with childcare in this age where the pot is empty, (or so we're told). That's not bitter its just fact, and my choice to be a sahm would have been the same irrespective of anything else.

dreamingofsun Wed 20-Mar-13 13:20:29

piglet - i don't believe working mums look down at SAHMs. Generally we are jealous that they have been able to spend time looking after their kids rather than slogging away in an office and rushing everywhere

dreamingofsun Wed 20-Mar-13 13:22:26

woops pressed return too quickly......guess that makes us slightly reticent about wanting to use some of our income to give tax breaks to SAHMs

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 13:23:15

There are plenty of women in the public eye, but unless you are very easily impressed or swayed by other women or lacking in self confidence you don't base your decision on whether or not you want to work by what Samantha Cameron or anyone else is doing.

Agree with the cuts to child benefit - that made no sense. Well, it did from an administrative POV in that it's easier to look at the income of a single person rather than trying to work out what a couple might be earning jointly, esp. if they don't live together or are not married, but that was a really, really unfair one.

Personally I blame Samantha Cameron and her handbags. And Cherie Blair just for being Cherie Blair. And Sarah Brown. And every other working wife of a PM.

Startail Wed 20-Mar-13 13:29:42

Racmum I hope you don't mind me quoting your post, you state my situation and feelings exactly
"I'm a SAHM through choice. I think the point OP is trying to make is that she feels the role of SAHP is being continually undermined by govt. policy and I agree.

I'm not saying that I want to paid for looking after my son but equally I don't see why DH's tax should fund child care for other people.

You only need to look at the child benefit changes to see that families with one high earner are an easy target. There are NO incentives at all for one income families and that is because the govt. clearly doesn't value IMO having a SAHP."

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 13:39:23

Did you see one response to this post from Racmum, Startail?

"Hang on a minute Racmum the taxes that your DH pays already subsidise people's childcare for example the 15 hours free childcare etc. You can't pick and choose what your taxes pay - they pay for the army; you may be a pacifist, they pay for hospitals; you may use private healthcare - same re education.

The £1,200 can only be spent on childcare. The government aren't writing a cheque that can be spent on anything. As a SAHP you don't need childcare. You may like your DCs to go to play school etc but you don't need them to."

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 13:44:20

I thought pre school was more to do with education rather than childcare?

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 13:47:30

I think the point was that we don't necessarily always agree with what our taxes are spent on, but we can't pick and choose.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 13:47:45

I don't like Samantha Cameron. And I don't buy handbags. But high end luxury goods design makes a lot of money for this country. It's one of the few areas in which exports are quite strong. I think that since Piglet you don't seem to know much about economics you should maybe keep quiet on the subject.

jellybeans Wed 20-Mar-13 13:55:15

'I think it's the fact that the govt seems to be trying to socially engineer all parents into work, ignoring the fact that childcare isn't the best environment for all children, that makes it a slight towards sahps. '

I agree with the above. And the fact they scrapped CB for single earners over 50K but not for joint earners even though those joint earners may have had free childcare from family etc. Why do those on 150K each need help with childcare? Not everyone in work needs to work, if they choose to why shouldn't they pay for their own childcare?

Truss and Clegg make many derogatory comments against SAHM. I wonder if they feel such disdain for SAHDs?

The only fair way is to bring back CB for all and increase it for those on lower incomes. That way parents can use the money to offset SAH or childcare costs. But the gov won't go for that as it allows choice and they know that more mums/dads would choose to be SAHD (if studies are correct that most parents-especially mums- would want to stay home or work part time while DC are pre school age). Just because Mrs Clegg and Truss want to work long hours and use child carers doesn't mean everyone wants to, it isn't right for all families, they should stop trying to patronize people into doing it their way, every family knows what is right for them and SAH may well be right for many as there are still a lot of us...

fufulina Wed 20-Mar-13 13:59:28

russians your first post about barefoot at home was exactly what I wanted to say, and you articulated it brilliantly. The whole point about working is that it's not about these years when the kids are small, it's about when they're grown up. If I took seven years out, I'd be unemployable in my current industry. Working now means I maintain my career. And I'm financially independent. You never know what's around the corner.

Briseis Wed 20-Mar-13 14:00:17

Startail and Racmum - couldn't agree with you more. This government is making sahms feel under valued and undermined.
SirChenjin, you are right, we can't pick and choose where our taxes go but we can disagree with it (as I do indeed disagree with many things our taxes go to), campaign against it, and use our votes sensibly.

What annoys me more than anything is that I just wish this government would sort out the flexible working legislation. It is pushing women back into work but into what jobs? As an ex employment lawyer I know what a joke the flexible working legislation is and I find it so frustrating. There are many of us happy to work, unfortunately getting a descent, part time job that may allow for a modicum of balance in our life is just so hard. Talking about envy, I envy those mums that are able to work 2/3 days a week, maybe work from home on occasion etc. I wish there was a greater emphasis on incentives to encourage employers to offer this.

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 14:02:10

I resent the implications of being barefoot at home. I always wear slippers

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 14:02:26

Working p/t still means you are working - and still able to claim CCV or make use of the new tax incentive.

I don't see any patronising at all - just a reworking of the system which enables parents to get help with childcare costs to enable them to continue working and contribute financially to the economy. If you choose to stay and home and therefore do not have childcare costs, I really don't see why anyone would see that as unfair. There is nowhere that I can see which says "you must increase your working hours"

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 14:04:32

fufulina It's not even just about our own security and fulfillment. The most important thing is the message it sends to our children - especially the boys. I grew up in a sexist society and still have to operate in one (I work in a male dominated industry and am a glass ceiling shatterer). I don't want my daughters to have to struggle as I did, one of the key elements to that will be the number of role models and the acceptance for the way things are Supposed To Be now from the boys of their generation and the ones younger than me but older than them. If those boys are getting completely dodgy messages at home, similar to the messages most of my colleagues clearly got, then my girls will have as tough a time of it as I did.

wintersdawn Wed 20-Mar-13 14:06:03

The point that insults me is i work part time to help boost our income and attempt to keep my skills up and apparently that isn't working enough so we will lose out and I won't be able to work. Then when the kids are at school and I try and get a job I won't be able to as I'll have no current work history or up to date skills.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 14:09:04

I don't think gov are trying to get all parents working on the contrary I think they only support parents working who don't need much support. The Higher earners won't need childcare support and many lower earners are complaining they will be better off not working as their childcare has been cut. It is also the reason why CB has remained for the rich, but the middle families lose theirs.
We do not have a coalition gov, it is Tory through and through. Make the rich richer and the poor poorer, its historically what they stand for along with a sahp. Which of course there is bound to be after the childcare cuts.

fufulina Wed 20-Mar-13 14:09:41

Furiously nodding head! All the threads on MN complaining that the chap doesn't pull his weight, all totally linked in with how things are Supposed To Be. Basically because so many men, even if they realise it or not, think that household and kid work is for women. My DH is no exception, although he tries, it is very hard to undo such societal hard wiring.

solveproblem Wed 20-Mar-13 14:10:13

I agree with fufulina and russian.
The two main reasons why I work is to be financially independent AND to me a good role model to my two boys. I would hate having them grow up thinking only women should do housework and childcare.

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 14:11:47

I don't see why SAHMs should feel that they're being undermined because of this proposal. It's addressing an economic problem - the economy is not functioning as efficiently as it could be because lots of skilled and experienced workers are unable to partake in the workforce because of the costs of childcare. This reduces income tax revenue which pays for - amongst other things - all of our childrens' schooling and healthcare.

It's not a moral judgement about the best way to raise a child. If you've CHOSEN to drop out of the workforce because you believe that's the best thing for your family, then that's fine. If you're being PREVENTED from working because of the cost of childcare, then this proposal should (though probably won't) remove that obstacle.

I'm slightly offended by the "I don't want my DH's taxes to fund other people's lifestyle choices" argument. Between you (generic you), you and your DH have made a decision to only contribute one lot of taxes to the public purse instead of two. Those of us in two earner households are contributing more taxes overall, so why shouldn't we get a TEENY (in the grand scheme of things) bit back if it helps us continue to pay those taxes? Our overall tax contribution is still higher than a single earner household's.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 14:14:17

Potato - did you miss the bit where Labour (under GB) was going to do away with CCV completely for all working parents? It was only because there was a mass outcry he relented, but somehow that is conveniently forgotten. CB has remained for families where one parent is a higher income earner because it's the easiest way of administering it from a tax POV. I don't agree with it, but I strongly suspect Labour would have done the same, and certainly won't amend it if they get in at the next election.

I totally disagree that it will only support parents who don't need much support - what exactly do you base that on?

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 14:15:03


That is a good reason to work, but remember a sahp is just a good a role model and there is no reason for them to grow up thinking only women should do housework. That comes from how you behave as a parent.
My time isn't spent doing childcare and housework anymore than a wohps is grin

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 14:17:11

that should read has been removed, not remained, obv!

