Talk

Advanced search

following on from tax credits and working mums thread

(59 Posts)
maighdlin Sun 09-Jan-11 22:38:17

following on from previous threads, i was wondering why the govt don't have the option of giving stay at home parents the childcare tax credit they would get if they were working? why can't the government pay for people to look after their own children? im probably being very simple, but im sure many out there would much prefer to not work and, without wanting to start a sahm v working mum argument, its good for the children to have a parent there at home. expense obviously would be an issue but those who would have received childcare tax credit wouldn't be earning bucket loads and paying lots in tax, there would be a shortfall between the tax credit the govt pays and how much tax the person would pay from their employment.

i await being told im being stupid but i think it would be a good idea to help people stay home with their children, even if it was just up to they were school age. there should be a lot more help for parents who want to stay at home and the govt are always spouting shite about how the family is the core unit of society and how they look after families.

WhyHavePets Sun 09-Jan-11 22:40:16

The tax credit system is designed to get people ot of the benefit trap that means they cannot return to work. Paying them to stay at hom would rather defeat that object grin

accidentwaitingtohappen Sun 09-Jan-11 22:42:26

Agree. I am SAHM and I get Tax Credits from DH. If not for them we would have no food on table.
SAHM s should be paid to look after our own children instaed of paying someone else to do it.

hairyfairylights Sun 09-Jan-11 22:45:07

Because it's about making work worth It. Why should the tax payer pay for people to be sahps? It's a choice to have children.

Violethill Sun 09-Jan-11 22:45:39

"without wanting to start a sahm v working mum argument, its good for the children to have a parent there at home."

Erm.... bit of a contradiction there.

As to your suggestion - well, WhyHavePets answers that hmm

maighdlin Sun 09-Jan-11 22:47:02

i just don't understand why sahm parents get the shit end of the stick. they get no money despite it being very hard work, and are vilified by some people for wanting to stay with their kids and not go out to work, when up to 50 years ago it was the other way round. what is so wrong with staying at home, and if there was some sort of financial benefit for sahms then women wouldn't feel like they HAVE to work.

whats the difference if the govt pays jane doe £x pw instead of paying jane doe's childminder £x pw?

hairyfairylights Sun 09-Jan-11 22:48:39

Sorry but that is an unbelievable opinion accidental why should the taxpayer pay for your choice? Outrageous.

Plus says who it's better for children to have a sahp ? Working parents can be great for children too!!

eaglewings Sun 09-Jan-11 22:49:25

I agree that a parent should be given the chance to stay at home while kids are pre school. Many people say they would like to but can't afford it.

Well adjusted kids from happy parents (some parents are happier working out of the home mind you) will make for a happier society

frgr Sun 09-Jan-11 22:49:44

until such a time that the population is in such decline as to be unviable for the country to continue, i don't think SAHPs should be paid to stay at home. the association between private decisions and public money/subsidy is one that we should be working to break, not encourage. by linking the payment of a wage to a SAHP, it would (in my opinion) simply reinforce the existing mentality that women are the ones who are looked to as free childcare, rather than linking it to tax breaks if you're in work (as with childcare vouchers). you'd basically be encouraging people to produce more offspring in return for direct wages associated with that - most fair-minded people won't see that as an incentive to create more lives, but that's not everyone.

i'm not saying there aren't benefits to it (encouraging one parent to take some time out with their child - although isn't that what maternity leave is for? maybe we should be sharing it between mum and dad more like in other parts of Europe). but to split up a couple between "one working parent" and "one stay at home parent" - this division of hosuehold labour is KNOWN to disadvantage women, and advantage men, in the long term. there are a multitide of social science papers on the topic - just google for them. we should not be reinforcing that with government handouts. we should, instead, seek to get men more involved with childcare, e.g. more friendly part time working so that childcare duties can be better shared, proper paternity allowances, etc.

hairyfairylights Sun 09-Jan-11 22:49:50

Who says, I mean.

