Page 4 | At what household income would you become a SAHP?

AlenaMacc · 2023-05-25T20:54:17+00:00

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?

Primrosefrill · 26/05/2023 03:50

There are some judgey comments about working parents above so here’s my two cents. There’s a big difference between being a SAHP when your DCs are little and being a “SAHP” when they’re at school for 30 hours plus a week. Personally I’d never let my partner be the sole earner while the kids were at school all day.

I would have loved to have stayed home full time when my DCs were little but we needed the income so I was part time. We would need my DH to earn £120k really to make up for tax pension etc.

wankerseverywhere · 26/05/2023 03:51

I wouldn't do it if I won the lottery tomorrow. My husband earns around $350k and I earn around $120k. Financial independence is priceless - and I strongly disagree that kids don't care about their financial situation as long as mum picks them up from school.

MissTrip82 · 26/05/2023 03:56

thewillowbunnies · 25/05/2023 22:22

Just to say, I personally don't see the point of having children if you're going to work 24/7 and barely see them. I've enjoyed all the time I've had with my children and feel very privileged. We may not go on fancy holidays or wear new clothes, but the children are supported and now I'm always there at pickup. I can make every school event and take them to after school sports activities. I think there's a lot to be said for putting the children first if you can. Because of my work, I hear first hand how children do not like being passed from childminder to school to childminder and barely seeing their own parents. They genuinely do not give a crap about the fancy holiday you've just taken them on.

Nobody works 24/7. Silly hyperbole isn’t really helping your cause.

Luckily for your children, many people work in demanding jobs despite having their own families. It’s how every Paediatric ICU and ED I’ve ever worked in is staffed at 2am, when your children need us.

wankerseverywhere · 26/05/2023 04:01

thewillowbunnies · 25/05/2023 22:22

Just to say, I personally don't see the point of having children if you're going to work 24/7 and barely see them. I've enjoyed all the time I've had with my children and feel very privileged. We may not go on fancy holidays or wear new clothes, but the children are supported and now I'm always there at pickup. I can make every school event and take them to after school sports activities. I think there's a lot to be said for putting the children first if you can. Because of my work, I hear first hand how children do not like being passed from childminder to school to childminder and barely seeing their own parents. They genuinely do not give a crap about the fancy holiday you've just taken them on.

Fuck me.

Only on MN does working FT equate to "working 24/7 and never seeing your kids" 🙄

I earn six figures working a 35-40 hour week. Have the flexibility and seniority to attend whatever school events I like. Take my three kids to all their activities and - polish my gold star please - coached their football and volleyball teams and ran a Cub Scout troop.

You may have not been able to work and parent your kids in the way you consider optimal, and that is your prerogative. But don't even try with the "won't anyone think of the children" faux concern when you're faced with mothers who can do both, and do it not just competently but brilliantly.

Cantstandbullshitanymore · 26/05/2023 04:23

thewillowbunnies · 25/05/2023 22:22

Just to say, I personally don't see the point of having children if you're going to work 24/7 and barely see them. I've enjoyed all the time I've had with my children and feel very privileged. We may not go on fancy holidays or wear new clothes, but the children are supported and now I'm always there at pickup. I can make every school event and take them to after school sports activities. I think there's a lot to be said for putting the children first if you can. Because of my work, I hear first hand how children do not like being passed from childminder to school to childminder and barely seeing their own parents. They genuinely do not give a crap about the fancy holiday you've just taken them on.

By that logic we might as well not encourage girls to get educated and have aspirations as the goal is to be a SAHM to their children. And yes while men can also be SAHP we all know in majority of the cases it’s women who take that role and become dependent on their husbands.

SargentSagittarius · 26/05/2023 04:43

Funnily enough, the kids who go on holidays do give a crap about them.

They get really excited, and look forward to them. They love them while they’re on them - they love revisiting places and people, and exploring news place. They look back on them and the photos with happy memories, and then, once again, love looking forward to the next one. And the cycle continues.

Those memories are priceless.

I can’t think of a figure for me personally. We’re both on 6 figures, and are both able to work flexibly. I either WFH or leave the office in time to be home for the kids - I did school pick-ups when they were younger (now they catch the bus, but I’m home when they get home).

Between DH and I, we both have the flexibility to be home if someone’s sick, or to attend school events. The more you progress in a career, the more flexibility you tend to get.

So I can’t really think of a figure that would be worth giving up my salary, pension, and safety net, should something ever happen to DH (he had a heart attack in his early 40s, so this isn’t just some abstract idea to us).