Can you tell I'm working very hard from home today!! blush

fufulina Wed 20-Mar-13 14:18:05

No, but the vast majority of parents at the school gate, and people filling the school-friendly jobs (normally poorly paid, low skilled, to be fair), all the people advertising cleaning products are women. All the people doing the important stuff, i.e., the stuff that is recognised as important by having a big salary attached to it, tend to be men. It's insidious.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 14:19:15


I base gov supporting parents who don't need much support on the evidence of the cuts.
As I said for whatever reason cb remains for the wealthy, childcare is cut for the middle and cb, oh and tax credits too. Then of course there are the real needy who are being taxed on bloody bedrooms, and entitlement to welfare by goal post shifting.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 14:24:27


In fairness my dh has also said that he wouldn't want his tax to pay for other peoples childcare, as I am a sahm and there was no help in recession when our dc were small. Maybe this isn't acceptable or nice to hear but neither is it fair for a wohp to say they don't want their tax to allow a sahp.
It does cut both ways!

rottenscoundrel Wed 20-Mar-13 14:27:47

No, it only annoys me that I have employed childcarers for my children for almost 13 years and will just miss out on it argh!

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 14:29:07

Treats To be fair, you have no idea whether your overall tax contribution is higher or lower than any given single earner household. A dual earner household will benefit from two lots of personal allowance, for example, and potentially will qualify for CB on a total income level far far higher than a single earner household - which will also only get one personal allowance (which decreases at the margin, also).

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 14:29:23

That doesn't add up to evidence for childcare support - that's just your opinion!!

Were you the person recently who said that the reason there was so much unemployment was because there were too many people working btw?

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 14:31:30

Potato A SAHM is not a good role model for girls or boys, unfortunately. Unless she is SAH because she already earned a complete and utter fortune before sprigging, and can therefore afford to (that of course is absolutely the best sort of role model).

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 14:32:34

Where do you get the idea that CB remains for the wealthy????

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 14:44:46


Were you part of the brigade who were name calling about needing to know about world economy to have an opinion. Maybe not as you said above it was my opinion.
But yes, you don't have to be a genius to know that if there were fewer families with both parents working, there would be the vacated jobs for others to fill.

Mopswerver Wed 20-Mar-13 14:44:47

As an SAHM I don't think this is unfair or insulting of itself but I am a little fed up of the current prevailing negative attitude towards SAHMs in general.

We are constantly being given the message from the media, the Govt and the likes of Cherie Blair that we are lazy work-shy scroungers who are throw backs to the '50's and are providing a poor role model to our DCs.
A bit galling when you have worked for 20yrs prior to having DCs!

If it is wrong to aspire to care for your own pre school children, why is it OK for women to work in nurseries looking after other people's children?

I'm afraid it smacks of a move to pressurize women into returning to work so that they can increase the Tax revenue!

polyhymnia Wed 20-Mar-13 14:45:27

Don't usually raise my head above parapet on these threads but having worked all through my DS s childhood I'm with you 100% on role models Russians.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 14:47:50


I think families earning up to 98k and getting cb are pretty wealthy grin
Its interesting that you consider the only good role model for a child is somebody earning a fortune.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 14:49:34

Well, you are providing a poor role model, there;s no getting away from that, unfortunately. You are shoring up the opinions of the future and you are entrenching what we have now in so many professions - the idea that once a woman has kids that's it, it doesn't matter how well qualified or how good at her job she is, if she can possibly afford to stop working once the kids come along then that is what she should do. This stigmatises women who can't afford to stop working and it makes things much more difficult than they need to be (which is usually quite difficult anyway, to be fair) for those women who do carry on working. It means that we have far less women in positions of power and responsibility commensurate to their intelligence skills and education than we should have. It means our society is skewed, and it means that every single generation has to fight the same battles.

So, yes. A very poor role model and materially disadvantaging not just your own children but everyone else's too. So cheers for that.

pigletpooh Wed 20-Mar-13 14:50:59

Russians, why is a SAHM not a good role model for boys and girls, I would be proud of my sons or daughters if they decided to take time out to look after their children, I think it is one of the most important jobs in the world and, it is a job, a full time job

ByTheWay1 Wed 20-Mar-13 14:51:56

Russians...... - How dare you say I'm not a good role model for my kids!

I think bringing up my kids with our values, being there for them, supporting their education is more important to them, me and my hubby than being able to buy more stuff.... I am also a part time carer for my MIL - unpaid, so obviously of no value to those who think a role model needs to be a wage slave....

I have earned well in the past in a career, but I guess I don't live up to the feminist ideal because I choose to put others before myself.

impecuniousmarmoset Wed 20-Mar-13 14:55:50

This measure ignores the massive variety of reasons why a SAHP might not work and still need affordable childcare. They might care for an elderly relative. They might do voluntary work. They might be studying in order to get a better job. They might be between jobs. Basically, according to the tories, unless you are a full-time wage-slave, you are of no value whatsoever to society. That's the take-home message. It's pretty bloody depressing.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 14:57:48

Potato I don't disagree that people earning £99K are earning a lot. It's possible to be wealthy and earn a lot less than that though and to not have CB either. And of course people earning >£100K in total are earning even more and don't have CB. It depends on wether you are a one or two income family and what assets you have. Wealth is actually completely different from income and is usually derived from inheritance and capital assets. People who own their own homes outright, like you, are far more wealthy than people who are in hock to the bank. Wealth is actually a technical term, with a defined meaning, perhaps you didn't realise that.

People who are giving a good role model do not have to be earning a lot. Many of the most important people in society earn very little. what they have in common though is they go out to work, and they pay their taxes.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:00:59

Bytheway Not only a poor role model for your kids, but your actions may have a negative impact on my kids in the future. How dare you not consider the political implications of your own actions?

impecuniousmarmoset Wed 20-Mar-13 15:01:35

'Well, you are providing a poor role model, there;s no getting away from that, unfortunately.'

Jesus Christ. And you dare to call yourself a feminist?

Being a poor role model is teaching your children that earning ability is the most important measure of value in a person. Not being considerate, caring, community-minded, intellectually curious and generous. Nope, if you don't work for money, none of that counts. It all pales before the glory of mammon.

If my kids grow up with your attitude, Russians, I know I'll have failed as a parent, no matter how much they are or aren't earning.

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 15:01:54

russian - agreed - you can't always know that a dual earner household is making a greater overall tax contribution than a single earner, especially with the personal allowances, as you say. But the point is that the dual earner household is getting a very small rebate to help them continue to make both of those contributions. In some cases the alternative would be for one of them to stop paying tax altogether, and then the net tax take would be lower all round.

potato - How does it cut both ways? Suppose - for the moment - that only the women's tax contribution was counted for the purpose of this rebate (god forbid, but this is just hypothetical). If I get a small amount back on the overall amount that I'm paying, and you get nothing back on the nothing that you're paying, then what's unfair about that? Especially if the small amount directly funds the means for me to contribute the overall amount. You actually benefit more than I do.......

The original point I was making is that the govt isn't introducing this because it wants to favour one choice over the other, but simply because it's better for the economy to have more people in work and paying taxes. And if a small tax rebate can remove a substantial barrier to achieving this, then it's a sensible use of public funds.

impecuniousmarmoset Wed 20-Mar-13 15:02:14

I say that as a working parent, btw.

ByTheWay1 Wed 20-Mar-13 15:07:57

Mother Theresa earned nothing... Aung San Suu Kyi earned nothing in her inspirational icon of democracy phase - they did not go out to work and pay taxes - they are/were important people and more of a role model than any suited businesswoman who happens to break through the "glass ceiling" - some of us have different values .....

polyhymnia Wed 20-Mar-13 15:08:12

I must say I can't see how being a SAHM can possibly be described as a 'full time job' once all the children are in full-time school.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:08:27

impecunious I don't call myself a feminist at all. Where did you get that idea? I'm a socialist but that's the only ist I am. I'm a working mother of daughters (and a son) and I care passionately about the future that my kids will inherit. It is unlikely that they will win the lottery (since we don't gamble) so they will have to work and I don't want their life chances to be limited by the shortsightedness of others. And I also don't want them to have to struggle as much as I have had to do. Things are supposed to get better over time.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:10:45

Impecunious well, if they grow up with your reading comprehension skills they really WILL have problems. sad Nowehere have I said that what a person earns is the important factor. And nowhere have I said that mammon is the most important thing. As you would know if it wasn't for the whole reading comprehension thing, I suppose. My kids will likely all end up working in rather low paid jobs in the arts or education sectors. Not a lot of mammon there.

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 15:13:32

Russains, did somebody tell you it was gone with the wind and lobster bisque day today?

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:13:55

Treats - I don't have a problem with the proposals. I won't benefit from them (par for the course) but that's fine - they are not completely dreadful proposals (the cut off point is too high, and they need to think about people between jobs, people studying, people with disabilities (as always)). It was just your statement was a bit dodgy because obviously lots of dual income households don't pay that much tax. smile I should probably have left it though, since I support your main contention that this isn't a bad idea. I just think it's likely to be badly executed.

pigletpooh Wed 20-Mar-13 15:14:33

Russians I don't know how you can say your kids life chances will be limited by the shortsightedness of others, by puting down SAHMs, I would only say that your opinions will make them very narrow minded. I think everyone to their own, and do what best fits them

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:16:27

ByTheWay Nowhere have I said that what you earn is important. And in fact Mother Theresa worked 24/7 her whole life. Being a nun is a job as well as a vocation. Being a woman in a male dominated environment doesn't have to involve money and nor does breaking glass ceilings. The concept refers to women being allowed to do things that were previously assumed to be the preserve of men. HTH.

jellybeans Wed 20-Mar-13 15:18:18

' A SAHM is not a good role model for girls or boys, unfortunately. Unless she is SAH because she already earned a complete and utter fortune before sprigging, and can therefore afford to (that of course is absolutely the best sort of role model).'

