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
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

460 replies

catinboots · 21/03/2013 22:26

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?..

OP posts:
HappyMummyOfOne · 23/03/2013 15:23

Now FrillyMilly, thats just common sense but am sure there will be a reason why they cant work within those hours. Not to mention its then unlikely that the household would get WTC.

Morethan, none of my working friends at school or work are worried about losing their jobs or getting ready to become SAHMs due to childcare. Why would they? Threat of redundancy is what most people fear, childcare will alwys be available just as it always has been.

Many people dont need it as they swap with friends, work around partners, school hours etc. People can be very resourceful when they are putting a roof over their chidrens heads as they dont have the sense of entitlement that others have nowadays. This thread shows that perfectly, people wanting childcare benefits yet not working, people claiming top ups yet perfectly capable of working or those that cant work as its too much for both adults to do so Hmm

morethanpotatoprints · 23/03/2013 15:30

Faster.

I read quality newspapers, but am also blessed with enough intelligence to take their content with a pinch of salt Grin

morethanpotatoprints · 23/03/2013 15:32

*Happymummy8

A good range of choices there, you should be pleased we have them.

fedupofnamechanging · 23/03/2013 15:34

I don't want to work full time and do everything else too. The solution to that is for dh to have a lower paid, less intense job and for me to have the same, so we could split everything equally. Don't fancy our chances of both finding those jobs and that would still involve using childcare, which neither of us wanted to do. Our only way to avoid childcare was for dh to work as he does and for me to take care of the dc.

Other people have different priorities and I appreciate that they work hard to make it all run smoothly. But for me, I dont want a nanny or nursery. I am not making value judgements about other people's choices and I just want to not feel negatively judged and financially held back (as a family unit) because of mine.

fedupofnamechanging · 23/03/2013 15:41

Actually, thinking about this I have come to the conclusion that no one should pay 40% tax. Then it wouldn't matter who was earning what within a family unit because the tax threshold wouldn't be discriminatory towards sahp.

I also think cb should be based on household income rather than being based on a single earner.

I wouldn't have any issue with subsidising child care for whoever needed it.

morethanpotatoprints · 23/03/2013 15:50

Karma

I believe you and I think similarly Smile. I never wanted to work and we both don't like childcare neither, for us.
There is no way I would make my dd go to school now, she's having too much fun at home. Wraparound care just wouldn't be acceptable for her neither as she wouldn't get to her lessons and activities.
I am really glad we live as we do and am not really bothered how gov or anybody else finds our arrangement.
All that matters is that you make the right choices for your family and are happy in life. Sod what anybody else thinks. Grin
Governments come and go, but families are constant, well in my view anyway.

FasterStronger · 23/03/2013 16:45

Morethan that is a surprise. might I suggest you take a little more notice of them, then you might improve your understanding of economics before you comment endlessly on it.

janey68 · 23/03/2013 16:58

Morethan and karma- sounds like you're happy with your choices and
Don't want to work anyway, so I don't see the problem. I do find it a little wearing though, that it seems to be impossible for some posters to state their own preference without denigrating someone else's. I refer
To the comment that people must have a 'screw loose' to work when all their income goes on childcare. I did that for a couple of years and I know many others who did the same... It's not a decision I regret for a moment. I wouldnt say someone has a 'screw loose' for not working, so it would be nice to be afforded the same respect in return, but hey ho....

janey68 · 23/03/2013 17:02

And morethan, I have to concur with the comment about your grasp of economics. You seem to have a very odd perception of what's happening in the job market at the moment. Werent you the person who told us a few pages back that you have a gold plated pension even though you haven't worked for over 20 years... Interesting that your pension has managed to buck the economic trends, but .. There you go..

allnewtaketwo · 23/03/2013 17:31

I don't see how anyone who sent their children to an after school club they hated feels they can advise others on what's best for children Hmm. And as for doing so because they felt pressurised by society Confused. What parent in their right mind acts against their instincts due to what they think society dictates. Mind boggling. Can't take anyone's views seriously when they've thought this way.

gaelicsheep · 23/03/2013 17:36

OMG I cannot even be bothered to waste my time reading this. Honestly people get a grip! As I said earlier, a tax reduction is a tax reduction, not a benefit. Whether it is claimed by rich two earner families to tip the nanny or by a normal earner family out of tax paid by the main earner. Just because a family is not rich does not make this magically a "benefit" nor does it makes the person in receipt of the money a lazy scrounger.

As for childcare costs, those who need help - for whatever reason, be it illness, retraining, or having to have two earners to keep a roof over their heads - should get it. Those who do not need help - ie those for whom the second income funds a massive house, multiple holidays and fancy hairdos - should not get it.

