At what household income would you become a SAHP?

[AlenaMacc]

Just curious really.
I am aware that many people don’t want to be SAHPs for reasons other than money, but in this case I am asking purely about the financial aspect.
What would the household income need to be for you personally so that either you or your spouse would become a SAHP in order to improve the family quality of life etc?

One high salary is never as efficient as two, so at least 300K to make up for tax/pension losses and to fund my hobbies and shopping now that I’m a lady of leisure

@stayathomer

What's worse, someone saying they'd find something boring or someone saying that another mum (always the mum, never the dad) is neglecting/abandoning their children?

The most obvious difference is 1 is a direct unequivocal judgement and the other is an expression of preference

Sahms always try to make out the judgement is equal on both sides but its not

It's not really a case of income but more outgoings which would decide that, for us. My DH is on around 35k (I say 'around' as he's it varies because of regular overtime). I rearn the PT equivalent since I returned from maternity leave. We could afford for me to be a SAHM because our mortgage is very nearly paid off (next month).

I 💯 agree with you. I'm so glad my children had me to care for them and weren't passed from one childcare establishment to another. Both have thrived into happy, confident adults and I like to think this grounding contributed towards that.

Are they small-minded, judgemental dickheads too?

Exactly.

I always find it interesting that comments about working parents such as they shouldn't have children, they don't even parent their children etc are all conveniently ignored but then you might get one slightly negative comment about SAHM's and it's very quickly 'WHY DOES EVERYONE HATE SAHM'S'.

Lol, the judgy SAHPs are out in force on this thread!

It's actually a bit pathetic that they feel the need to justify their own choices by denigrating mothers who work. What a miserable way of living.

FWIW, my dd is also thriving, happy and confident...and very nearly an adult. Every bit as happy and confident as her friends who had SAHPs. I am sorry to disappoint you, but it really makes no difference!

Never. Always maintain your financial independence.

Being a SAHM isn’t a luxury imo. It’s non stop drudgery when DC are tiny and unwise when they’re school age.

I roll my eyes whenever one of my many SAHM (to secondary school kids 🙄) says they “run the house”. My house is significantly cleaner than at least 2 of them, but maybe that’s cos I’ve got less time to faff 😂

@Grumpyfroghats I almost fell on the floor with your monthly mortgage payments of £3,000 🙈😂. Yes London is a lot more expensive than my area (East Midlands). I suppose it depends what is important to a person also. I've read comments on here about paying into pensions, wanting to have assets etc and for me personally, I'm just not fussed with all that so that's not an expense that I have. I live a very simple life really.

@SilverCatStripes I think along the lines of my daughter (currently sectioned) and a lot of the nurses are female who she feels more comfortable with. Also today, I had a breast examination and felt a lot more comfortable with a female doctor. If all women stayed at home, that wouldn't be possible.

@bamboonights I don't believe that both parents work solely for the 'fancy stuff'. There will be some circumstances where people cannot afford for only one parent to work. I've been a SAHP for the past 17 years and I felt that was best for my children but that was based upon their disabilities, personalities etc. Other children won't need the same care and are perfectly happy to go to nursery or childminders. I was at home with my children most of their lives but one of them has unfortunately grown up mentally unwell so I don't feel being at home or working has a huge bearing on how a child turns out. It's the love shown and quality of time spent together that is important.

I am in awe of working parents to be honest. Due to my own mental health, I have never been able to have a career and wouldn't have the physical energy to work and run a house. Those that do are like super parents to me and I would love to have their work ethic and determination.

In the short term we scarificed loads for me to be a sahm.no glam holidays, haircuts, I scavenged for yellow sticker food in supermarkets, got dc Xmas present from free cycle or car boots, went to charity shops and baby sales for clothed and toys.
Dh and I don't send on ourselves.

There was just no way I could have them in a nursery. We went to lots of toddler groups and play parks.

I work now and dc are old enough to see me work and we feel rich 🤣 but I bet our combined is still lots less.

@BSB30

These arguments are always presented as either or. Your female docs and nurses could very well have taken a few years out then gone part time then full as dc in school. Many many parents do that and have the best of both worlds.

@IamSlave

There are loads of ways to keep working and not use nursery.

Many many mothers do that, not parents.

It isn't just ''a few'' years, especially if you have more than 1 child. It also isn't the best of both worlds if you want to continue with career progression, earning potential etc at the same level.