SAHP can be great role models. SAHD as well as SAHM. There are lots of SAHDs now or those who split childcare and work around each other. It can be a good example that you can put time with DC before career goals, extra income etc-if you have a choice and want to do so. (Yes lots of people need to work just to survive)

'If it is wrong to aspire to care for your own pre school children, why is it OK for women to work in nurseries looking after other people's children?'

Exactly. Which shows it is all about the money and so they can say we have 'gender equality' even though in my eyes caring for people should be equal in importance to earning income; carers, SAHP etc.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 15:19:24

[laughing so hard I might actually break a rib] at 'poor role model'

Is that as compared to 'barely there to be setting any kind of example at all' Russian?

(please-all none 'poor role model believing working Mums' refer to my previous comments before you flame my lazy, morally redundant SAHM behind wink )

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:19:41

Piglet - the people with narrow minds are the people who have been conditioned by their upbringing to think that a mother's place is in the home. And who then perpetuate that through the way they bring up their own kids. sad My kids are growing up to think that anyone, regardless of gender, can do anything they want, if they want to go for it. I know whose kids will benefit society more.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 15:21:30

Well Russians you are entitled to your opinion.

I am fully aware that my dc are really appreciative that I have been a sahm, they have told me numerous times and that will do for me. My dd is especially appreciative as there are so many things she wouldn't be able to do if I wasn't at home. A nanny just wouldn't be the same apparently. grin

impecuniousmarmoset Wed 20-Mar-13 15:23:26

Well, forgive me, but to tell a SAHP that they are providing a poor role model for their children because they earn no money amounts to saying that money is the most important measure of value for you. If it wasn't, then you'd be quite happy with a SAHP doing valuable community work for no pay. If money is not the most important thing, then what are you doing insulting SAHPs?

You're quite right, you didn't actually call yourself a feminist. Forgive me again, I tend to assume that most literate educated women arguing for the value of women's equal position in the workplace are also feminists.

If you're not a feminist, then I guess you don't agree with the whole equal rights for women, and having the vote, and being able to apply for a mortgage without your husband's say-so is irrelevant to you. And presumably also the right to equal pay for equal work? And to the right to self-determination?


RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:24:23

anklebiters You're right. Poor is far too weak a word. Mea culpa. Appalling might be better? smile I agree with you that people who are barely there are bad role models too. The best sort of set up would obviously be to have proper 50:50 shared care and to completely rip it up and start again in terms of how the working world actually works - working hours, presenteeism, tax structures, etc. We won't get that while men remain fundamentally in charge of everything though.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:25:53

Impecuinous I didn't tell someone they were providing a bad role money because they were earning no money. Reading comprehension. Again.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:26:17

Role MODEL. Clearly my typing is on a par with your reading comprehension! grin

SoupDreggon Wed 20-Mar-13 15:28:00

My kids are growing up to think that anyone, regardless of gender, can do anything they want, if they want to go for it. I know whose kids will benefit society more.

So are mine. They are also growing up without having narrow minded beliefs about what is worthwhile foisted upon them.

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 15:28:19

Russians - you were right to call me out on my potentially dodgy maths, but I think that overall we agree. Right down to the fact that it will probably be poorly implemented......

I once made the mistake of saying on MN that - personally - one of my reasons for going back to work was because I wanted to be a good role model for my daughter and because I thought it was important for women to be visible in the workplace, and I got absolutely pulled apart by some SAHMs as a result. I was actually a bit shocked by the vitriol - it never occurred to me that I was saying anything controversial........

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:32:49

Impecuinous As I said, I;m a socialist so I believe in all those things and more. You were trying to be clever (and failing rather spectacularly) with your 'call yourself a feminist' comment. Since I hadn't prefaced any of my comments with 'As a feminist......' I pointed this out.

As for your other point - you may have missed the bit where I said some of the most important people in society earned very little? I have got no problem with people doing community work for little or no pay if they or their partners can afford (for them) to do that. Such people are often complete ....saints? Bastions of brilliantness? What they aren't is SAHP. Because, for a start, they are not AH. They are OH. Doing their thing. They are people who work in a different way. They are demonstrating to their kids that there are ways to contribute which aren't always as valued as they should be. But this only holds where they are doing stuff that SHOULD be being paid for but isn't because society is completely screwy right now. Some people do amazing stuff for charities and in the community. They are heroes. Other people do makey uppy stuff that nobody would miss if they didn't do it. Often both types of activity are given the same heading.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:34:30

treats You weren't saying anything controversial at all. Some people can't handle the truth. And nor will their kids be able to and so it will perpetuate. sad

SoupDreggon Wed 20-Mar-13 15:36:26

there are ways to contribute which aren't always as valued as they should be

You mean like being a parent and looking after your own children?

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 15:40:12

<waves home-made pom poms at Soup and offers her a freshly baked fairy cake>

ByTheWay1 Wed 20-Mar-13 15:43:16

It is fine for people to say they want to be a good role model to their kids by having women visible in the workplace..... as is it fine for me to want to be a good role model for my children by caring for them and their grandmother (in our home) - out of love, not money.

(I REALLY do not get why it would be better for me to be earning minimum wage - probably taking home too little to actually pay tax - taking care of other people's kids and having to pay for childcare - {or now my kids are older leaving them home alone} - and also paying for my MIL to be in a home, rather than doing something I love, for people I love.)

Different values.

SoupDreggon Wed 20-Mar-13 15:44:08

Personally I hope I manage to raise my sons and daughter to believe that they can do anything they want and not be limited by what some ignorant people believe to be "worthwhile" or a "good role model"

Which makes me a far better role model than some.

anklebitersmum Wed 20-Mar-13 15:44:42

Fairy cake Bytheway1? grin

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 15:44:53

It may surprise you to know that WOHP look after their own children too.

The attitude that they don't - which is presumably already entrenched in your own kids - is exactly the sort of narrowminded outmoded bollocks that will perpetuate the problems women in the workplace experience for yet another generation. sad

impecuniousmarmoset Wed 20-Mar-13 15:49:08

Well then we have a different definition of SAHP. I know very few SAHP with school-age children who just sit and MN all day (that's reserved for those of us supposed to be working...). Almost all contribute to their communities in various ways. As in fact do most of the SAHP of toddler-age children I know. Helped by subsidised childcare! They aren't saints or bastions of brilliance, they are ordinary people.

As for the feminism/socialism point - well, all good socialists should certainly be feminists. Unfortunately I could point you to quite a few icons of socialist thought who were anything but - hence the need for feminism. Saying 'I support everything that feminists stood and fought for but I'm not a feminist' is pretty poor actually. Remember those women who died for your vote? They fought and died as feminists. Some of them were certainly socialists too, but the ideologies sure as hell aren't one and the same thing.

And can we stop with the jibes about cleverness or lack of it? It doesn't do much for your argument.

SoupDreggon Wed 20-Mar-13 15:51:02

It may surprise you to know that WOHP look after their own children too.

confused so what is all this paid childcare for? Interesting how it is OK for you to spout insulting bollocks about SAHP but can't possibly have anything vaguely negative said about a WOHP.

The attitude that they don't - which is presumably already entrenched in your own kids - is exactly the sort of narrowminded outmoded bollocks that will perpetuate the problems women in the workplace experience for yet another generation. sad

Utter claptrap. Your children are equally entrenched with negative outmoded bollocks about parents who chose to stay at home.

Personally, I could give a damn about whether a parent works out of the home or stays at home and do not judge either choice. Unlike you.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 15:51:14


I think anybody who suggests that either sahp or wohp are good role models because of their choice is narrow minded at least.
Also just because a woman decides not to wohm doesn't mean she believes that women shouldn't work or their place is in the home. There are many reasons why people choose the route they do.
I don't think wohp don't look after their kids and tbh I don't hear this very often at all.
However, I do hear lots of negative comments directed at sahps. The role model especially.

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 15:52:01

I thought about it a bit more as a result of my mauling, and the "truth" as I see it, is that there are mothers who want to go back to work after having children and there are mothers who want to stay at home with them. By and large these preferences are shaped in our subconscious a long time before we actually give birth and the actual choice is not dependent on how much we earn, or how much we enjoy our job, but an instinctive preference.

Because the preference is instinctive it leads to a certain degree of incomprehension about why anyone would make the opposite choice. I see this in RL as well as on here. Mostly, we can just shrug and accept that people have different priorities and it's all fine, and we just manage the differences with a bit of good humour.

So I keep quiet now, because I realise that SAHMs don't like being called poor role models any more than I like the implication that I'm not a 'proper' mother because I don't care for mine 24/7. There's no point getting into a row about what's 'better' because none of us will ever know what the difference would have been for our families if we'd made the opposite decision. Or if we'd had different children.

SoupDreggon Wed 20-Mar-13 15:54:59

I realise that SAHMs don't like being called poor role models any more than I like the implication that I'm not a 'proper' mother because I don't care for mine 24/7

You need to realise that the reason neither side likes those assumptions is because they aren't true

ByTheWay1 Wed 20-Mar-13 15:59:14

I love cake anklebitersmum grin

Sorry - I was unaware that grannies and nannies and childminders and nurseries no longer "looked after children" for people who need them to when working .....

yes you do look after your kids - of course WOHPs do - your contribution to your kids upbringing combined with your childcare provider's is as valuable as my contribution combined with that of my MIL is to mine....

