To ask for one, simple, summary about all the angry SAHM threads.

[catinboots]

Pleaseeee??

I haven't read them all - but there seem to be lots of SAHMs on here today, moaning that they won't eat help with child are costs.

Eh?

Have I missed some key piece of information? Have a got it wrong?

Surely the whole point of being a SAHP is so that you don't need childcare?..

Not everyone owns a house though. Rents are extortionate in most places unless you are in social housing. If I didn't work we would just about break even so yes I work for 'luxury', the luxury of one day owning our own home instead of the uncertainty of renting.

I pick my daughter up every day from school but she still asks me can she go to after school club. I went to a Childminder as a child and have some wonderful happy memories, I at no point ever loved my Childminder more than my mum or felt abandoned.

Those of you who are SAHPs who say you enable your husband to work, I really can't understand that. Are you saying if you went to work your husband would give up work?

LOLZ @ weewifey.

At what point did I call someone narrow minded for having a different view of the world / point of view?

I called you narrow minded for your unshakeable belief that your life choices are the right ones and the only way people should go about their business'.

Tired almost none of the SAHP are saying they want the money..they're saying that condescension would be an improvement on the Govt. current attitude towards a good percentage of their voters.

from the Telegraph

Asked whether the Prime Minister was ?concerned? that the vouchers scheme was penalising stay-at-home mothers, his official spokesman simply said the measures were ?very important as part of supporting those who want to work hard and to get on?. When asked if Mr Cameron believed that stay-at-home parents were less in need of state help than working parents, the spokesman would only say that the Prime Minister wanted to support ?aspiration?.

Obviously we are all supposed to aspire to make nasty handbags that no-one would market if it weren't for the name of the husband of who's making them. But then maybe that wouldn't be a 'waste' of my universty education that I'm (to quote someone earlier) "doing nothing with"

As I said earlier Frillymilly some families have their own specific set of circumstances that dictate SAHM is not just a preference it's a practicality.

"Happymummy

I have told you numerous times that I don't receive any benefits other than cb and everybody used to get this, so hardly something that others don't get.
My dh has tax credits, but gives them to me along with his wages for me to manage for for household.
The tax credit amounts to very little, not really a wage. What is strange though how many parents are capable of managing on one minimum wage, plus very small top up, paying a mortgage, household bills, activities for their dc, a family holiday, family car, pension investment. What must others be spending the extra salary on? You even get to pay mortgage off by 40 if you are very careful, oh and not materialistic. "

A quick google shows that a couple can easily get £5k in WTC alone, the WTC may be paid to the earner but CTC are seperate and paid to the person who claims the child benefit. Regardless of who "claims" then you do claim benefits to make up for the fact the you dont have an income and your household earnings are not enough. It doesnt matter if the are not the level of a wage as you put it, although given you have more than one child and an income low enough to qualify for WTC then i suspect its at least the equivalent of a part time wage.

You are not managing on one wage unless you claim tax credits only to donate them to charity so its a little rich to suggest others could live easily on one wage. Perhaps they believe they should support themselves rather than rely others.

FrillyMilly, I dont understand why husbands need a wife home to enable them to work and it cant be the case as thousands of couples both work. Nobody surely is that dependant upon another adult to go out to the workplace.

Tiredfeet.

How do you know that somebody else without a dp/dh able to be there for them to seek work doesn't need childcare then?
You are very lucky you didn't have to take your child to an interview, because you had no childcare.
perhaps sahp's who want to work should lobby that they are being discriminated against. I think there's a clear case. Wohp has childcare and job, sahp doesn't have job and can't get one due to lack of childcare.

Weewifeys last post does go some way to explaining (though not excusing ) her views. She says she used nurseries for her children when they were small, and now feels she shouldn't have. She sent them when older to an after school club which they hated, but she continued because she felt 'pressurised by society' to do so.
The controversial issue is that Now that she's not working she wants to evangelise to the rest of us that we're all getting it wrong, our children are unhappy, blah blah blah.

It's very sad that she didnt feel able to evaluate for herself what was best for her children. I suspect the feeling that she got it wrong is why she's angry and bitter. Her mistake is her assumption that we're all the same as her. My children were very happy and settled at nursery, likewise at holiday club, though we feel the eldest has outgrown it now so this summer we are employing a student in an 'au pair' type role. Raising children is a constant process of evaluating their well being, and that applies to all aspects, not just childcare.

We aren't going to go back to more sahp because of increasing global competition.

wages are likely to remain static or fall for a long time. If I were a sahp, I would think can we manage on this income in x years time when prices of everything has increased significantly. Unless the answer wwas easily, I would be looking at increasing household income asap.

