according to this journalist married mums should be encouraged to stay at home with baby whereas single mums should be made to go to work!

[toptramp]

In the Sunday times main newspaper. We should ALL get less help with childcare costs because a woman's place is in the home but as single mums are not proper women but welfare queens (as the article implies) they should be made to go to work.

AIBU to think this is a load of bollocks? I am a single mum and I work because i love my job and being a sahm would drive me mental plus of course I need the cash. However, childcare costs are expensive. AIBU that a woman should be encouraged to CHOOSE if she works or not until the child goes to school?

I do think if a women wants to stay at home with baby that is great too and should be valued as an honourable occupation but if a married women wants to go back to work after securing a long fought-for career, that should be encouraged too.

Ok we do live in difficult times but taking women out of the workforce because they can't afford the childcare is NOT going to help the economy or encourage growth.

I have made this point before; we couldn't afford to run the country if every woman worked.

When i was putting together and overseeing care packages, for disabled people to remain in their own homes, the 'slack' was picked up by friends/relatives/neighbours, mainly women who were SAHM. If we had to fund the level of care needed, we couldn't have done and would have to go back to old style residential institutions.

Two out of three LP households work, the 'problem' that we have in the UK is the working poor, not unemployment.

The majority of people on HB are the elderly and disabled, then the working poor, then people who are unemployed.

By making LP work, we would just be adding to the middle section of claimants. The only good thing that might come out of it is that the 'world of work' might be restructured, to include less hours and different wrking patterns.

I've always worked full time in a job that I like to think helps others and gives me a degree of fulfilment, which in my circumstance, i think makes me a better mother.

When my XH left us, it was not my 'choice'. I have been supported with child tax credits when the children were younger, enabling me to put them in nursery/after-school care and to continue working at a job that I think I am actually pretty good at. I'm not entirely sure what the alternative is, but then I don't live in a world where my Dh pays more tax in a month than I do in a year.

But don't you think it is sad that the Government will help you financially when your children are under 5 to go to full time work, but not to stay at home?

'And I have a very high earning DH.

Why is it any of your beeswax if I earn or not? especially as DH pays more tax in a year than most people earn in several.'

So it's Ok for you not to earn because you know someone who does earn and he's kind enough to share it with you?

Lovely. I'm not sure how that makes you a better person though.

I think the point is that she isn't taking money from the taxpayer. So yes it is fine for her not to earn.

Yes indeed but that's hardly through her own virtue and hard graft is it. She's just like one of the people who is supported by the state but instead she's supported by a man who earns a lot.

It doesn't make her a better person than them. Just lucky.

It's fine for her not to earn, but the fact that someone does voluntary work and therefore contributes to society does affect other people. If all the volunteers in this country suddenly gave up, the country would crumble. Imo, voluntary work should be recognised by the government so that pensions and NI contributions are still made on the volunteers behalf.

I don't think the government should enable people to stay at home at all! If someone wants to have a baby and a lovely few years going to toddler groups and coffee mornings, then they should fund it themselves. At least if people are working they are paying tax and contributing to society, even if they aren't earning much. They will be in a position to earn more when they no longer have to worry about childcare, rather than starting from scratch.

I thought the point she was making (and I was about to make) was the OP saying "I would say everyone should go to work once the kids are in school" and "But people who don't work aren't paying taxes to support others who don't." which is odd, seeing as she doesn't like a journalist slating others' choices to either go to work or not when their children are small.

I don't work, and I am lucky enough to have a DH who earns enough for me not to have to, but I do provide value in his life by being a domestic goddess [tongue in cheek emoticon]. I object to the OP saying that I should work as I don't have small children to look after, as not working is my choice, and I am supported by my husband, not the state. And yes, I don't pay any tax to "support others" but DH pays tax on every single pound he earns (no tax free allowance) and also pays at the highest rate - so we do pay a lot from our household, and we don't take a lot back (no schooling, little NHS etc). Why shouldn't those of us in very fortunate positions financially not work?

I don't know. People hiding behind their high earning husbands really annoy me.

If a single mum on benefit spent her days doing voluntary work she'd still be castigated.

No matter WHY she doesn't have that handy husband with a big wage packet to cling to. It's all her fault.

Seems if someone rich marries you you get automatic exemption from having to do anything much.

Well you have to acknoweledge the reality without getting over-emotional about it.
2 parent family: one parent can SAH and the family can live on the others wage.
1 parent family; if mother wants to be a SAHM who is going to pay for it?

We can't pretend that the two choices are equal, because they aren't. However if you say this you are accused of single-parent bashing, when you are just stating a fact.

Of course there are many different reasons why or how someone comes to be a single parent, but the matter of cold hard cash doesn't really care why it is. Choices are great, we should all have choices, but real life doesn't actually work on what we should have.

actually, I wouldn't have liked to take five yaers out for each of my children - that would have meant ten years or so out of the workplace with subsequent skills drops, remaining at the level I was when I had my daughter and therefore, subsequently when my XH left us, having less earning capacity than I do now to support us all.