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 16:01:02


I totally agree grin

I think we do what we feel is best for us and our families. Some people want to work, others don't, some would like to and can't for some reason.
I knew as soon as I gave birth ds1 that I couldn't go back to working, it was how I felt. It would have broken my heart to put him in childcare.
Everybody is different and I don't think I'm right or wrong in my decision where others are concerned. But for my family and me/dh it was the best decision ever.

EasilyBored Wed 20-Mar-13 16:09:49

Being a good role model for your children by going out to work, or staying at home (whatever your favourite flavour) is all a bit pointless is you aren't a good role model in any other area of your life. So many women on here complain about how they run themselves ragged working and doing all the childrearing, cleaning, cooking and life admin while their other does fuck all, or complain that they have to do everything while they SAHM because their other half thinks that since they go out to earn the money, they shouldn't have to act like an adult at home. Seems like you can't win either way, and if you don't tackle that issue, it doesn't matter if your daughter sees you working or not.

I think the only good policies are ones that meant that women have an actual, viable, choice in what they want to do. Policies that mean that they aren't forced to stay at home because work doesn't pay enough to make it worthwhile even in the long term. And on the other hand there should be policies that mean if a family want to make the choice to have one parent stay at home, that it is doable as well.

I don't think child care subsidies are insulting to SAHM parents. I think they are trying to get women out of a situation where they don't have a choice, and they are trying to help make work 'pay' more, or just be more sustainable so that women can keep in the long term employment game.

Saying that, it's probably not going to go very well, given the problems already mentioned about redundancies and long term sickness and disability. And because it's come from the bastion of all that is shite; Osbourne.

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 16:10:15

what does making uppy stuff mean?

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 16:10:58

That choice though, however we define it, is based on household income. Without a certain level of income that choice would not be available, regardless of whether or not it's ingrained into our subconscious.

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 16:13:11

SoupDreggon - that's a bit aggressive. I was trying to say that it's pointless to make those sweeping statements about other people's choices because we'll never fully understand what led them to make those choices.

We can privately think what we like, but it's useless to get into an argument about it.

potato - I'm glad smile. I think the worst situation is where your instinctive choice is to do one thing but circumstances force you to do another. Having to work when you want to stay home, for example.

TwistTee Wed 20-Mar-13 16:15:51

Well said Treats. SoupDreggon, I believe the fact that they aren't true is inherent in Treats post.

The last few arguments have strayed away from the original question of whether the policy insults SAHMs. I don't think it does and can't really see why this has dissolved into a SAHM v Return to work mum. I believe that the government is right to encourage mums to return to work and make it easier for those who want to, to do so. Particularly given the current economic environment. That does not diminish the value of a mum who chooses not to work in a paid environment.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 16:18:55

Agree Twist. If we can support parents who want to work whenever and wherever possible, then I'm all for that. It must be awful to want to work but find you can't afford childcare.

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 16:18:56

Agree with everything EasilyBored just said.

And SirChenjin - obviously circumstances may force you to go against your instinctive preference, which is miserable for you. But I don't think it's about a level of household income. You can claim benefits until your child is a certain age. Or you stay home because the income you could earn won't cover the cost of childcare in your area.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 16:21:47

You can claim benefits, but not everyone wishes to do so, and rightly so. If you actively (I should have added that in my previous post) choose to stay at home then that reflects an ability to do so based on household income.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 16:22:40

Not everyone is able to simply give up work and claim benefits either - again, it depends on your household income.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 16:24:58


It has taken a lot of good management of funds, a bit of luck, lots of planning and of course years ago scraping the barrel, but we got there in the end. grin
Yes, it must be horrible to be forced into a situation either way.

Although I made the decision irrespective of benefit/ Tax credits etc, childcare provision etc. I would still have moved heaven and earth to be able to manage the choice I made.
It was simpler 20+ years ago though, because other mothers didn't judge as they do today. This is just an observation on the change in society btw.

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 16:25:44

Fair enough. I do agree that an active choice to be a SAHM has to be funded by someone - presumably a DH's or DP's salary, which therefore has to be high enough to support that choice. I was just pointing out that it COULD be funded by benefits, in certain circumstances, so it's not always a choice that can only be made by richer people.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 16:28:12

Yep, it could be funded by benefits in some situations by some people - but that's a whole other thread with a real bunfight potential grin wink

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 16:29:02

"Although I made the decision irrespective of benefit/ Tax credits etc, childcare provision etc. I would still have moved heaven and earth to be able to manage the choice I made. "


It backs up what I was saying about it being an instinctive preference that really has little to do with money.

Good for you potato

FasterStronger Wed 20-Mar-13 16:31:08

Its a good change and I like the way it goes up to high incomes. Not only are the couple making two tax contributions but also creating employment.

does I apply to nannys or just nurseries? or can you spend it as you like?

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 16:31:23

A real bunfight, you say?? None of this namby-pamby stuff......

Truthfully, I know next to nothing about the benefits system and have no strong views on it, so I have no intention of going down that path.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 16:36:20

Oh dear me no, this is nothing compare to the buns that might start flying!

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 16:36:30


SolomanDaisy Wed 20-Mar-13 16:38:54

dreamingofsun is that argument actually based on the idea that SAHMs don't pay tax so don't get a say in how the country is governed?! Like prisoners. Never mind the fact that SAHMs may have other sources of income which are taxed, that they may have been paying high rates of tax until very recently, that they are part of a tax paying household, that they pay VAT? Gosh.

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 16:39:46

well and presumably the vast majority aren't criminals either solomandaisy

SolomanDaisy Wed 20-Mar-13 16:47:08

Well, yes. And the idea that you don't get to have a say in government spending if you aren't paying income tax isn't a great one, is it?

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 17:10:19

SolomanDaisy - "getting a say in how the country is governed" is done by exercising a vote through the ballot box and AFAIK the property and income qualifications for doing this were abolished over a century ago.

I haven't heard anyone on this thread saying that SAHMs should be denied the right to vote because they don't pay income tax - but do correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure what you are saying, tbh.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 17:14:25

Who said SAHPs shouldn't have a say in how the country is governed because they don't pay income tax confused

SolomanDaisy Wed 20-Mar-13 17:20:39

This post: "since SAHM aren't contributing towards the tax free element, I don't see why its an insult to them. They can take advantage of them if they decide to work, otherwise they are nothing to do with them."

Suggests that 'contributing' to tax is what entitles someone to an interest in government decisions. That's why my post was specifically addressed to that poster.

BTW I'd say governance discussions in a representative democracy are a little more complex than access to the ballot box.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 17:25:29

I think you are misunderstanding the context of the post Solomon, deliberately or otherwise.

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 17:26:18

I read that as SAHMs can't take advantage of a tax break if they don't pay income tax, therefore their position is unchanged by the new proposal.

I don't see the "nothing to do with them" comment as saying that you can't have an opinion on whether OTHER people can have the tax break or not - simply that it makes no difference to your circumstances whether they do or they don't.

Think you're reading something into it that isn't there......

SolomanDaisy Wed 20-Mar-13 17:34:49

I think I'm reading it as it was intended. That is the entire post, no context removed.

'SAHM aren't contributing towards the tax free element' seems pretty clear. But as I wasn't sure that such a ridiculous statement could be intentional, I asked the poster to clarify. I hope I am wrong!

Treats Wed 20-Mar-13 17:49:11

Yes it is pretty clear - you can't benefit from a tax break if you're not paying tax! There's nothing ridiculous about that.

As you point out, SAHMs, along with everybody else, pay tax in plenty of other forms, but that's irrelevant to this discussion, because it's about THIS PROPOSAL which is a tax break on income tax. And nothing in the post suggests that you're not allowed to have an opinion on it.

I think you're trying to take deliberate offence when the poster didn't intend any.

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 18:00:20

<puts hand up>

presumably Fathers who WOTH can benefit from it though? whether their partners stay at home or not?

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 18:08:47


Exactly, you are so right. That is why some sahps and wohps are willing to make financial sacrifices to be able to do what they want to.

I have heard both type of parent say there is nothing left for extras. Some women returning to their career after mat leave have nothing left after childcare.
Some sahps struggle with one parent working and tax credit top up.

SolomanDaisy Wed 20-Mar-13 18:11:56

The post talks about contributing, not benefiting. Two different things. Interesting that (based on you saying ''re not allowed to have an opinion') you assume I am a SAHM.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 18:37:20

Where does it say you are not allowed to have an opinion? Or am I missing something? The issue here is whether or not the tax incentive is an insult to SAHP (note I say parent wink) and of course it isn't because it's there to support parent's who woth and who buy childcare. I'm pretty sure the poster meant contribute in the financial sense through tax paid via income earned.

Of course we could get into all sorts of other discussions about whether or not there should be similar incentives for SAHPs who do other things, but that's not the issue here atm.

Trying to type and converse with a lively 5 year old who wants me to play catch so not sure how much sense this post makes!

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 18:40:49

Can someone answer my question. Can Fathers who work claim it anyway to pay for childcare if their partners are either sahm's or mums that earn under the tax threshold?