InSpainTheRain · 26/05/2023 04:51

No way would I give up financial independence. The only reason to stop work would be a large lottery win or retirement (which I am planning).

GoalShooter · 26/05/2023 04:52

PizzaPizza56 · 25/05/2023 23:26

The answers on here are really interesting as I thought most people become SAHPs because one partner earns too little so that nursery costs would be more than their take home salary meaning they're worse off working than they would be if they stayed at home.

I think there are two groups of women who tend to become SAHMs - those whose salary won't cover childcare so they would effectively be paying to go to work, and those with high earning partners who can afford to not work and still have a nice life. The middle earners are more likely to go back to work IME.

Neurodiversitydoctor · 26/05/2023 05:04

DH SAH for a bit in 2009-2011 after the financial crisis. We had a 2yo and a 5yo. I earnt £60-70K but to do so had to pick up Locum hours during my leave. So now I don't know maybe £100K ? But for us would only ever be short term to care for young children. To compensate the other for pension contributions etc would need to be closer to £300k, ain't never gonna happen.

Blossomed · 26/05/2023 05:19

BeckyWithTheGoodHair010101 · 25/05/2023 22:28

Just to say, you sound judgemental. Some parents don't have a choice but to both work.
Hopefully my children will grow up seeing what a good example of work ethics both their parents have provided them - and hopefully they will turn out to be hard working, goal oriented individuals themselves.

Show quote history

This response also sounds pretty judgemental to be fair. Suggesting that you can only pass on a good worth ethic etc if you are in paid employment.

But regardless, this is all off topic from what the OP is actually asking.

I’m not sure how much I would say you need to be a SAHP. I guess it depends how much your mortgage etc is and how much you have left over…

autienotnaughtym · 26/05/2023 05:23

I work 10 hours a week. Dh earns 60k , I earn around 14k (pro rata)

Beezknees · 26/05/2023 05:27

I'd only do it if I were independently financially secure. If I had £100k in the bank that would see me through a few years years at home. If it meant having to rely on a man's salary, never, even if he was a millionaire.

Scalottia · 26/05/2023 05:43

Muddygreenfingers · 25/05/2023 22:26

The OP specifically asked what the household income would need to be if the mum actually wanted to be a SAHP.

Funny how so many ignored that and it's turned into yet another 'oh I would never be a SAHP and lose my financial independence' or 'why wouldn't you want to be with your kids as much as you can' blather.

YAWN

I agree. They just can't help themselves, can they. It's so dull.

OP I would only do it if my partner earned enough to cover everything (comfortably - without us struggling) AND we had enough savings to use if for some reason he lost his job etc.

Isthisexpected · 26/05/2023 05:45

SouthLondonMum22 · 25/05/2023 22:33

Never.

DH and I both earn six figures. We both work full time.

I grew up with a SAHM and didn't want that for myself.

That doesn't mean your children wouldn't have wanted YOU though.

We do anything and say anything to ourselves to justify our own choices don't we? So I wouldn't look for some magic figure OP. Many people make it work on low incomes because of the rewards elsewhere.

I have to agree it makes sad to read about both parents working full time out of choice. We have an over populated planet as it is, so why add to it? Some people seem to just want descendants and to skip the child rearing part by outsourcing parenting the majority of the week.

HoppingPavlova · 26/05/2023 05:46

Would never have been a factor for me. If we had of won millions of $$ I would have still worked full time in whatever business/fund/charity or whatnot the amount would have allowed me to do. Not everyone is happy sitting at home with kids. We didn’t use any form of care until ours went to school (we both worked full time but different days/shifts), and I can say if I hadn’t of had work to go to I might not be typing this today, as much as I loved my kids (and still do as adults), staying home with kids wasn’t exactly fulfilling for me and I imagine if I had nothing else I probably would have become an alcoholic or pill popper or something, in all honesty.

newtowelsplease · 26/05/2023 05:47

*Fuck me.

Only on MN does working FT equate to "working 24/7 and never seeing your kids" 🙄

I earn six figures working a 35-40 hour week. Have the flexibility and seniority to attend whatever school events I like. Take my three kids to all their activities and - polish my gold star please - coached their football and volleyball teams and ran a Cub Scout troop.