Of course it's probably my 'fault' for picking a low-waged husband who then went on to have alcohol/mental health issues But I would rather, in my circumstances be able to hold up my head and say that I am doing the best for my children and myself as I see it. SAHMing wasn't for me. I had reasonable amounts of maternity leave with each of them, I was ready to go back to work - it is a personal choice and I wouldn't have issue with anyone choosing to SAHM/WOHM - if it is a choice rather than a financial necessity.

I really can't understand people being annoyed by other women who are supported by their husbands. It's something that I have never even thought of before, it wouldn't occur to me to be irritated by someone who is happy living their life with the arrangement they have without taking anything away from anyone else.

Women (or men) who are supported by their spouse still pay tax, there is VAT, they will have to be counted on council tax, and presumably they use services and buy stuff so they are contributing, and in most cases their spouse is paying enough tax to cover two low earners.

I am really failing to see a legitimate reason to be irritated by people in that position, especially when many of them are either caring for children, relatives, doing voluntry work, or a combination of all three!

Quite, slavetofilofax.

If people really can't see the difference between being supported by a partner and supported by the state, well feck me.

Gloria, where did I say I was a better person?

People with high earning husbands who don't have to work annoy you? Is it okay for someone to say women with no husbands who choose to live off the state, annoy you?

And please, drop the lucky bullshit. People who earn well do it through sheer, ball breaking hard graft mostly.

"If someone wants to have a baby and a lovely few years going to toddler groups and coffee mornings, then they should fund it themselves."

But the point the original article made is that we don't fund parents to stay at home with young children, but we do fund parents who go out to work through childcare credits and grants to nurseries run as charities. She questions the government heavily subsidising one choice and not the other. This seems a fair question to raise.

She does though argue that a young child should be looked after a parent and not through nurseries, etc.

'And please, drop the lucky bullshit. People who earn well do it through sheer, ball breaking hard graft mostly.'

Yes perhaps they do, but people who are married to them and depend on them financially don't.

SMACKDOWN!

Good thing I haven't got round to even opening this sunday's paper , I think I'll give it a miss then

Love you shirl

I'm just jealous. I would love a rich husband to leech off. Sorry, not leech off, that's offensive, it's single mums on benefits and getting help for childcare that "leech" of course.

What WAS I thinking?

See I'd probably jump at the chance if someone wealthy asked me to marry them but it just isn't happening.

And then if I did marry them and never have to work again I'd feel REALLY guilty.

I do see that there is a contribution to the family finances through one parent staying at home, raising the children, being on call 24/7 when the working partner mght work away from home etc. The working parent can be seen as more reliable because they do not have to take emergency time away from work for child related activities, illnesses etc - the at-home parent takes care of that and it is very much a 'job', which is 'traded-off' (npt the right phrase, forgive me) enabling the working parent to break their balls on hard graft'

however, I think a lot of the 'luck' is to do with schooling, connections, background - it is a world away from one or two parent families on minimum wage who do 'graft' hard, who make a difference to other peoples lives by working in teaching, childcare, hospitals etc. I don't like the idea that people who have to work at these socially appreciated but shittily waged jobs are not breaking their 'balls' or because they don't earn in the higher tax bracket are somehow less worthy of our appreciation.

A families choices should be just that - choices. not economic necessity.

God, I'd love to never have to go out to work again and look down my nose at people who are in circumstances I couldn't begin to understand.

It would be brilliant.

I think the point is that rich husbands/wives who have a stay at home partner, are perfectly willing to share the money they earn with their partner. It is that person's choice.

In the same way you giving to a beggar is your personal choice - even though the individual you give to may not have as great a need as some others in your community.

With taxes, we don't choose the individuals we give or share money with. The state does this on our behalf. So most people want to know that the state is making rational choices in how it spends our money and that these choices reflect our beliefs of who deserves to have money.

If enough people don't like how taxes are being used to support individuals, unhappiness can lead to changes being made. For example, the amount of monies asylum seekers receive was reduced to well below what people on JSA receive after a lot of public unhappiness at asylum seekers receiving "lots" of benefits - not a change I agree with btw.

Ok so that's not fair. I would say everyone should go to work once the kids are in school, but I know that will upset some people. Or at least people should be encouraged to have some sort of occupation

Why?

Why on earth would I choose to send my kids to breakfast club, then school, then after school club, then to spend the holidays with someone else paid to look after them, if I don't need to or I don't want to?

For me personally, being here for my kids both before and after school...when they are ill and when they have school holidays/inset days is an absolute pleasure and not a pleasure I'll get to experience once the last one has grown up.

If I needed to because my DH didn't earn enough for both of us then I would...but I don't see why you would 'encourage everyone to have some sort of occupation' if it means leaving their children to be looked after by someone else.

Go to work or stay at home..it doesn't matter as long as you're doing what's right for you and your family.

I pay tax. Everyone pays tax even those on benefits.

When someone starts complaining that single parents get help with their childcare costs out of "my taxes", I just tend to think that that person is having a little bit of trouble with logical thinking.