SolomanDaisy Wed 20-Mar-13 18:54:45

Yes, I am entirely certain the poster meant in the financial sense. As a minimum 'nothing to do with them' means the tax breaks are nothing to do with SAHM/Ps as they are not directly affected by them, which is a ridiculous view of tax breaks as social policy. The tax breaks are as much to do with SAHM/Ps as the new German incentives for SAHM/Ps are to do with WOHPs. Because it's not just about tax, it's about social policy and whether that policy is designed to encourage/endorse certain life choices.

That doesn't mean I think the tax break is an insult to SAHMs, I think that's ridiculous statement.

SolomanDaisy Wed 20-Mar-13 18:57:08

Owllady, no, both parents in a couple need to be working.

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 18:57:54

but a single parent with custody can claim them?

SolomanDaisy Wed 20-Mar-13 18:58:30


Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 19:00:29

so it is discriminatory to families with a stay at home parent then confused

SolomanDaisy Wed 20-Mar-13 19:09:37

Depends how you look at it. It's to cover the cost of childcare, which is unnecessary if you have a SAHP. But there is an argument that alternative tax subsidies could be made available to help people afford to be a SAHP. That's why it's about social policy, not just who pays tax.

pompompom Wed 20-Mar-13 19:22:29

Owl, no.

MrsSalvoMontalbano Wed 20-Mar-13 19:23:16

Some people will be 'insulted' by anything - the point here is that if you need childcare because you are working,you can have some subsidy. If you are a SAHM, you do not need childcare, so do not need the subsidy. Simple.

SirChenjin Wed 20-Mar-13 19:27:42

In the case of this thread, the OP asked if the changes were an insult to SAHP which of course it isn't. This tax incentive supports parents who are already in work with their existing childcare costs, with those already using CCV able to stay in their current scheme. I don't see it an endorsing or encouraging any lifestyle choice. If alternative tax incentives are made available to SAHPs then that will be a separate issue, but I would imagine that any Govt will look at the potential investment and consider their return.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 19:38:48

What I don't understand is if Gov are indeed trying to get sahp's back to work why are they making it so difficult for some wohps to continue working, by cutting their childcare? Hence making more sahps.

FasterStronger Wed 20-Mar-13 19:44:31

it would be unfair to SAHP if WOHP had their entire childcare bill paid for and SAHP didn't have any childcare paid for. but it is just a small part of the WOHP entire bill so I don't think it should pay for any childcare for SAHP as they can pay of occasional usage out of their family income.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 20-Mar-13 19:44:48


I know where you are coming from. Many years ago when Family Credit first emerged it was in the form of a tax break to a wohp to allow the other parent to be a sahp. I think I got my dhs tax allowance, which then helped a lot. This then progressed through various stages to give us the Tax credit system we have today.

I think it still works like that though in a way. I receive no income for being sahp but dh has TC's which are enough for me to be s sahm, nothing has changed really.

AngelsWithSilverWings Wed 20-Mar-13 20:06:37

I'm a SAHM and I saw the headline on the front page of the mail this morning in the post office. I'd read about the new childcare scheme already and didn't see it as an insult to me at all.

I was surprised to see that a family earning £300k can claim it though , especially as we are considered not to need child benefit because my DH earns £70k p/a.

Some people on here are saying that SAHPs do not contribute. I contributed to the pot for 20 years before I became a SAHM. It's the 20 years of earning and saving that enabled me to become a SAHM in the first place ( and a lot of luck with cheaper house prices back when we set up home together)

I am all for working parents getting help with childcare costs but I think the £150k per parent threshold is very high. I don't like the idea of people on that level of income getting financial assistance when elsewhere people are facing the bedroom tax and other cuts.

FasterStronger Wed 20-Mar-13 20:14:44

the 150k figure has been chosen was it makes it easier (cheaper) to administer. otherwise the next tax bracket down would be 40k which would be too low.

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 20:28:18

can i just say we as a family would benefit from this tbh. As I said before we only need 'childcare' in the form of after school club if hospital or therapy appointments clash with school times. As a carer I am actually pulled up on missing appointments (whether I have told them prior or not hmm) even if they coincide with school times. Why if my husband is a taxpayer can we not access this scheme? He earns very very much lower than 150k, 100k per annum for example

genuine question

Owllady Wed 20-Mar-13 20:29:25

I save the economy thousands per annum by caring for my severely disabled daughter btw
my sons are set such a POOR example hmm

Kazooblue Wed 20-Mar-13 21:39:49

Jesus this thread is sad.

So being at home caring for children you brought into the world, giving them a happy safe environment during the day ,security,educating them..... is not setting a good example!Who says?

You know many babies,toddlers and children would prefer to be at home and many wouldn't actually thrive that well in childcare or aren't we allowed to admit to this.

There is a huge elephant in the room as regards this subject ie the needs of children which pretty much come last these days.

So yes these measures are insulting to sahm(and children) as they pretty much sweep under the carpet the needs and wants of many children and mothers.

Sooooo many mothers would prefer to be at home however nothing is done to facilitate it or even help.Instead tax payers money is being spent on families earning up to £300k,sahp lose CB whilst families with 2 working parents earning the same and even more keep it along with 2 tax allowances and lower tax if under the 40%,now they get even more money.

It's dreadfully unfair and sending a very sad message ie all mothers should be working and if you stay at home you deserve to be punished.300k families are far more deserving as the mothers work.Get into work regardless of what is best for your children and family.


FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 08:01:22

for an individual to contribute more tax than the services they use and their share of other services, in one year (i.e. be a net tax contributor) they need to earn over £26k per year.

(this is excluding DCs etc.)

so for a 2 parent family, if we only count the cost of the adults, they between them they need to earn a total £52k.

there are about 30 million tax payer in the UK. only 1.6 million earn more than 50k.

this means in most families, for the adults to be tax neutral or net tax contributors, they both need to work.

there are only 400,000 tax payers who earn over 100k so the chances of a two parent family earning 300k is very low. and even of they did, they would be paying about £120k per year in tax so giving then a few k back would not be outrageous, particularly as it is only does to keep admin costs down.

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 09:15:56

It is when it is a time of austerity and we're supposed to be making cuts.Wasting money on the rich is wrong particularly when the Tories define 50-60 as wealthy and take CB away from those on a fraction of those now needy families earning waaaay more that are being given financial help.

One can only presume the utter unfairness is because sahp are regarded as not being part of a hard working society and something to get rid off.

pompompom Thu 21-Mar-13 09:53:45

Seriously? confused

Why would a SAHM need or want money off childcare?!

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 09:56:57

And actually I don't think families on a combined income of 60k should get help let alone those on 300k.

Those on a single income of 60 (and only one tax allowance in addition to being taxed at 40%)are deemed wealthy sooooooooo not sure why those getting waaaaay more are deemed needy of help.

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 09:58:38

It's the money being spent on it whilst it's being taken away from others far less wealthy.

It is the fact that sahp could do with help too but continually lose out.

Not that hard to understand.

Xenia Thu 21-Mar-13 09:59:08

8% of women earn over £40k I heard on R4 in relation to this measure. Some of those 8% will have a partner on very little. There will not be many people with under 5s where both earn over £150k a year.

however I would not have brought in this measure at all. We need much tougher cuts and a smaller state not taking away child benefit and then paying some cash back to working parents with the other hand. It's just pointless moving money around and relatively small sums when childcare for 2 children whether nanny or nursery costs about £30k a year not £1200 in London.

The removal of employer national insurance presumably could apply to those with nannies by the way and could save you say £13% of a gross £25k salary - £3250 or a bit less as I think it is limited to £2k a year. I have not studied it in detail as I don't have a nanny any more so may be they excluded domestic servants. Anyone read the budget detailed documents to check that point? May be there is a nanny tax thread somewhere.

FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 10:00:13

kazoo - because unless the two parent family with one person working earns more than 52k, the couple are not a net tax contributors.

so any benefits for them would be paid by other people working.

impecuniousmarmoset Thu 21-Mar-13 10:03:46

pompompom - because they are looking after elderly parents too? because they want to retrain? because they are looking for a job? because they have a disabled child and need a break? because they have 3 children under 5 and are going crazy with PND? Any number of very good reasons.

pompompom Thu 21-Mar-13 10:07:28

I don't know any SAHMs doing any of that.

FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 10:14:34

imp because they are looking after elderly parents too? because they want to retrain? because they are looking for a job? because they have a disabled child and need a break? because they have 3 children under 5 and are going crazy with PND? Any number of very good reasons.

but these could also apply to someone working, who spends a lot of their salary on childcare.

impecuniousmarmoset Thu 21-Mar-13 10:15:24

you don't know any SAHMs looking for a job or retraining? Seriously? And none with any family responsibilities? Wow.

impecuniousmarmoset Thu 21-Mar-13 10:16:45

Student parents are basically totally fucked under these proposals.

pompompom Thu 21-Mar-13 10:17:17


ByTheWay1 Thu 21-Mar-13 10:24:38

pompompom I'm caring for my MIL at home, and retraining - taking a post-grad in Maths, and looking after my 2 fabulous kids outside school hours ..... had to recently give up part time work I'd taken on (after being a SAHM before the kids went to school) so I'm a SAHM again, or am I a part time (unpaid) carer (MIL doesn't have quite enough wrong with her for us to get help), or a student (hubby earns too much to get funding), or...............

