Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

At what household income would you become a SAHP?

344 replies

AlenaMacc · 25/05/2023 21:54

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?

OP posts:
Pteryl · 26/05/2023 07:59

For one or both of us (preferably the latter!), to give up work I would want a minimum of 300k a year. Apart from the few years when they are a baby, I think I’d get so bored at home on my own all day. I don’t particularly enjoy cleaning, I like gardening, but there is only so much you can do! So I would like to join a health club, be a lady who lunches etc.

3WildOnes · 26/05/2023 08:03

I was a SAHM years ago for a couple of years. My DH earned around 35k, it was tight but we made it work. I've worked part time ever since.

Both of my parents worked full time when I was a child and I knew that I never wanted that for mine.

Dacadactyl · 26/05/2023 08:03

@WhatALightbulbMoment a baby still needs lots of mental stimulation regardless of their mobility. A one to one caregiver is able to provide this to a higher level.

By the time they're 4 they'll generally be in school anyway.

PainAuChocowhat · 26/05/2023 08:07

However much it takes to replicate my current take home pay. We have longish term plans involving our current level of household income so getting by, or just covering living expenses wouldn’t be an option. But, similar to a lot of PP on this thread, giving up my career & financial independence isn’t something I’d be up for. I’d be happy for DD to have the same opinion if she has a family.

BanditsOnTheHorizon · 26/05/2023 08:10

I wouldn't, I enjoy my job and enjoy I have financial stability and independence. I could have been a sahp, I lasted a year and then went back to work. If I could do it now I would, and the money was guaranteed, but my dd is 15 Grin

GroomedForSerfdom · 26/05/2023 08:12

It would have to not only match my current take home pay but also allow for the equivalent investment in a private pension to match what my workplace pension will give me on retirement. These decisions need to have long term planning and not just consider the immediate impact.

ThreeRingCircus · 26/05/2023 08:27

BSB30 · 26/05/2023 01:08

For those saying large amounts like £150k +, can I ask why you would need that much money to live on? I can't even comprehend that amount of money or it being the minimum that I would want coming into the household.

Because DH currently earns £100k and I earn £20k working part time. So with tax over £100k it would need to be significantly more to be financially worth me giving up work. I wouldn't want a change in the lifestyle we have now.

I still don't think I'd do it though as my children are both school aged. I think they benefitted greatly from going to nursery and seeing me go to work, albeit part time. I work 3 days a week and think that's the perfect balance of still being in work, adult time, having some financial independence and also being around enough for DDs. I admit I don't know how two FT working parents do it, they must be knackered but I also don't know how people can be SAHPs once their children are at school without feeling there's an imbalance in theirs and their partner's relationship. Personally, I think part time for one parent is best.

ClairDeLaLune · 26/05/2023 08:48

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.

My kids are late teens now and they say their best memories are our holidays. We have several a year, and guess how we fund them? Plus they loved going to nursery and the childminders, they had lots of other kids to play with. I was lucky in that I was part-time, but no-one works 24/7, you’re being ridiculous.

BertieBotts · 26/05/2023 08:54

I've been a SAHM on lower incomes, because it was of more overall value for me to be home and have the free time etc than to work just to cover childcare.

Misspacorabanne · 26/05/2023 08:55

@ClairDeLaLune I’m a sahp and our children get holidays too, as do many others I’m sure!

shivawn · 26/05/2023 09:06

BSB30 · 26/05/2023 01:08

For those saying large amounts like £150k +, can I ask why you would need that much money to live on? I can't even comprehend that amount of money or it being the minimum that I would want coming into the household.

It's seems that a lot people are recreating their current income, which is fair enough if that's what they need. I tried to answer from the perspective of someone who did in fact really want to be a SAHP and think about how much I would be willing to sacrifice in that situation. There's some things I can't compromise on like maxing out pensions contributions and savings for my children's futures and our own futures so my figure was still quite high but a significant drop from where we are currently.

It's a shame that some posters have gotten so defensive with comments like working parents never see their children or SAHP don't respect themselves. It's quite revealing that these people aren't as happy with their choices as they let on.

WhatALightbulbMoment · 26/05/2023 09:07

Dacadactyl · 26/05/2023 08:03

@WhatALightbulbMoment a baby still needs lots of mental stimulation regardless of their mobility. A one to one caregiver is able to provide this to a higher level.

By the time they're 4 they'll generally be in school anyway.

Giving mental stimulation to a baby isn't a FT job though. If it is, then you're overstimulating them.

Littlebluebellwoods · 26/05/2023 09:09

None, I cannot see how one of us being stuck at home every day, doing lots of chores would enhance our quality of living. The opposite in fact

Isthisexpected · 26/05/2023 09:10

Maybe we should have a thread for grandmothers asking do you regret being a SAHM during your children's infancy?

