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?

I wouldn't, but if I had to then £150k and a decent amount going into a private pension in my name.

Surely it's almost impossible to put a figure on it as it depends on so many factors - how much is your rent/mortgage, how many DC, lifestyle, pets etc. I was a SAHM (by choice) for 12 years ... my DH's income was sufficient to pay the mortgage, run two cars, pay my NI contributions (very important), we had sufficient 'spare' income that we both had a nice standard of living without scrimping and saving. In terms of actual salary he earned around the equivalent of £50K in 'today's' terms but we had a small mortgage and deliberately chose to only have one DC.

None. I was for a year and that was enough. Need to be working for me. Love my career and I love my kids. I'm a better parent now I have a focus outside of the home. I appreciate them more and our time together.

@Starwarslover yes I know that my dad worked so hard meaning my mum could be home with us, and I do think he did miss out, but I’m not sure he would think the same to be honest! He never really wanted to spend time with us as a child, even at the weekends and still doesn’t now, so we’ve never been very close.
Definitely not choosing to mirror this, as I think it was mainly down to my dad’s personality type, and my dh is completely different with our own dc, equally as close to them as I am.

None. My husband earns lots, I work but don't earn very much in comparison to him. I don't need to work but the thought of just cleaning and decorating the house as my 'role' would drive me insane with boredom.

£200k I think. Would definitely do it for a bit as I find the juggle of work and young kids very difficult.

I’m self employed so have the flex and benefits of that. I bring home about £48k net and put about £40k into my pension last year. As DH is a higher rate tax payer I guess we’re looking at him earning a lot more as he’s get taxed 50% and loose his tax free threshold gets complicated!!

Maybe he’d need to earn like about £150k minimum?!

Just as some people would never be a SAHM I would never have gone to work while mine were little.
I stayed at home for 8 years on DHs salary of 17k (plus we were in the labour years so got £450 tax credits a month).
The mortgage was £600 and we went down to one car but we still went to the seaside every year. Good timing allowed us to do it. I wouldn't have had children if times were like they are now.
In terms of career, I am a teacher so I knew I would always be able to pick up where I left off with no issues. Again if this hadn't been possible I wouldn't have had children.

£30-35kish, basically whatever is enough to cover your living expenses. We did some calculations before I got pregnant to work out whether we can afford to live single salary assuming either one of us was a SAHP. That amount for us covers our bills, food and leaves us a little over each month for spending money.
It's not going to be a particularly comfortable amount compared to two salaries but for us it was an important calculation to make as it gives us flexibility.
Plus any other part time income that the SAHP can make then purely goes to savings or spending on nicer things.

Nice goady post there.

What you don't perhaps realise is that the smug twattery reflects far more on you than it does on any working parents though.

It would have to be very high, in order for me to sacrifice my future earning potential. So enough to cover me completely to compensate for my current lost earnings (say while children are in primary school?) and all lost earnings/pension contributions into the future (have I missed out on promotions/career progression that I will never get back, or achieve much later).

Obviously that figure will differ for everyone.

It's not about my standard of living while I am a SAHP, it's about my standard of living in 20 years, 40 years. This obviously has a direct impact on my dc.

A lot of people engage in very short term thinking about being a SAHP. The reverberations of that decision can affect your life for decades.

I would only give up my career if I had multiple properties or shares in my name which paid me an interest of at least 7k a month.

Some people are surprised at the high figures some are quoting.

For me (who quoted £200K); I’ve answered the question OP has answered; which is “how much would it take for you to be a SAHP?”

The question “how much do you need to earn to cover your monthly expenses” is very different.

We could get by on just one of our salaries; but it would mean sacrificing financial independence and financial security. People are being very spiteful about “cars and holidays” but the fact is we’re facing a very uncertain environment for job security, and are in the midst of a pension crisis.

I absolutely don’t judge anyone making a different decision for their family; but I do find the attitude of “why bother having children if you never spend time with them?” odd. Do you judge your husbands for working FT? Do you think they shouldn’t bother having children? If you believe fostering a relationship with parents is so important; and can only be done if a parent doesn’t work; then surely the optimum is to have both parents working PT? Why are you seemingly happy for your DH to have a shitty relationship with his own children?

(Just to make it clear - that last paragraph is only relevant to the posters judging working mothers - of course I know that the vast majority of SAHP are sensible people who realise everyone makes a different decision for their own families, and their DH has a brilliant relationship with their children).

I’m another one who would never be a sahm. I hate domestic chores and like being in the workplace and I would be far too worried about losing my financial independence and earning power / ability to go back to work when kids were grown to provide for my old age. I don’t want to be poor in my old age.

Apart from being factually inaccurate, the “why did you have kids if you don’t even see them” argument can easily be exposed for the facile misogyny it is as presumably these posters never ask their own DHs the same question!

It's just really childish. I doubt very much that a person who is apparently capable of high earnings, as they claim, would be inclined to make personal digs about people taking a different path to them. They've obviously got a chip on their shoulder of some description so I'd take that PP's comment with a whole shovel full of salt.

If I earned 100k i'd like my DH to stay home. He is really useful at running the kids around, diy, gardening, cooking etc. Id still need a cleaner cos he is crap at that.

No. I became a SAHM because I didn't want anyone else to being up my kids.

Also 😂at the poster who wouldn't be a SAHM cos she 'respects herself'

My salary is about 80k, public sector pension so add 20k, so a 100k a year would be necessary to get me to even start to think about it. I don't actively want to give up work, I enjoy my job and I can reasonably expect more promotions, so I wouldn't consider a pay cut to do it. I would want to continue having a cleaner and pay for some holiday clubs.

My kids are also both in school and I personally think the value of a SAHM is less at this point. We both have flexibility, can WFH etc so we don't miss school events etc and we both get 6 weeks of annual leave a year and can also take unpaid parental leave so our kids don't need more than 3 weeks or so of holiday clubs a year which I don't angst about. They do after school club three days a week and enjoy it.

SAHMs don't clean and decorate...they look after their kids. It's a FT job in itself , which is why working parents spend thousands paying nursery staff to do it.

It is when kids are very small, but it’s definitely not once they are. My kids are at school from 845-330 minimum.

I was a sahm twenty years ago, and on a far smaller salary than many of the posters above. I wanted to be a sahm, plus with two children, it cost more in nursery fees than I was earning. Although I did have a part-time evening job for a while when we had one child to make ends meet (early 2000s). With two children, I didn’t work at all, until at school, and have never worked full-time since.

Well yes, I thought that went without saying.

I was a sahm until my youngest was 10. I loved it. Money was tight, but I was good at juggling credit cards and robbing Peter to pay Paul and back again. I went back to work for the money only. Not for me time, not for career fulfilment. And I hated it. I felt I was neglecting my kids and my job, but I soldiered on. Life was much better when I got a job where I could work from home, but by then the kids were actually grown up anyway. As to money, somehow we still spent up to what we were both earning, and apart from not running up credit card debts, didn't seem much better off. But that was years ago, and things are different now. I cannot imagine how people cope without 2 decent wages coming in.

It's only really a FT job if you have a toddler or loads of kids. With an immobile baby or a child who 4 or older, it definitely isn't a FT job.
I always find it interesting when SAHM parents say "I like being there for the kids, going to school plays, being with them when they're ill etc." as if working parents didn't do those things. Not all jobs mean you're out of the house 7am - 7pm. It's perfectly possible for both parents to enjoy the benefits of financial independence and be there for your children.