SAHM doesn't quite cover the breadth of my particular SAH experience - but even if the kids were small enough to be home I wouldn't get any help with childcare... hey ho...

impecuniousmarmoset Thu 21-Mar-13 10:25:58

Surely it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to imagine that many SAHMs might well actually want to find a job after a year or two at home? And that that job might require retraining? You could head over to the student parents board if you don't believe that these mythical creatures exist. Or possibly the elderly parents or special needs board if you think nobody has any other caring responsibilities besides looking after a toddler or two.

Frankly it seems a bit bizarre to decide that since from your narrow experience you know no-one in that position, they can't possibly exist.

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 10:28:46

Errrr pompon well I am as are a shed load of other sahp I know.

Sadly we did what was best for our children and family and now on resurfacing find our career down the pan,the years of scrimping starting to really dig in,society belittling the needs of many babies,children and mothers and a government saying families with a sahp aren't hard working,don't want to get on and certainly don't need any help.

impecuniousmarmoset Thu 21-Mar-13 10:33:03

Fasterstronger, that's true!! That's the point - if they work they benefit from a childcare subsidy! Removing it from SAHPs on the assumption that they don't need childcare ignores all the good reasons why they might in fact need it.

pompompom Thu 21-Mar-13 10:39:13

Fine, I just have a different perspective that's all. I don't know a single SAHM that's doing any of that <shrugs>

There's no need to be rude though hmm

pompompom Thu 21-Mar-13 10:43:32

Ah ok - I've re-read my post above "Why would a SAHM need or want money off childcare?!"

Obviously there are SAHMS that are doing retraining/caring/other reasons for needing childcare. I was referring to SAHMs who stay at home and don't need childcare, though realise that might not have been clear.

No stop getting so snippy wink

impecuniousmarmoset Thu 21-Mar-13 10:45:08

I don't mean to be rude, but I gave you a list of good reasons why a SAHP might need childcare and you just dismissed it outright by saying 'well I don't know anyone in that position' as if that meant they didn't exist. There are lots of things that exist outside my experience, but that doesn't mean that I can't accept that they are true.

impecuniousmarmoset Thu 21-Mar-13 10:45:35


morethanpotatoprints Thu 21-Mar-13 10:48:13

I didn't need childcare as a sahm, well apart from when I was studying. I had to work around dh as I could never have afforded it. However, as I decided not to wohm I didn't need it.
I think that students and sahp's seeking work should receive subsidised childcare. I also agree that the people who will be entitled to childcare through UC from age 2 should receive it as it is for the benefit of those particular children, rather than the parents.

pompompom Thu 21-Mar-13 10:49:01


FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 10:53:47

I would agree with the unfair to SAHP argument if WOHP were getting free childcare.

but they aren't. they are getting a small fraction. they rest they pay for themselves.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 21-Mar-13 11:03:09

There are far fewer long term sahp's than there used to be because we live in a society where many women want to return to work.
It will be interesting to see how potential employers cope at interview when people need to attend with child as they have no affordable childcare. We are constantly being told that being a sahp is a luxury that many can't afford. But so is working for no profit because childcare fees take a full wage, if you expect to be subsidised for a lifestyle choice.

impecuniousmarmoset Thu 21-Mar-13 11:11:31

Isn't that the same for SAHP too though? Right now they get a small subsidy (childcare vouchers via partner or accrued in previous job if they are lucky) Since SAHP may have reasons just as valid as WOHP for needing childcare, why should this be removed for one group but not the other? All this tory talk of an aspiration culture - hardly the case if SAHP are stuck where they are because they can't afford childcare to retrain.

impecuniousmarmoset Thu 21-Mar-13 11:12:14

Sorry, I meant 'Right now they get a small subsidy (childcare vouchers via partner or accrued in previous job if they are lucky) but have to pay the rest themselves. f

pompompom Thu 21-Mar-13 11:12:45

A big part of this is enabling women to get back in to work after having children, surely? I want to work. When my DC were tiny I could only afford to do limited hours due to the childcare costs, but that wasn't a choice. More affordable childcare means that I do more hours and pay more tax (when only doing 2 short days I didn't pay any tax at all).

FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 11:18:13

imp - but surely they don't need much child care as they are SAHP (unless they are a carer in which case I agree) so they would have received a greater percentage of subsidy?

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 11:19:03

And the children?

Yes as a society we should help women work but going by my wider circle and what you read on here an awful lot of women feel forced back to work because being at home for even 5 years isn't financially viable and because they fear they'll have no career on their return.

I suspect an awful lot of women would rather stay at home for a few years and feel their dc would be better off at home but have no choice.

Staying at home shouldn't be seen as a luxury,for many children it is beneficial.

Nobody is allowed to discuss this because it makes many feel shite and infers that looking at the needs of families and children as individual cases somehow goes against women working.It doesn't but all families are different and the current gov are building an anti sahp mood to suit their own purposes which rides roughshod over the needs of the most important people involved- the children.

FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 11:41:08

an awful lot of women would rather stay at home for a few years

then they need to plan their family in a way means they can do this without the need for financial support paid for by other people who are working, and often not seeing as much of their own DCs as they would like.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 21-Mar-13 11:45:41


Can you not see that it is the same for both? Why should people who are working receive support from others who are working? They should plan their families in a way where they can afford their own childcare. grin

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 11:53:25

How do you do that Faster in today's society with every penny going on getting a mortgage,frozen salaries etc?

Only the rich have money left over.

We ploughed every penny pre dc into getting a mortgage,there was no other money left over.

So are only the rich entitled to having dc and help under this government?

pompompom Thu 21-Mar-13 11:55:43

I thought people claiming tax credits were able to claim up to 85% of their childcare bill, depending on income?

FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 11:55:51

mrethan Why should people who are working receive support from others who are working?

its mutually beneficially. each contributes to the common pot.

how does a SAHP benefit Ms/Mr Average?

pompompom Thu 21-Mar-13 11:56:07

Oh - will people claiming tax credits, with one parent staying at home, still get help with childcare if they want it, I wonder?

FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 12:05:17

kazoo - How do you do that Faster in today's society with every penny going on getting a mortgage,frozen salaries etc?

if you want to have years not working, it is clearly going to take years of saving, so I would do that. you would clearly need to cut back on everything. e.g. no foreign hols, camping the UK instead.

FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 12:10:53

living in shared accom pre dc, maybe taking a lodger before dc, small house. etc. basically cutting all costs back.

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 12:15:03

Did all that Faster and ditto.

We can't afford to help wealthy families bringing in 60k and over so I suggest such families save for childcare instead of having help from a cash strapped treasury.

Owllady Thu 21-Mar-13 12:19:11

I still don't understand why Fathers cannot claim it whether their partners stay at home or not because they will be paying tax and it's a tax break for those who work with children

Not all sahp's receive financial support off the government. Most people I know with one parent at home have made sacrifices in order to do that. I know all my cousins and partners with children work and they have nicer houses, cars and holidays than us, so i suppose we have sacrificed that in order for me to care (and I have to unfortunately, there is no other way around it)

anklebitersmum Thu 21-Mar-13 12:23:30

Oh my word Faster HOW RUDE

I don't stay at home to benefit the likes of you, I stay at home for the good of my children, that my husband provides for by working long, unsociable hours.

I don't want money off someone because I do choose to stay at home but I do not expect thinly veiled insults that imply that I am a leech on society because I put my children first and my finances second.

(and before everyone starts that does not mean I think working Mums/Dads are rubbish and should be at home like me. I just don't see why my choice for my children is deemed less valid)

anklebitersmum Thu 21-Mar-13 12:25:13

and I don't get a benefit bean barr child benefit btw

FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 12:30:06

ankle - which is fine as long but don't expect anyone else, apart from your DH, to do anything that benefits you.

Owllady Thu 21-Mar-13 12:32:44


Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 12:47:39


morethanpotatoprints Thu 21-Mar-13 12:49:02

PomPom. Tax credits will be UC soon and no a sahp won't receive childcare sudsidy. Which is really stupid because how can they join the workforce, attend interviews if no childcare subsidy?


ditto, finances come second to our dc in our household too.
I don't receive any benefit at all, but dh gets WTC and gives it to me, lol.

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 12:49:32

Soooooo we're so unworthy,can't believe how much being with your baby or young children is looked down on these days.


FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 12:55:44

you are making this way too personal

but...and here is the thing... you cannot expect anyone else who is working to pay for it, by working themselves. other than the other parent.

if you don't expect it fine. if you do, the system is moving towards work.

anklebitersmum Thu 21-Mar-13 12:57:22

Nobody apart from hubby does do anything that benefits me financially. No benefits at all barr CB. That's it. That and hubby's wage. Which he's taxed on. Which goes into the pot that all these subsidies are coming out of.

And again I say " How Rude "

Owllady Thu 21-Mar-13 12:59:26

if the system is working towards work they need to fulfill their legal obligations under the carers act to support carers to work, but the trouble is they WONT

FasterStronger Thu 21-Mar-13 13:06:52

owl - carers is completely different matter and I do think you are getting treated badly.

ankle - I have no idea why you find it so offensive saying that a SAHP is not contributing tax.

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 13:13:01

Some people are enabled to pay 40% in tax because of the partner at home.