End of argument as far as I'm concerned.

janey68 · 23/03/2013 17:40

Allnew- I agree, I was pretty shocked by that admission, although it does at least explain to an extent why morethanpotatoprints is so angry with herself and everyone else.

janey68 · 23/03/2013 17:41

Oops- beg pardon it was weewifey- apologies to more thanpotatoprints

allnewtaketwo · 23/03/2013 17:43

A tax credit is NOT a tax reduction. It bears no relation to tax paid, and in many cases exceeds tax paid. It is a benefit paid by the state (as opposed to offset against tax) to top up low salaries

maisiejoe123 · 23/03/2013 18:15

Hello! The thread has moved on hasnt it and what on earth is weewifey talking about!

All this spouting about how the majority of children are better off with one parent at home... Fine - but are you sure you want to be reliant on one person to support your choice to stay at home. Divorce rates have never been higher and common law relationships with children fare even worse in terms of splits.

By all means weewifey - go back to the 1950's where you keep the home spick and span but watch out - life sometimes has a knack of throwing us curve balls....

maisiejoe123 · 23/03/2013 18:20

And I would love to know how someone who hasnt worked for 20 odd years gets a gold plated pension... Funny - they made this statement with no evidence of how it has been achieved.

Be warned I know a lot about pensions so any nonsense will be spotted....

janey68 · 23/03/2013 18:23

It's not just the fact that divorce might happen- its the fact that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence either way- that childcare is negative or positive. And hardly surprising really. There are so many variables that it would be pretty impossible to carry out Meaningful and useful research.
That's why posts like weewifeys are just ridiculous. It's as absurd as if I were to say 'me going out to work is better for my children, therefore you should all do it'.
I have never claimed that me going out to work will make my child better in any way. Neither do I think it is negative. The only claims I make for my work are the ones which are irrefutable: ie it adds another dimension to my life outside home and hobbies, it's fulfilling, it provides opportunities which I wouldn't get outside it, oh and the money and security of a pension are nice too. End of. I wouldn't dream of being so offensive as to tell other mums they ought to do what I do.

maisiejoe123 · 23/03/2013 18:40

Janey - I agree! Having a close relative who is a SAHM - well she spends the whole time fussing and worrying about all sorts of nonsense. She is married to someone wealthy and doesnt need to do ANYTHING round the house, its all taken care of.

Yet, she still complains, her child is a spolit princess who she hovers over from morning to night and who rules the house!

It takes all sorts, just because for you wifey it works doesnt mean it is right for everyone.

morethanpotatoprints · 23/03/2013 18:43

I find it hilarious that whenever anybody says something that some others don't agree with they are told they don't know about economics.
I don't have a pension and so do I know enough about pensions to have become involved in a pension plan. I have seen many a person lose their pension when companies went bust. As I haven't worked for an employer also I have none from that area neither. You don't have to have a pension plan to have made provision for retirement and be able to fund a living.
As for my grasp of the job market, I have read posts on here of people stating they will have to leave their job due to not affording childcare. I also have friends who have expressed concerns and can't find a way round the situation. Maybe it won't be too many people but be assured people will leave work if they can't afford childcare and have no extended family to provide childcare.

janey68 · 23/03/2013 18:48

Ah right, you don't have a pension after all. But you're one of those SAHM who hasn't worked for decades but has absolute watertight provision for the rest of your life...

mam29 · 23/03/2013 18:50

are their not pensions you can pay privatly like life insurance without needing to be in work?

maisiejoe123 · 23/03/2013 18:51

I agree to a certain extent around provision for retirement but some people on this thread on totally reliant on their OH supporting their choices and that I think is dangerous... Its funny how a working father who loves his wife not to work as it gives him time to totally concentrate on his career suddenly states that it is not so acceptable when he moves onto to someone else.

Of course I wouldnt wish that on anyone but I have had breakups - who hasnt.

And of course some women have NO provision at all for retirement.

mam29 · 23/03/2013 18:52

or could be refering to savings stocks, bonds or property most peoples pensions.

maisiejoe123 · 23/03/2013 18:54

Could be inherited money perhaps Janey.... But to get a gold plated pension you need to put the years in. You cannot not work for 20 yrs and still get that pension provision. Who is paying for it? Certainly not you

And be careful about money that you 'assume' will come to you. Sometimes it doesnt, wills are read that reveal surprises, relationships break down, shares lose their value despite being a 'sure thing'

janey68 · 23/03/2013 18:54

Have you looked at what's happened to people's savings recently?

Swipe left for the next trending thread