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?..

The "hard working families" rhetoric must be deliberate - seeking to make people think that those who are poor and /or not working and paying tax are lazy.

The rhetoric about - and policy on - people on benefits is worse. They are, for example, telling many seriously ill and disabled people who are unfit to work that they must work or do "work-related activity" and cutting benefits.

Read some interesting stuff recently about how average wages have been getting lower and will continue to do so in relative terms, there are lots of low-paid jobs, a few very highly paid jobs, with not much in between, so more people are less well off. Think the economists call it "hollowing out" of the labour market. And there are huge problems looming with paying ever-growing costs for the elderly with fewer taxpayers.

Politicians also use the line that "they (teachers, nurses, whoever they want to do down) earn more than the average wage" (as if that meant being rich). And use a low average wage as a benchmark for policy.

making out that all we have to do is be "hard-working" and content with being "average" (low paid), and dividing people distracts people from scrutinising?

Karma me too

Mine also knows not to ask how much all dds activities/ lessons come to coz he knows he wouldn't want them to stop.

Working parents - ignore the smug SAHP's who are saying you arent raising your own children. Its nonsense to say that... Honestly I have heard it all now - get childcare costs paid when I dont need any childcare - they would just like some dosh in my hands to feel 'validated' ie. paid by others for their choices.

And all this talk about transferring tax allowances. Sorry but if you are not working you effectively have nothing tax wise to transfer and it would be a nightmare to regulate, with boyfriends, partners, husbands, gay relationships etc etc.

I saw on another thread that SAHP's are complaining that day is taken up with school runs (home by 0900 I guess!), cooking and housework, followed by shopping and of course a trip to the gym! Well we all do those tasks (apart from the gym!) I think the SAHM's need to get a grip, unless you have a personal assitant, cleaner and supermarket shopper parents who work also need to do these tasks!

Can someone correct me, do SAHP's get NI credits (which are the same thing as paying NI without the cost)?

I believe Sahp gets NI credits towards pension, but it is not the same as what you contribute when working because it doesn't give you the same entitlement to say contributions based benefits if you suddenly decided to return to work but couldn't find a job and wanted to claim jsa.

The issue here it seems is that people want to make a choice - stay at home. But still want the benefits working parents have. It just wont happen and if everyone thought this way the country would be bankrupt.

Some are claiming 'they have paid their taxes'. Well tax doesnt work like that, if it did can I opt out of the NHS and state education because I dont use it.

I know we are all living longer and there is a group of growing people who have never worked and never intend to for whatever reason, be that feckless, lazy or dare I say it SAHP's. They are increasing becoming 'entitled' to what others have, dont pay NI (because you arent working) but still have the same benefits pension wise.

Well, someone is paying for that sense of entitlement.

Its rubbish that a SAPM feels they need to be paid for their choices. If you choose to have 3-4 children of course your choice but unless you are a higher earner you are unlikely to afford childcare. There is a booming market for childcare which keeps people in child care jobs. A SAMP would undertake this role therefore saying that they are contributing to the economy doesnt make sense.

Masiejoe

There is also the argument that it is a choice for 2 parents to work, many don't even work out of necessity and under these circumstances their choice to fund a particular lifestyle shouldn't be subsidised, especially if a sahp choice of lifestyle isn't subsidised.

I don't expect to be paid for looking after my own dc. However I do not want to be portrayed as a lazy sponger!I support my dh who would be unable to do what he does if I wasn't doing what I do and he pays shit loads of tax (enough to cover my ni contributions, which are the only 'benefits' I receive). That benefit doesn't actually entitle me to much.

I would just like what I do to not be viewed as a waste of time. It's not so much about wanting validation from others, but more about not wanting to he actively looked down on or discriminated against for the choices dh and I made to enable our family to function in the best way for us.

FWIW, in real life I don't know anyone who would say to a wohp that they are not raising their own kids.

Well said Karma

I said this on the other thread, but for the record.

SOME REASONS WHY A SAHP MIGHT NEED CHILDCARE
Disabled children
PND
Elderly parents needing care
Studying
Retraining
Looking for a job
Setting up a business

As responses I had 'but those last four aren't SAHPs'. Well, as far as this government is concerned they are. They aren't working more than 16 hours a week or paying tax. And neither will they be able to either, since they won't be able to afford the childcare!

Maisie joe 123 do you seriously think that if you can afford private education you should be receiving help with childcare costs? Just in the same way that if we can afford for me to be a sahm (which would cost roughly the same as the school fees for our children, btw) we shouldn't receive government tax breaks either. I am not, nor have I ever suggested I should have free childcare. Ironically, we are paying for rather expensive childcare. I am not always good value. But there you go. Luckily the government has seen sense and made sure that we will no longer get child benefit. Shame it hasn't also worked out that there are plenty of people who genuinely won't need the assistance with childcare either.