There is no way my dp could do his job if I worked full time.Well he could but the dc would suffer.

So part time elcrappo job it is for me then.Will barely earn enough to run the extra car we'll need.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 21-Mar-13 13:13:16


We will have to beg to differ on this one.

If you think the system is moving towards work, then you are very mistaken. There are many households with 2 parents working who will not both be able to afford to work due to childcare cuts. Those with high earning potential will be the only people to benefit.
Those on benefit already will continue for the most part as there is only a necessity to be seeking work. As there isn't any work available they will still get benefit.
Many like me who chose to be a long time sahp will not all of a sudden wish to work.
I don't know where these extra jobs are coming from, nor the people to fill them tbh.

Mopswerver Thu 21-Mar-13 13:14:45

Spot on potato

overboard Thu 21-Mar-13 13:14:56

Strange that the Conservatives are party to any measure that offends parents, when so many of the population are parents.

When they introduced changes to child benefit they penalised families where one of the parents stays at home to look after the children. So, someone in a job like being a member of a school's leadership team (in London very likely to be earning £60+), a professional person, or a middle manager in a reasonably large corporation, whose other half looks after their children at home, loses financial support, while two earners, both leaving their children to be looked after by other people, are subsidised.

Clearly this is an economic argument, a money-orientated government which wants everyone to work (some of them working only to look after children of other people who work), But, as the new Pope said yesterday, we are not just producers and consumers. There is more to life. And bringing up children is part of that.

But, apart from that, there is an environmental cost, because all those working people have to use transport to get to work, have to be maintained at work, and need a range of additional props to make up for the loss of their time to their children.

It is actually better for the environment for people (and I know that many mothers don't want to go to work, they feel they have to) to bring up their own children as they want.

So, why are ordinary hard-working parents (not the paid ones, those who work so hard to bring their children up themselves - as they should) constantly vilified and penalised by those who presume to lead us?

anklebitersmum Thu 21-Mar-13 13:23:11

how does a SAHP benefit Ms/Mr Average?

this is what I found rude. Along with ankle - which is fine as long but don't expect anyone else, apart from your DH, to do anything that benefits you.

In the same vein as if I said "well how does you working at Tescos (for example) while the taxpayer pays for your childcare benefit me?" I would be being rude.

I don't think I need paying to look after my own children. I had them I should be there for them. So I am.

anklebitersmum Thu 21-Mar-13 13:24:42

well said overboard

overboard Thu 21-Mar-13 13:24:54

While I'm in the mood - suggest reading a very good article in the Daily Telegraph today - by Allison Pearson - 'Good parenting can't be measured in GDP'.

Mopswerver Thu 21-Mar-13 13:38:31

That is a fantastic article overboard. It's not often I am in complete agreement with something in The Daily Telegraph but I honestly felt like standing up and giving Allison Pearson a round of applause! Here's the link :

morethanpotatoprints Thu 21-Mar-13 13:40:37

I think the wind is changing and although Gov isn't exactly encouraging a sahp, the result of their policies will make more sahp's out of necessity not choice.
All of a sudden people will stop bashing sahp's when they become one themselves and society will not look at people raising their own children as a luxury.
Hopefully the words "parents providing childcare" will be a phrase of the past and instead we will be raising, nurturing, loving our children not seeing them in terms of who provides childcare.

Xenia Thu 21-Mar-13 13:42:33

The Telegraph is one of the most sexist papers in the UK.
If childcare was so brilliant and the right thing to do men would be clamouring to do it. They don't because it isn't. Every culture contracts it out as it's dull if you do it 24/7 but lovely for a few hours a day which is the position most parents want.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 21-Mar-13 14:02:19


I'm glad I'm not part of one of those cultures myself, and my dc tell me they are glad i'm not neither, which by me is fine.
I think its how you look at wanting to raise your children. Childcare is far different than raising a child.

1310 Thu 21-Mar-13 16:12:57

As a grandmother I would like to add that I chose to stay at home with my children in the 80s I do not feel the need to be caring for my grandchildren as I have done my own child rearing. Mums who choose to stay at home realise that the first two years of a child's life are important bonding years. The first seven years of a child's life maketh the grown up. Surely of you are able you would want to Impart your own values to your child. This is by no means too much to ask for the long term well being of your child
I do not however understand any study that suggests children in child care do better than one on one with their parents or grandparents. This must surely prove that the state is becoming too invasive in our lives.
I wonder if for once society could turn this whole debate on its head and actually acknowledge the importance of raising your own children. Should one parent wish to stay at home until their child is of school age then their tax breaks should be worthwhile. But most of all government should acknowledge that whether women work or stay at home it is their choice and they must take responsibility for those choices.
No career is totally lost for the sake of a few years with your child. I find that a very selfish reason to stay at work. A child is for life but a career often is not.

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 16:33:34

That is a cracking article by Allison Pearson(applauds).

impecuniousmarmoset Thu 21-Mar-13 16:36:25

Men aren't clamouring to do it because it's still seen as women's work, not because it's inherently unsatisfying. Clearly it isn't inherently unsatisfying, because a lot of highly educated career men and women choose to do it. In an equal society, who chooses to stay at home with kids would be a gender-neutral question.

Mopswerver Thu 21-Mar-13 16:38:29

1310 I salute you smile

Mopswerver Thu 21-Mar-13 16:40:56

O know Kazooblue. It all makes sense now eh? They want us to get off our backsides and start the 'Growth' and 'Employment' figures hmm

anklebitersmum Thu 21-Mar-13 17:11:26

Yes Mopswerver it's all about statistics and horn-blowing..never mind the childrens welfare..and a big grin for 1310

victoriasmith Thu 21-Mar-13 22:30:25

I feel like i am missing something with all this. Why are stay at home parents complaining that they cant receive childcare benefit, if they have chosen, or have to if they cant find work, to stay at home then why arent they caring for their children themselves? The only reason we receive childcare elemnt is because both i and my husband work and have to pay someone three days a week to care for our son, if i was at home full time then i would never expect the government to give me money so someone else could care for my child whilst i did what exactly???

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 23:09:47

Do people not just read threads anymore?

morethanpotatoprints Thu 21-Mar-13 23:12:03


Maybe you wouldn't need childcare as a sahp but the gov thinks a small percentage do and they will keep their allowance.
Also, if you were looking for a job as a sahp who would be minding your children whilst you were actively seeking work?
I you were made redundant you would have to fund all your childcare whilst job hunting.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 21-Mar-13 23:23:52


What a lovely heart felt post. I totally agree and I know some are quite shock at my 20+ years of raising my own children.

HappyMummyOfOne Thu 21-Mar-13 23:25:40

SAHP's dont need childcare. If they are trying to get back into the workplace, its perfectly possible to job search whilst being a parent. People with children who work switch jobs all the time and manage.

Quite amusing to see those with only one adult working dont want their bit of tax to pay towards childcare for others but are more than happy to take tax credits and wtc that bumps up their income allowing them to stay home hmm

Kazooblue Thu 21-Mar-13 23:41:38

Errrrr happy we don't get any of that zilch.Don't even get CB as they've taken that(although other families earning more keep it), dp gets taxed 40% and we only have 1 tax allowance so yeh I do begrudge Samcam and friends getting cash they don't need and we do.

Xenia Fri 22-Mar-13 07:19:46

I was talking to one yesterday who was moaning about everything and then I learned they had a live in au pair and the mother doesn't work. So the suggestion above that housewives don't have childcare is not always true.

However I stick with my point that in most cultures people with a bit of money or richer husband tend to want to get someone else to do the very many hours of baby and toddler care and cleaning whilst doing some themselves, just like full time working fathers as the nature of the role (or it was when we had three children under 4) if fairly constant dullness of clearing up mess and changing nappies whilst trying to clean the kitchen floor day in day out so not surprising that kind of dull low grade stuff is always delegated as soon as people can afford it; whereas breastfeeding the baby (one of my loveliest experiences and I fed 5 including twins) or cuddling them and laughing with them for a few hours a day is pretty nice. I say find work you adore and makes a packet and have someone else to help with getting that grime out of the loo and changing the umpteenth nappy of the day as your children at university stage never say - gosh mummy you changed 25 nappies over x days and I am so glad you are unable to support my university education as you have no money and I love the example you set of woman serving man at home - it has so increased my feminist perspective in life and fired me to become the UK's leading female surgeon.

Mopswerver Fri 22-Mar-13 08:18:02

Xenia I am a feminist. Always have been. I worked over 20yrs in a highly stressed, highly paid job that I found soul destroying. It took me a long time to get pregnant and when I finally did I made the choice (that Feminism has afforded me) not to be one of the harrassed working mums I had witnessed constantly having to juggle everything whilst struggling to stay on top at work, and to stay at home instead.

I have loved (almost) every minute and was glad to get away from the stress and the awful people in the profession I was in. My life now has a wonderful pace. I think I am a good role model. my daughters know that I had a good career for 20 yrs and both have plans for their own. I am Governor of a school and on our Community Hall committee and now that they are older I am planning a small business. I don't have benefits aside from CB but now I suppose I should don a hair shirt and give that back too.

I really applaud those, like yourself who have it within them to work full time whilst raising five children. You are obviously made differently to me. I know I couldn't do it. I know my limitations and the long hours and stress of my job was making me ill.