You may have not been able to work and parent your kids in the way you consider optimal, and that is your prerogative. But don't even try with the "won't anyone think of the children" faux concern when you're faced with mothers who can do both, and do it not just competently but brilliantly.*

Love this answer @wankerseverywhere

In answer to the OP I'm another who could afford not to work but wouldn't consider it for a minute. While the kids were young I worked part time and we had a complicated juggle for a few years prioritising flexibility so that we could pick our kids up in the playground and not from after school club every day. Choice of employer and role is key and I'm lucky enough to be in a senior role where I have that flexibility.

I've always prioritised my kids and made sure I found time for the extra curricular stuff, we also coach their sports teams and I'm a beaver scout leader. It's important to me to model contributing to the community for my kids. I've worked hard to do that and consider myself to be one of those who can do it all well - there is definitely outsourcing of cleaning and other domestic crap. I don't judge SAHPs but it's absolutely not for me. I saw my mum try to return to work after 10 years at home and she couldn't do it. She gave up her independence for us and never got it back.

mumofboys8787 · 26/05/2023 05:48

Hamfish · 25/05/2023 22:53

I mean never as I respect myself but if you’re taking purely financially I’d say £180k. Which is our current combined salary

Be more disrespectful, please.

Scalottia · 26/05/2023 05:49

thewillowbunnies · 25/05/2023 22:22

Just to say, I personally don't see the point of having children if you're going to work 24/7 and barely see them. I've enjoyed all the time I've had with my children and feel very privileged. We may not go on fancy holidays or wear new clothes, but the children are supported and now I'm always there at pickup. I can make every school event and take them to after school sports activities. I think there's a lot to be said for putting the children first if you can. Because of my work, I hear first hand how children do not like being passed from childminder to school to childminder and barely seeing their own parents. They genuinely do not give a crap about the fancy holiday you've just taken them on.

Well aren't you just the best parent ever, gold medal for you 🏅

Maybe engage your brain and perhaps you will realise that sometimes both people have to work, you know, due to finances.

Fucking hell, why are some people so judgemental?

Goldbar · 26/05/2023 05:55

Chickpea17 · 25/05/2023 23:33

Totally agree something money just can't buy you will never have that time with your kids again. I do understand some people being a SAHP isn't a option but it blow my mind when they have more than one kid.

Show quote history

Does that go for dads too?

If both parents want time with their kids, is it fine for them both to give up work and just live a very basic life on benefits?

Misspacorabanne · 26/05/2023 06:14

This whole thread is judgemental!

In answer to your question op, I’m a sahp and we earn 80k. We manage ok with that, pay the mortgage and bills, have a yearly holiday as a family plus a weekend away each year, and I don’t feel my children miss out on days out or paid activities.

It’s all relative, the families who earn a lot of money between them are only going to give a high figure, as that’s what they are used to living on and the life style they have. I would do it for less, with tighter purse strings if need be as being a sahp is important to me and dh while the children are so young.
My dm was a sahp and we are so close, much closer to dm than my dad, he worked very long hours, probably to make up for mum not working. I’m not saying that you can’t be close to your children if you work, I know that’s not the case at all, it’s just my own past experience, but my dad was never very hands on even when he was at home, which perhaps didn’t help.

If you are considering it, and can afford as a family it I say go for it!

Starwarslover · 26/05/2023 06:20

I’ve been trying to think of an amount and I just don’t think I’d do it. My career is really valuable to me and I wouldn’t want to let it go.

sheusesmagazines · 26/05/2023 06:24

Nobody works 24/7. Silly hyperbole isn’t really helping your cause.

Luckily for your children, many people work in demanding jobs despite having their own families. It’s how every Paediatric ICU and ED I’ve ever worked in is staffed at 2am, when your children need us.

@MissTrip82 Exactly. I'm a vet and luckily for pet owners myself and my colleagues don't just work during school hours. Or perhaps we as a profession are expected not to have children? Same for doctors, nurses, paramedics, midwives, police, etc?

NatalieH2220 · 26/05/2023 06:25

£50k? Maybe even less as if I was home we'd save loads on childcare.

Some of these incomes are huge!

Starwarslover · 26/05/2023 06:25

@Misspacorabanne are you not a bit sad for your dad that he worked so hard to facilitate that relationship between you and your mum and has missed out himself? Surely in an ideal world he would have worked less by your mum picking up some hours and you could have been close to both of them? I’m a bit surprised you think mirroring this is the ideal. No issue with those who choose to stay home at all, each to their own, am just a bit surprised this was your notification

Starwarslover · 26/05/2023 06:25

*motivation