Which is why many many fathers don't do it. Why don't you judge them to?

This made me LOL!

£120,000 a year. We are on less than that low combined but we need to earn more to get to where we want to be at the moment.

@SouthLondonMum22

? Many parents, sacrifice one wage usually the person who stays at home is the lower earner.

In and career spanning 50 plus years taking 3/ 6 years our rally doesn't have much impact.

There is a basic economics and tax efficiency, costs and who benefits.

So theoretically

Scenario 1: parent A and parent B both on £50k with a 10% pension with employer match of 10%. They’d bring home £2835 each per month or £5670 a month in total. But crucially they’d be getting £10k on their pension each per year plus at those income levels still receiving child benefit.

Scenario 2: as above but parent A gives up work. Parent B still has 10k pension each year. Parent A nothing. Monthly income goes down to £2835 but no childcare costs. For the early years with multiple children there might not be much in it on a monthly basis but pension will be issue as would potential impact on parent A to get back to earning the same again.

Scenario 3: parent B on £100k paying 10% with 10% employer match. Parent B is getting 20k on pension each year. Parent A nothing. Monthly income is 5087.

In scenario 1 the monthly income is higher but that difference (and more) could be eaten up in childcare compared to scenario 2 but long-term they’d be in a better position. But it really is pension that is the critical difference and the thing that has bitten many women in the past.

No they don't.

Mums do.

Dad's dont.

Why would female doctors take years out when male doctors don't?

The mother is usually the one who either goes part time or gives up her career completely even if she is the higher earner. Though, most women are lower earners.

It can do. Especially if you are trying to compete with men who want that promotion too. In some industries, if you go part time then you will be mummy tracked.

There's also the very valid choice that not every woman wants to go part time or give up her career.

I’m about to retire, we’ll take my pension. I have worked part time for the last 4 years after selling my business. My pension will be around £40k and will be boosted by state pension in a few years.
So many women have no pension provision. So many young women who are SAHM and part time low income are making no provision for the future. Many will be long divorced by the time they make it to retirement age and will, in fact, probably have to work well beyond retirement.
The majority of SAHM’s on this thread who are quoting figures of 100k + make up a very small proportion of women.
Once you don’t have the cushion of a young family benefits are much lower. State pension is just not enough to live on as a single person. This last year we have seen the effect of rapidly increasing fuel prices on the elderly.
For the vast majority of women retirement is going to be s struggle.
Those of us who have worked alongside having a family are in a position to be independent in old age and not at the mercy of the state or have to rely on our children to care for us.
My 40-50k ( index linked) will mean I can live comfortably rather than hand to mouth.

Sorry posted early.
I just thought I’d put a slightly different slant on working as a woman. It’s great to have the choice but longterm no one knows what will happen. No one should assume that their marriage or finances will take them comfortably into old age. Anything can happen.

120K.

Double our individual salaries.

I'd be happy to. DC all at school and I'm seven years older, so supported us on one salary whilst DC were babies for a long time.

Mumsnet is famous around the world for being able to tell the difference between men and women, at least on the Feminism boards.

Why is the only vision for equality that men and women should be equal replaceable interchangeable workers under capitalism - with no regard at all to any differences or the physical bonds between mother and baby

Why is the only "valuable" work the work men do, the paid work for an anonymous employer in exchange for a bank deposit rather than the personal work done in exchange for a stronger community

Why ARE careers structured so you can never come back to them if you take a break of 3, 5, 10 years? Why do women have to fit into a world of work that suits men's life cycles and why do we call it feminism when we ask women to do that?

@Middlelanehogger

Perhaps you misunderstood my question?

I didnt suggest that women should work like men

I asked why they would take time out of work while men dont

So the question being asked is why don't men take years out of their careers to parent their children?

I'd also say being a doctor or nurse is pretty valuable and little to do with capitalism.

Working doesn't affect the bond between mother and baby either.

Increasing flexible working practices for both parents should be the ideal

No shade if men want more flex work too but I think it's also fine if women have things men don't. I think on average more women would like to be home with young children than men would and women shoulder a lot more of the physical burden at that time as well.

@Middlelanehogger

Why would more women want to be with their children than men?

Why is parenting or being with your kids the thing you think its ok for women to have that men don't?