I suspect you have a job that you love and that fulfils you but don't forget that most women don't and have to return to a job they hate simply because they have to.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 08:26:26

mops - but why do so many women hate their jobs?

do men hate their jobs, because they do them for decades without a break?

Xenia Fri 22-Mar-13 09:21:41

I can certainly find common cause with Mop in the point about picking work you love. I remember my father's advice when we were teenagers that above all pick work you love. Mine is intellectually challenging, varied, fun, very well paid and has been even better since I began to work for myself and acquire a second business.

So many women hate their jobs because they had housewife mothers so make poor career choices of low paid dull work in which they will never progress as they expect to repeat the cycle of staying home so their work will never amount to much so they do not put much into it and instead concentrate on painting their nails right so they can attract a man who will keep them until he ditches them at 40 for a girl in her 20s to repeat the cycle I suppose.

The solution is to encourage girls to pick really interesting careers and not to marry higher earner men which simply results in their career being regarded as pin money within the couple.

I am very very encouraged. Women are making huge progress and present and more and more simply refusing to accept sexism at home from men. More and more men do more and more at home (my father even did the night feeds and hoovering in the 60s so this a long term improvement; nearly 30 years ago my children's father was choosing the nanny etc etc) and women are reclaiming the feminism word and outearning men. It's huge fun and we're mostly doing really well.

Owllady Fri 22-Mar-13 09:24:24

men they are just so lazy

Mopswerver Fri 22-Mar-13 09:27:01

Can't answer that Faster. Can only speak for myself. Maybe culturally men don't feel they can make that choice?

Bonsoir Fri 22-Mar-13 09:36:02

I disagree that SAHPs don't need childcare. In France there is state (subsidised) and private childcare for SAHPs to use - it is called halte garderie. For SAHPs with no family fall back it is a godsend to be able to have one or two free mornings/afternoons per week without toddlers. Halte garderie isn't nursery and wouldn't be suitable for FT care - it is very much babysitting rather than something that develops children (other than their sociability and ability to be apart from parents/carers).

The whole childcare issue in the UK has been muddied by the catastrophic decision to promote private for profit chains of nurseries.

anklebitersmum Fri 22-Mar-13 09:46:02

shock Owl


Xenia Fri 22-Mar-13 10:13:24

If you have power and money compared to your little wife has very little earning power and only her looks to trade on them in a relationship men indeed get the chance to be lazy. Where women earn 10x what their husband does they have quite a bit more power in relationships and it can work very well. If instead you relay on his beneficence to feed and clothe and house you you end up doing the dull stuff because he is the all powerful earner and you are in effect the kept person. Most women of course don't like to be in that situation and most women always and in the UK in 2013 have worked.

Owllady Fri 22-Mar-13 10:17:49

little wife
trading on looks
dull stuff
kept person

all very sexist xenia, do get with the program

Bonsoir Fri 22-Mar-13 10:21:08

You have a very limited view of power, Xenia and how to achieve it, Xenia.

The idea that the only way to empower women is to have th work outside the home is fundamentally flawed.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:24:32

I don't want women to feel empowered, I want women to have actual power. for actual power, you need a life outside the home.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 10:24:39


I do agree with what you are saying in general terms, because I have witnessed this myself. However, it doesn't have to be like this and talking from my own personal view it isn't.
My dh is the sole provider in terms of finances, but I am the main provider of almost everything else. Except for raising our dc which we both have an equal stake in.
My point I suppose, that Power doesn't necessarily equate to money.
I can see how it does in your world as you are a high earner and obviously your world has revolved around this, but mine hasn't and I'm all powerful in our family. grin

Bonsoir Fri 22-Mar-13 10:40:38

You do not need a job to have power outside the home. Most jobs confer very little power anyway.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:42:28

You do not need a job to have power outside the home. for example?

amidaiwish Fri 22-Mar-13 10:50:23

Argh I really hate mumsnet when the threads go all bashing like this.
Can't you see what the govt is doing?
We had vouchers, which gave about £80 off a month (because you got them pre tax/Ni)
They could be used to pay for any childcare including holiday clubs etc.... For any age.
instead of making them work properly and available to all they have brought in this £1200 tax break which is only for under 5's, not til 2015
It is a CON and we are being duped into arguing about SAHP when that's not even the point.
Childcare should be tax deductible. End of. Paying someone else out of your net income is never going to be affordable.
Tax and benefits should either be based on household or individual incomes. At the moment we are taxed as individuals but benefits/allowances calculated on household. That's unfair.

Wishihadabs Fri 22-Mar-13 10:50:28

I find myself agreeing with Xenia and Bonsoir. One of the reasons I have always worked (except for mat leave) is to afford some childcare when I am not at work. I kept Ds at nursery when on mat leave with dd. When DH SAH my childcare vouchers paid for dd to go to nursery so DH could have some head space. SAPs do need childcare.

anklebitersmum Fri 22-Mar-13 10:53:30

I am clearly missing something. Why do I need more power? Over whom? My husband? Why?

Why is equal not OK-or am I deluded that I am not equal in our relationship because I don't work outside the home?

Longtime Fri 22-Mar-13 11:22:09

You can always count on Xenia to summarise the SAHM as someone who spends all day cleaning and changing nappies, serving man at home! Talk about sweeping generalisation Xenia.

It is sad that yet again a thread of this sort has turned into a SAHM/WOHM, dc at home/dc in nursery argument. I say sad, because it would be so much nicer if we women could support one another rather than turn against each other. A bit of solidarity from both sides would surely be better than the usual bun fight.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 11:24:02


I think that is what was being said. Sad isn't it that power is apparentely something to do with money? I don't figure myself. Maybe it stems from some people assuming a sahm is down trodden, chained to a kitchen sink, with a life of drudgery grin

Xenia Fri 22-Mar-13 11:39:31

I think working women only get out their claws when housewives imply they should be kept by hard working tax payers to sit around at home. It suspect that is how it became a bit of a bun fight. I don't think we need to bother to debate why it is very bad for women if most of them make the choice not to work and the damage it does. It has been done to death.

Power and money and career satisfiaction and contributing your skills to the wider economy are absolutely marvellous and most men and women adore to have that. Very few want to be some kind of power behind the throne. If power behind the throne is so much fun (I'll wear the suspenders tonight if you buy me the golf bracelet or I'll clean your toilets if you pay my housekeeping and the like) men would be at it.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 11:49:40

Xenia, grin likewise, I think a sahp might be offended as being termed a housewife, when such a description doesn't really exist now. Bun fights usually start if a sahp is accused of sitting on bum all day. My dh does as many domestic jobs as I do, so where you get the idea from they don't is probably your own experience, I think.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 11:52:21

My dh does as many domestic jobs as I do
I think he is the exception then. I have noticed many threads to the contrary.

power gives you choice and autonomy.

anklebitersmum Fri 22-Mar-13 12:06:34

potato I like's use makes me feel all smug and 1950-ish

<smooths pinny>

For what it's worth I have lots of choice and autonomy does not apply purely to the individual (although that's probably just what my husband tells me grin )

Owllady Fri 22-Mar-13 12:23:46

people are not going to start threads saying 'oh my husband has cleaned the toilet again, what a fucking waste of space he is'
are theyconfused
anyway i have to go and clean the kitchen floor whilst painting my nails and sitting around at home wanting hardworking taxpayers to look after my little wife good looks

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 12:29:25

you aren't wrong, but I was responding to morethans comment

Owllady Fri 22-Mar-13 12:33:18

mind you i started a thread this week or was it last week, asking if it was too much for my husband to clean the bath out after he had used it as it was really pissing me off because even my 11 yr old son does it. But a lot of people suggested my expectations were too high
anyway since the other day he has started cleaning it out, so i don't have that minute worry any more.

I really don't understand women who put up with lazy arsed partners

Mopswerver Fri 22-Mar-13 12:42:44

Well I think it's up to the individual to decide what they enjoy and for the record I only paint my nails for weddings and holidays grin. You do seem to have a very caricatured idea of a SAHM xenia.

If it's wrong and a poor role model to enjoy taking care of children, cooking, et al is it also a poor role model to do those things for a living? Or is it OK so long as you are earning money at it? Is the only good role model to get out there and earn a fortune so that you can spend spend spend and prop up this increasingly consumerist society? It can't really be a good role model to flog your guts out for a minimum wage whilst paying others to look after your kids can it? What about part time workers earning under 10K who won't be "contributing" to the Tax coffers? are they wrong too?

I get £130 per month CB. I don't pay Tax but my husband employs three people in his business so I guess that cancels that out. So by my calculations I will be receiving just over what a "hard working family" will receive towards paying someone else to look after their DCs. Assuming they don't also get CB in which case I am less of a burden to the state smile

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 10:01:29


I agree its up to the individual what they want to do, and I too only paint my nails for special occasions.
I perhaps do less housework than a wohm as we have 3 dc who have been brought up to do their bit and dh works alot from home and also contributes quite a lot to the running and cleaning of the home. I do what makes me happy, seeing friends, going for walks, hobbies. I can always find something I enjoy doing, don't really do much of what I don't like doing. grin

Mopswerver Sat 23-Mar-13 13:39:42

I hear you potato wink

mindosa Tue 26-Mar-13 14:53:28

Why should families with stay at home parents get childcare grants when they dont pay for childcare?

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