As pressure on household income increases, the public at large will be less sympathetic to non workers.

Clearly you haven't experienced forces family life Frillymilly and Happymummy

Try maintaining a job (never mind having a career) when hubby can be gone for weeks and months literally at the drop of a hat, not to mention that there's no 'normal' knocking off time. The likelihood is that your friends hubbies will also be gone so they can't help out and baby-sit for the potentially random hours of a 24/7 workplace now-a-days. Now add into the mix that your extended family are the other end of the country, you move every 18 months and that employers are known for their love of training transient staff-however well qualified.

Im a SAHM I personally think its another hit at single parents.

Forces families should be entitled to more financial help than Joe public. Similarly i think its wrong that injured servicemen have to apply for dla when they have life long damage.

We could easy have different systems for forces families.

Happymummy

I was merely conveying that there is a difference between working to survive and what you need as opposed to working to pay for luxuries and wants.
I don't believe the latter should get any form of tax break, subsidy or benefit.
Also, neither dh nor I receive 5k a year in tax credits. We do have more than one child but the other 2 are supporting themselves in full time work now.

I know that my husband couldn't do the particular job he does, if it wasn't for me being at home. His job involves overnight stays and being abroad regularly, but not on the same days each week, which makes it hard to organise child care.

Can just imagine how it would go down at work if I said to him that he had to be home by 5 to pick up dd from a cm!

Faster If only. What with frozen wages for the past 3 years, redundancy looming for many and pensions being stolen out from under I was a bit thredders with the current Government before they started implying that my staying at home and providing stability was a sign that hubby & I don't want to 'get on' and don't aspire.

Karma

I have worked full time for last 5 years after being a sahm for years.

I dream about being one again.. It's wonderful. Working is very overrated.

Karma that does not make sense. He could still do his job if you worked but you would not be able to work the same hours as him. Plenty of single parents work and are responsible for all the drops offs and pick ups.

It's not impossible karma, I know families where both parents work and one is frequently away. It's usually means one working regular hours so doing all nursery drops and pick ups. Or a nanny or au pair arrangement. No one is saying its easy- just that it's possible. You chose to partner someone who works like that and presumably you're happy with the deal that you stay at home. It's horses for courses isn't it. No one is judging you for it. It's just a different situation to having two working parents who then have all the issues of childcare and other expenses alongside

*Karma8

I know where you are coming from, as my dh is the same. Working irregular hours is not possible if you both work.
I am sahm irrespective of this though, but have realised over the years how impossible it would be.
There are many that can't see this though, I don't really know why. Maybe its because it doesn't fit in with their perceived idea of how people live. Could you imagine conversation with your boss. "sorry can't come in this week dh just got a dep for a weeks tour in Japan". How the hell could you book childcare? I guess you would have to have it for any possible hours you would be needed whether you worked those hours or not.

Most nurseries open 7.30am - 6pm. If you had a job that fit within these hours, as many do, then it wouldn't matter where your DH was or what hours he was working.

Faster

If the posts on here are anything to go by, 2 parents working will be a thing of the past. Have you read how many people are saying they will lose their job because they can't afford childcare. Have you spoken to parents at the school gate, in the street, supermarket. They are seriously worried and getting ready to become sahp's.

Also assuming your children where older there are breakfast clubs, after school clubs and child minders. Of course it is your choice to stay at home rather than use these but it's not impossible to work if your DH works unsociable hours and your husband would not have to give up his job. As I said earlier I went to a Childminder as a child. My mum worked in the day and my dad worked shifts and nights (later my mum was on her own). I don't ever remember my dad taking us or picking us up but it didn't stop my mum from being able to work.

Obviously a forces family is different.

Morethan- a lot of childcare has to be paid for whether it's used or not. My kids nursery charged for 51 weeks of the year regardless of whether you used it. Nannies and au pairs offer more flexibility as stated above. Or one parent can compromise and work more regular hours. Or compromise and stay at home as others have chosen.
No one is saying its easy. Just that people don't suddenly find themselves out of the blue with a couple of kids and a partner working overseas.. We all make choices along the way (along with the unexpected things thrown into the mix)

Morethan employment is increasing. You would do well to read a qulity newspaper.

janey

But for some people it isn't possible to afford an au pair or nanny without leaving them out of profit. I'm sorry but if you do this and you have dc then you have a screw lose imo.
Nurseries charging for 51 weeks is fine if you are going to get anywhere near that. I was talking about somebody paying for childcare who would only need it very occasionally, and never know when this was going to be from one week to the next. You would be paying for a service you didn't really need. It wouldn't be workable.