Cordonbleugh, we were together for about 3 months when i got pregnant and he left a few months after she was born. He paid for a little while, not a lot. Contributes now but unreliably and has told me as of August he wont be paying anything because he has a debt he wants to pay off. Whatever, Im not going to beg for it! Your daughters dad sounds like a prize d!ckhead. Eurghhh.
Mumtd - You've missed my point. 'Live and Let Live' yes, if you can fund it yourself. If your partner is paying or youve got rich parents or you earn enough even doing part time, fine work part time and look after your kids.
My point is that if you are relying on tax credits to top up your wages so that you are able to work part time that is not fair on those of us who dont get to spend time with our kids because we work full time so that we dont have to rely on tax credits. My point is nothing to do with whether its better for the kids to have mums at home or not.
I have met an awful lot of women who choose to work part time so that they can spend time at home with their children and because of tax credits they are no worse off for the fact that they work less than full time.
How is it fair that they spend 2 days of the working week having coffee mornings and taking their kids to the park while Im at work funding it?
I conceed my arguement is weaker when the kids are babies, even weaker if mum is working part time to study for a vocational degree - and obviously arguement is non existant if mum has a disabled child that needs care.
But if kids are at school then tax credits are basically supporting a choice to have time in the day to do housework that the rest of us have to fit around work, and to pick kids up from school which lets face it - isnt essential if you can afford it.
Oh and yes, not working at all is worse, of course.