Imarriedafrog Sun 09-Jan-11 22:50:54

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

frgr Sun 09-Jan-11 22:51:01

"reinforce the existing mentality that women are the ones who are looked to as free childcare" = "reinforce the existing mentality that women are the ones who are looked to as free or cheap childcare"

Violethill Sun 09-Jan-11 22:52:51

Oh yawn, is this another of those work-bashing threads-by-stealth?? For someone who claims they don't want to start a WOHM/SAHM argument, you're doing a great job of doing exactly that.

Who is vilifying SAHP? And why is it the 'shit end of the stick'?

Why on earth should other people fund someone to have children and stay at home with them? Explain please. And according to your idea, how long do you decree this would go on for? Until the children are 5? 10? 18? And whether a family have one child or ten?

If I jack my job in tomorrow, are you volunteering to pay more tax so I can continue to get paid?

Thought not.

WhyHavePets Sun 09-Jan-11 22:54:35

The difference is that by paying Jane Doe's CM they are creating an extra working household with just one pot of money. I.E. is they give it to Jane Doe that is the end but if they give it to Jane Doe CM then Jane works and supports her family and so does the CM.

Rainydaze Sun 09-Jan-11 22:55:16

I'm with a couple of posters above. Having children is a choice (and I say that as someone who wasn't planning on my pregnancy!) and the tax payer shouldn't be supporting people who choose not to work in paid employment. Of course in the squillion other services (NHS, schools etc, etc) the tax payer is footing the bill for people's children.

I'm not of the "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" mentality (honestly!) but asking to be paid by the state is wrong.

hairyfairylights Sun 09-Jan-11 22:55:49

Very good point!

frgr Sun 09-Jan-11 22:56:14

also, if we're going this far.... who are we to decide what IS or isn't worthy of that wage payment?

maybe we should start paying people a direct wage to look after their elderly mum?

Or what about the cleaning I do for my neighbour? would i get a wage too?
all worthwhile things which do good for society, right?

Or, perhaps, people's choices shouldn't be subsidised by the taxayer to that level, perhaps. hmm

TheFallenMadonna Sun 09-Jan-11 22:56:22

Well, they get to stay at home with their children, which apparently 55% of women would like to do money permitting (read that somewhere recently - forgot where). So not that shitty then.

Violethill Sun 09-Jan-11 23:00:00

Well, I would be interested to see the source for the 55% thing..... But even if its true, why should public funding pay people to stay at home just because they'd prefer it? And what if 55% of men turn around and say, actually, they quite fancy being paid not to work too? In fact, what if we all decided that might be rather nice?? Who would actually do the jobs that need doing and thereby pay the tax which would enable the rest of us to stay home?........

Catnao Sun 09-Jan-11 23:00:14

Also - the children will not be children forever. What about when they are 16/18? What do you do then, when they are adult members of society and should be getting their own jobs, but mummy is way out of the race?

Imarriedafrog Sun 09-Jan-11 23:00:51

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Violethill Sun 09-Jan-11 23:02:55

I loved days at home with mine when I worked p/t - I wouldn't describe it as shitty either. Very negative. Loved my days at work too.

maighdlin Sun 09-Jan-11 23:03:40

i knew after i clicked post i shouldn't have started this but it was just a idea. i just don't think that sahps get any help and i don't see why people shouldn't be sahp if they want and if they can't its because of finances. but for some reason due to many complicated factors i don't know about, people are very lucky if they can be a sahp without any financial help and we have managed to become a society where having a paid job is the most important thing in life and that it is expected that you go back to work after having a baby and you are either a lazy housewife or sponger off society if you do stay at home.

Imarriedafrog Sun 09-Jan-11 23:04:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheFallenMadonna Sun 09-Jan-11 23:05:15

Um, I'm not actually arguing with you violethill. I was pointing out that presumably if you make a choice to stay at home (as I did for 5 years) it is because you want to do it. And if it is because you think childcare would be unaffordable if you worked, your argument would be about the cost of childcare and not about paying people to look after their own children. Sorry - no idea of the provenance of the statistic.

I loved my time as a SAHM too. It was wonderful. I certainly did not have the shitty end of anything.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: