To be slightly annoyed by the phase 'work hard and get on'

[LittleTurtle]

on the budget speech.

Apparently in reference to SAHM.

The newspapers were slating PM's use of this phrase all today. That SAHM would be excluded from receiving child care support because they do not want to work hard and get on.

I was mostly surprised that the chancellor used this exact same phrase at the budget speech today. I thought they would just erase it after the papers raised concerns from parents about it.

I just find it insulting that people generally think SAHM don't do anything, but just lounge around at home.

A roundabout way of saying what mopswerver said, just not very well put. I choose to stay at home and look after my kids. I am lucky that I can and that it is my choice but I don't like being made to feel I am not contributing, working hard or getting on because I am not paying tax right now. I was also replying to a specific comment not making a general one.

Very ignorant and sweeping views you have there socialclimber. This isn't about people complaining that they aren't being paid to look after their own children and needing financial contribution towards it.

I am totally offended by your remarks.
I am very sorry that you were not in a situation of enough financial security to stay home with your children as you would have liked (and stated) but let me be free to complain about how I am viewed as a sahp.

If I were to reverse your logic and extremity of thought; then how silly of you to have children before you were able to afford to stay home with them as you would have wanted. Total twaddle of course, as much twaddle as what you said in fact!

Other Tory phrases that get my goat "Hard Working Families" and of course the new one "Aspiration Nation"! I think I will get a t-shirt with "I am part of the exasperation Nation" printed on it. Twats!

Perhaps some women who travel around and never settle in order to support their children and dh, who leave careers they loved, who don't drive as they could never afford to learn who live a distance away from a decent job and who dream of maybe one day retraining or going back to uni will find the whole budget quite demoralising.

It's not about childcare or the descion to support your kids, moving every 2 years is quite hard for dc. It's about the perception your contribution isn't valued, that your perceived to not want to work hard and are perceived to not want to help the country get on and out of recession.

It's also insulting when you in the past have contributed tax and that your dh who pays tax aren't entitled to the same things other people are entitled to.

Plus it's yet another thing against families who are not in tick box catagories and its bloody annoying that that is not seen or considered by those voted for who are meant to be the voice of the people. Cameron and Osbourne do not represent me but yet govern every inch of my life and to kick it off they use a throw away comment which to me is deeply insulting.

Oh my supporting and doing what is best for your kids is no longer valued.Children no longer matter.

Beginning to think I might be depressed. This budget has just reinforced this feeling.

The £1200 available towards childcare isn't for free, you would have to spend £6000 on child care out of your own pocket to get it, if SAHM want to pay that much on childcare then I think that they should be entitled to it also.

Just had this article pointed out to me on another thread and thought many on here would like to read it. It sums up how I feel exactly.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9943272/Good-parenting-cant-be-measured-in-GDP.html

so does this mean that universal credit will not fund 70% of childcare like wtc used to.

All SAHM should become childminders and look after each others' children to prove that they're not sitting around at home being lazy but are getting on and working hard. The gov can give you all tax breaks on your child care costs. Let's all live in an utterly bonkers, impractical society.

Or... the government could introduce a proper living wage and 40 hour week, so so that more people are in full time work and families can afford to live on one salary, as they used to, allowing two parent families the option of having one parent stay at home and do the crucial job of taking proper good care of family and household, and allowing one parent families the option of earning a proper living not being squeezed out of the workplace by oppressive rents and childcare costs.

Zookie:

"Very ignorant and sweeping views you have there socialclimber. This isn't about people complaining that they aren't being paid to look after their own children and needing financial contribution towards it."

I directly quoted WhinyCrabbyPeople's post, she was "complaining that they aren't being paid to look after their own children", as you say. So your first paragraph is untrue. That kind of post is what irks me, not that thread on a whole.

"If I were to reverse your logic and extremity of thought; then how silly of you to have children before you were able to afford to stay home with them as you would have wanted. Total twaddle of course, as much twaddle as what you said in fact!"

You have a point. Except what I should have said in that post is that I would have been very, very silly to give up my job because of the benefits and the income it generates. I was poor while my children were young because a massive portion of my income went on childcare. However, now they are at school I have my income back again. If I had stayed at home, I would never have found a job like I have got now, if I could find one at all.

I'm sorry if I offended you, I think SAHMs play a valuable role. I don't believe I gave the impression that I don't value SAHMs at all. I don't believe the government are saying their role is worthless. I believe they are saying that aren't willing to subsidise that lifestyle choice as they aren't contributing as an individual.