Christmascracker0 · 26/05/2023 09:13

£80k - in Scotland results in a take home of about £4,300.

I am lucky to have inheritance so I have enough assets/pension in my own name and a good career I could pick up again if I needed.

Flittingaboutagain · 26/05/2023 09:13

The only chores I do are making lunches and washing their clothes if I get a chance otherwise my husband does it. If ill I'd take them to the doctor. My job is parenting not domestic duties.

Littlebluebellwoods · 26/05/2023 09:14

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.

what a horrible little post. It says more about you than you care to reveal.

Nottodaty · 26/05/2023 09:15

Isthisexpected · 26/05/2023 09:10

Maybe we should have a thread for grandmothers asking do you regret being a SAHM during your children's infancy?

Both my Granny’s worked as did my Mum as did I. When I look at ancestry most of the females had working roles in the censuses unless they at school.

I think only the privileged in the past could actually be SAHP (usually wealthy enough for nannies to help with the kids) I remember reading something about it being a 50’s concept housewife as after the war a lot of women gained their independence but now the men back from war we apparently needed to be back in the kitchen so jobs taken away from women :(

Littlebluebellwoods · 26/05/2023 09:17

Flittingaboutagain · 26/05/2023 09:13

The only chores I do are making lunches and washing their clothes if I get a chance otherwise my husband does it. If ill I'd take them to the doctor. My job is parenting not domestic duties.

Does your husband not work then, that he does all housework, shopping, mental load, financials , breakfast, dinner, snacks etc then?

you literally just spend time with your kids make them lunch and do laundry? He does everything else? How does he feel about that?

Dacadactyl · 26/05/2023 09:18

WhatALightbulbMoment · 26/05/2023 09:07

Giving mental stimulation to a baby isn't a FT job though. If it is, then you're overstimulating them.

Show quote history

Why do people pay for childcare then in the early years? Maybe the childcare providers just bung the babies in a corner so as not to overstimulate them? But I'd hope not.

It is a FT job. If it wasn't, childcare would be free for the X amount of hours theyre not interacting with the kids so as not to overstimulate them. They dont give a discount or knock money off for that time, so clearly the childcare "professionals" think it's a FT task too.

When mine were babies they'd be in their bouncer, their high chair or whatever while I was doing jobs and telling them what I was doing. They weren't just left to their own devices with me in silence.

Littlebluebellwoods · 26/05/2023 09:20

Dacadactyl · 26/05/2023 09:18

Why do people pay for childcare then in the early years? Maybe the childcare providers just bung the babies in a corner so as not to overstimulate them? But I'd hope not.

It is a FT job. If it wasn't, childcare would be free for the X amount of hours theyre not interacting with the kids so as not to overstimulate them. They dont give a discount or knock money off for that time, so clearly the childcare "professionals" think it's a FT task too.

When mine were babies they'd be in their bouncer, their high chair or whatever while I was doing jobs and telling them what I was doing. They weren't just left to their own devices with me in silence.

Show quote history

I think maybe you’re not understanding, possibly it’s a language issue?

you babies need stimulating effectively full time, which the poster correct;h said if you’re doing than then you’re over stimulating them. You’ve then come back and said if you’re not stimulating them. You’re sitting them in a corner in silence and ignoring them, which I can only assume is a language issue and maybe stimulating doesn’t mean what you think it means?

GiraffeInABath · 26/05/2023 09:22

I don’t have DC but honestly? I would quit work now if I could and be a stay at home
partner. Just enjoy the good times whilst I can. Probably would take for a DP who earnt high 6 figures though- thinking investment banker, private equity etc. I would want a cleaner, lots of hobbies, travel, my own pension paid into etc

Leo227 · 26/05/2023 09:24

Fatat40 · 25/05/2023 22:35

This. £150-£200 to maintain a lifestyle and pay into both pensions.

Less tax efficient and achievable than 2 x £75-100k

Show quote history

yep same figures would be needed for me.

Dacadactyl · 26/05/2023 09:25

Littlebluebellwoods · 26/05/2023 09:20

I think maybe you’re not understanding, possibly it’s a language issue?

you babies need stimulating effectively full time, which the poster correct;h said if you’re doing than then you’re over stimulating them. You’ve then come back and said if you’re not stimulating them. You’re sitting them in a corner in silence and ignoring them, which I can only assume is a language issue and maybe stimulating doesn’t mean what you think it means?

Show quote history

No language issue between me and @WhatALightbulbMoment But there is one between you and I. Nor quite sure what youre saying in your second paragraph?

Dacadactyl · 26/05/2023 09:25

Not