I work because if not we would literally not be able to pay our mortgage.
We have never had any childcare help because although we would be entitled to it have to share childcare due to shift work and our dd had special feeding and medicine requirements for her first year.
We won't benefit at all from new payments as she's two already but I'm not bothered at all, you know why?
Because they are my children and I chose to have them.
It is up to me and dh to take care if them and pay for anything they may need including childcare.
Now there's a revelation!!

I don't think anyone has said you are a waste of time karma. And
I think its absolutely up to individual families to decide
Whether they want a parent to stay at home. Its not about looking down on anyone. But at the end of the day, someone who isn't working shouldn't expect public funds to pay them for their choice. And the fact that someone's partner is paying shed loads of tax
Isn't relevant. Where do you draw the line: 'my father paid lots
Of tax, therefore I'm owed something in return?'
I know couples who both have high flying careers, so it is possible to manage it, usually by employing a nanny, outsourcing
Other jobs like cleaning, and working damn hard. It's
Not a life style that suits all, which is why some couples prefer to have one parent at home to make life smoother for the jet setting partner. That's a choice. They can't then expect to have all the subsidies which are available to couples in other situations.

Oh god. Here we go again.

Pay your taxes or expect no pension. Seems simple to me.

*Cremeggkr8

Wow, I think you have just proved there is an exception to the rule. I think the majority of 2 parent working families receive some sort of childcare subsidy.

I also felt like this when our first was born, but was determined to be a sahm, because it was right for us and it was what i believed in. We didn't have any help when our older 2 were little. Then tax credits came in and we have a small amount in top ups. Its nowhere near a wage though, and shouldn't be imo.

Oneliein

That's a bit general isn't it. I have been a sahm for 20+ years and have an excellent pension. In fact i may decide to retire soon, live off my pension, having not worked for 20+ years.
Why do so mnay people think that everybody can be fit into a little box, categorised by the choices they make in life. You must be like x because you wohm or x because you are a sahm. it's ridiculous.

Blimey morethan- you seem to be intent on making this all about you. Just because you might retire soon and live off your fabulous pension doesn't mean that applies to everyone else. Read the stats. A frighteningly large proportion of women DON'T have even adequate pension provision , let alone enough for a pleasurable retirement . And as tens of thousands have been knocked off many private pensions value in recent years, the situation is bad for many people who have paid into a pension sensibly. I'd love to know who your amazing pension is with , which seems to have gone against market trends (dont worry- you don't need to divulge )
But seriously, this isnt about putting anyone in a box. It's about acknowledging the fundamental principle that people who aren't working cannot seriously expect to have access to everything that working people do.

I don't get why dual income families who are earning high salaries are more entitled to state money than single income families. They are not working for the good of the nation, but because it suits them. I think it would be fairer to cap child care payments from the state at the same level at which child benefit ceases to be paid.

What state money do high earning families get? Other than child benefit if both on just under 50k? The only thing I'm aware of (but don't receive) is childcare vouchers which reduce tax bill

A SAHP does not need childcare, commuting
Costs, they often dont need to run a second car- all massive expenses. Our childcare was our biggest bill for years- outweighed the mortgage easily. I can see exactly why many dual income families need support.

More than - can I ask, how can you have an excellent pension having not worked for 20 plus years..... I will have an excellent pension but will have worked for 40 yrs to afford and I am a higher rate tax payer on a final salary pension

I would love to shop in Chanel and buy all their skincare (need the really serious stuff!) but I cant afford it. Its how it is.

And yes, we have opted out of the state system for education but still pay taxes to support it. Its just the way it is. Maybe I should be claiming my money back for not using it. Its what some SAHM parents seem to want... Use my DH's contributions and then I can claim from that, what about your next door neighbour or your parents. Tax doesnt work like that.

It's the contradictory messages put out by the government that I feel are really irritating people.

Child benefit removed from families when one partner earns more than £60k because those families are too wealthy to need help.

Help with childcare is being put in place because without it parents who want to work aren't able to, but made available to families bringing in up to £300k. It should be in place to help those who actually need it.

There are plenty of parents who stay home to take care of their children, but do freelance work in the evenings to bring in extra cash. These mums (and dads) might not need childcare, but could certainly do with a break.

Karma the reason why dual income parents are getting this tax break is that they are contributing more tax wise. There are some posts about £300k dual income families. I really dont know anyone who is in this situation so its a bit of a red herring.

Choose to stay at home and have lots of children but dont expect the tax payers to fund this CHOICE....

Good god, a family where both parents earn £149k are no doubt working their arses off, creating employment through having a nanny, cleaner etc
And will be paying far more in tax than they'll ever re- coup through any benefits. And tbh I bet there are very few families like this throughout the UK. Hats off to them. I wouldn't want that pressure. Why is there so much resentment towards them?

Peace and love.

With regard to private education. We both work precisely to afford this option. Why do people think that if you can afford private ed you can afford everything and have money to burn.

Who are you to judge this. What about people who have two cars, who choose to smoke, where will it stop? What about the people who choose to have 3 plus children will little ability to afford and support them. What about the feckless who live off benefits from a young age. If all the private ed pupils went back into the state system it will collapse...