To be honest, my issues are not whether a sahp needs this or that but the way the government is supporting unhealthy view points. I feel they are encouraging a selfish nation where people are being forced to justify there own positions with an ultimate of only using their own situations as a reasoning, justification or detriment of new policies.
We are all people and our ultimate goal should be fairness where possible and achievable and not just policy passing to ensure election or re-election.

I feel a like we are ping pong balls and the government are rather skilled batsmen.

But that aside, I would still give Boris one

Should be 'for new policies' not 'of new policies'.

Rant over and I shall give myself a

I believe they are saying that aren't willing to subsidise that lifestyle choice as they aren't contributing as an individual.

Fine then don't take away my DC's child benefit because of what my husband earns - if I am an individual albeit non contributing why look at household income.

I don't have an issue with not receiving money for childcare as I am a SAHM. Why not implement the married tax allowance? That's just as fair as the way thy have decided to allocate CB as in not at all.

My DH could get a lower paid job, I could get a job - we would actually be better off doing that as we would then pay much lower tax and receive some nice tax breaks.

But my DH is on the brink of a very successful career break and often works away. So we sacrificed me working for him to achieve this, which I am happy with. But I do object to the intimation that I don't want to "get on" or "work hard".

The problem is that Mrs Cameron and Mrs Clegg work and the PM and cronies are convinced that they are representative of working mothers. They are not. It all just goes to show how out of touch this government is.

I am just fed up with the unfairness of many if these policies not the fact that I am losing household income hand over fist.

I don't understand why the govt (ie all of us) should be paying for CC for children's whose parents don't work.What is the logic?j

Bang, that's not what this is about

It is about that actually because you can only get it if both parents work over 16 hours and earn £10,000. I work two evenings and one day to enable me to stay at home as otherwise we can't afford it, I need Childcare for the one day - why am I not entitled to help because I am only working for 12 hours?

I agree, I don't think they should have taken away child benefit at all.

and the false logic in it is it was kept for years because it protected children whose mothers might be financially abused by their husbands/partners and it meant they had some money that could be spent on food/the children. The cut has affected those(from what i can see) where a mother will be staying at home and not earning and surely they are the most likely to be financially abused anyway?

But I just think the coalition hates women. I can't see any other explanation

QUOTE Jenbird 'staying at home isn't a job but by bringing up my own children I hope I am contributing to society by developing well rounded individuals rather than paying someone else to take over that responsibility whilst I work (I am not having a go at those who work).'

I agree sort of....you could also look at it this way, namely that 'staying at home is a job and your partner is in effect 'paying you' to make the whole family's life run more smoothly. I am the CEO of our family say, I control the budget, research and book the holidays, do the cooking, do the housework (or when kids younger employed a cleaner), volunteer in the local community, take the car in for a service, wait in for the repairmen and am taxi-driver to kids and am in a really good mood 100% time because I am not under stress from my former job with long commute and reasonable salary.

I am not into tax dodging but no doubt this kind of 'Family CEO' arrangement could be 'formalised' in some way thereby giving SAHP a bit of respect.

I paid into the system for 17 years before having my kids late and at that point there was no way I could have left them to return to work...so good job we didn't need me to financially.
I am making a contribution to the emotional wellbeing of the whole family/society (I know where my kids are) and thanks to whoever introduced stakeholder pensions (Labour I think) - have still got contributions going into one...so haven't lost out there too much.
I have, I agree, lost out in the career stakes....but it seems pointless to seek out a school hours friendly job just to satisfy feminist principles when we as a family don't need the money.
So I don't mind losing the child benefit (as don't need it) but agree the formula is skewed unfairly and I wouldn't want help with childcare as a SAHP BUT in common with others I resent the attitude from Labour and Tories that everyone should be in the paid workforce, especially when there are some 3 million people unemployed who need the available jobs more than I do.

If jobs were unfilled across the board, you can bet your life that the Government (in common with other EU countries) would make childcare free/massively subsidised to address the gap in available employees...alas not an issue and never really has been.

I still do not understand. If a SAHM wants to "get on" then obviously she needs childcare to go to interviews, training, and so on. Without childcare how can she do this?

she can leave them in the car outside, preferably in a parent and child parking space

i dont have a car, part of the reason i send my 2 year old to nursery using government funding is so i can do driving lessons hopefully.

the two year old will have to be tethered to a lampost outside then if you have no car

[howls with laughter] at Owl