SAHM numbers lowest for 15 years - we need your views for Sky interview tomorrow am

Oh fgs hifi

"i dont see why the government or tax payer should pay so mums can stay at home. limit your family size to what you can afford. "

IME it is the other way around, those families like us who have very little money but no childcare costs as one parent stays at home CAN afford more children.

Where as working parents CAN'T afford to have a second child due to child care costs.

i dont see why the government or tax payer should pay so mums can stay at home. limit your family size to what you can afford.

im a sahm to three children and cant afford to go back to work with childcare costs so much..i wul dhave to have before and after school care plus school hols and all day care fo rmy baby..i was offered a job a couple of years ago back in a school but had to turn it down last minute as when i worked out the figures id actually be worse of financially...so im a childminder to bring in a bit of extra cash but only have one child as like i said ive already got three myself..i would prefer the gov pays sahm for a period of time while the abies are little , its an investment in the future of this country anyway as they ar ethe future generation..

"If I had stayed at work there is no way we could have afforded two sets of childcare fees plus the wrap around care which would be needed for me to stay in my career job."

That forces a lot of women out of work IME

I was a SAHM in 1999 when ds1 was born. I can;t afford to be anymore. It's so expensive. It's hard to work with a severely disabled child so perhaps whilst they're scrapping the tax credits fiasco they could look at paying carers something sensible too.

Flexible working is important I agree Flame. The work I'm doing now is a funded PhD chosen for its flexibility. It's full time but flexible. Like you we have debts we need to clear- run up over the SAHM years.

We're not massive spenders. We don't go on holiday, we've had to spend a lot on ds1's disability that should have been state provided.

There's so much that makes it difficult to be a SAHM. Ideally I'd like to work part-time whilst my children are small, and be able to take school holidays off when they're older (I have to as there's no child care in this city for ds1 despite all the every disabled child matters stuff).

My thought is, that employers are to blame for low incomes. Why does someone that reads the news earn £1m a year?.

The same support should be allocated whether the child is in childcare or not.

Since starting up as a WAHM, even though I have earned nothing (first year business etc) I am better off with tax credits Where is the logic in that?? Ok that may all change when they re-add up, but still. I am self employed so they give me help towards putting DS in nursery one morning a week. Giving that same money to a SAHM would make it a hell of a lot easier to stay home with your children.

We struggle a lot of the time. I plan to return to outside work when DS starts school, but it dawned on me last night the logistics of getting a job that will help clear our debts etc will be 9-5. My children will have to be in breakfast club and after school club every day. I would go insane staying at home with them at school full time but the thought of only seeing them to feed them dinner (and not even breakfast!) fills me with dread.

Maybe more flexible working is the answer

Gah, I have no idea. I admire anyone who works full time because they have to rather than because they want to.

babiesEverywhere, I like that idea of DH being able to use my tax allowance.

I think it should be left as it is - it's generally a person's choice to have children. I don't expect any help from anyone - I've decided how to live my life so it's down to me to fund it. That's my view anyway.

I am a SAHM and I would rather my DH gets my tax allowance, to give us a bit of breathing space in our budget. It would be lovely if I could have the option of having the money in my pocket which is normally used to give a free nursery place for my child, if I decide I don't want her to use all 5 sessions a week.

I never expected to SAH but after work turned into a nightmare once I got pregnant and my plans of returning to a part time flexi role were squashed, we had to rethink.

We moved cross country to a cheaper house closer to family and live simply. I am happy to be a SAHM and this has allowed us to plan a second child. If I had stayed at work there is no way we could have afforded two sets of childcare fees plus the wrap around care which would be needed for me to stay in my career job.

I am a SAHM, we are worse off financially, we cut our cloth accordingly, it would change things dramatically if we were offered something like prescription charges, dental care,
in fact changing the child benefit as was mentioned a little while ago would make a HUGE difference to us.

Lots of people can't afford to walk away from their jobs to stay at home.

I'm a SAHM to my dd who is 4 and in reception. I want to be at home for her, I don't want someone else doing the school run etc. Often in the car is when we have the conversations about her worries, school friends etc etc.

I am very unusual in my circles and am always being asked what I'm goign to do now. Well until I can find a job which allows me to be there for my dd whenever she needs me, and that includes helping in her classroom, going on school trips and the like, then I will remain a SAHM.

Some kind of financial incentive would be great - my dh does not earn a great wage and we bought a small house which needs a lot of work, which we can't afford to do.

Yes. It is madness!

That's the stupid thing isn't it? We're given incentives to pay a stranger to look after a child, but not the child's own mother/father.

riven, a mate of mine is a qualified Nanny and works part-time.

She finds it absurd that soon she could be in the postion of having to pay a CM to look after her dc while she looks after someone elses!

I'm a SAHM and we're just about managing, but it's not easy. We've been lucky to have help from both sets of parents during drastic situations (unexpected bills etc), but we live in a rental property with no hope of getting on the housing ladder for the forseeable future. We also haven't been on holiday since DS was born. I feel very fortunate to be able to stay at home, because I wanted to, but feel the pressure on DP to provide is horrendous, which in turn makes me feel guilty. I agree that the minimum should be transferrable tax allowance from SAHP to the working partner.

DH has just come home and pointed out (as others have) that if I worked we would get childcare vouchers. But the government put no value on me staying at home to look after DD. Why is it considered better (or at least weighted towards) children being raised by strangers?

I'm a SAHM, things are tough but we didnt have children to pay somebody else to look after them. I would however like to work pt and with the holidays when my youngest dd starts school, but suspect the chance of finding a job that suits virtually impossible. However, I do strongly believe that my dh should be able to use my tax allowance while I am a SAHM.

I don't want to pay for childcare, I want to bring up my children myself. Why not have a SAHP allowance?

Tax incentives/make it compulsory for employers to have x% of their jobs available to people who want to work from home. Cuts pollution and traffic jams at the same time.

I am a SAHM for 2 reasons
a) we can afford it, just about
b)my employers were very uncooperative regarding flex working

ideally we wanted flex work for both, which dh could actually get, for the first few years.
maybe compromise and do 1/2 days at childminders/ nursery

it was not to be, I like what I do but it took time to get used to it and I worry about skills on going back to work.
and besides going to work is good only we both agreed we did not want dd with paid care in her early years - personal choice but obviously only available if financially viable

Do you not think that it is just the effect of the government childcare subsidy schemes having an impact (pre school funded sessions and childcare vouchers)

i.e. it is now possible to work and not be financially worse off for more families than before these subsidies were introduced.

It's still not the case for everyone but it must have pushed some families over the line where working pays more so its worthwhile to go back if you enjoy your job and want to return.

I don't agree that the government aren't doing much, they are but it is biased towards getting parents out of the home and into the workplace.

Perhaps we should look at making personal allowances transferable for married/ civil partnership couples. I fear this would be very expensive though and benefit the middle classes/high earners disproportionately.

It is not just parents of pre schoolers that need incentives to stay at home. My boys are 13 and 11 and so need me now, sometimes I think they need me more than when they were pre-schoolers. Like Vanilla my DH is in the forces and this makes it easier to stay at home, but it should not be about choice it should be your right to bring up your children rather than a childminder/nursery.
The whole taxation system needs reworking- for a government who claim to be so family orientated they don't seem to be doing much for most of us.