Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
allnewtaketwo · 22/03/2013 21:20

DH and I both work full time and 1 of us always picks DS up from school. No need for either of us to be a SAHP at all

janey68 · 22/03/2013 21:20

That's fine karma if you want to be a SAHP when your children are at school. No one is arguing with that if its what suits you. This argument is about economics. You can't expect public funds to subsidise your choice

MmeThenardier · 22/03/2013 21:27

I'm not going to argue with that oneliein.

But I will maintain that families that earn £300k between them shouldn't be eligible for childcare vouchers. This is my biggest criticism of this scheme.

How does this help parents get back to work?

bumperella · 22/03/2013 21:32

Taxpayers' should not have to support people who choose not to work.
I am a SAHP, my choice, very fortunate to have been able to save hard before having DD, fortunate to ahve inexpensive tastes, fortunate that DH has a stable career, fortunate that I can do odds and sods of work on a consultancy basis which pays into a pension and for holidays but not much else.

Totally disagree that the personal tax-free allowance should be claimable by/transferable to your spouse; it's a personal allowance, not a married couple allowance.

Don't see why others' should financially support my decision not to have a better-paid job. But don't see why choosing not to be a 40% tax payer makes me a Bad Person who is unwilling to Work Hard and Get On either.

maisiejoe123 · 22/03/2013 22:53

Bumperella, Yes - I agree it is a personal allowance. Can you imagine nowadays if a government said they would allow a married couple allowance and that's the problem. What is a partner these days someone you live with for 6 months, 2 years. 2 weeks? Its all unmanageable...

jellybeans · 22/03/2013 23:26

Totally agree karmabeliever. When my youngest starts school I have no plans to go back to paid work for now. Before I had him I was a SAHM to school age for a while and was so busy still.. School soon figure out which parents can help in school and I was helping out a fair bit as well as studying, seeing elderly grandparents are other things. I was never bored ever! Plus my DH has his days off in the week so we have 'weekend' stuff to do on those days. I am hoping to do extra voluntary work though (not in school this time) and finish the last year of my degree though so probably won't have much time overall.

jellybeans · 22/03/2013 23:29

For people that say why should taxpayers support your choices, I have heard people say that about paying for childcare of those who make the'lifestyle choice' to have DCs.. If you know in advance how much childcare is then is there an argument that you chose to have your child so you should pay?

cloudy99 · 23/03/2013 00:49

Ok so I am effectively a sahm. Part time self employed. Dh is a hrt payer. We receive no child benefit. So bar ni credits please tell me how taxpayers are supporting me and my choice to stay home?
The only taxpayer supporting me is dh.
By the same logic it could also be argued that as a unit we are supporting lower income families who have their income topped up with tax credits and chb.

gaelicsheep · 23/03/2013 01:07

I've only got halfway through the thread so apologies if the point has been made. This " reward" of NI credits, as I understand it, merely prevents a SAHP from suffering a reduced pension by.filling in the missing years. It used to be called Home Responsibilities Protection. I don't believe it brings any other contribution based entitlement. Hardly a reward, more a basic human right.

gaelicsheep · 23/03/2013 01:18

Great posts by MmeThenardier.

An interesting contrast in language I have noticed a few times on this thread:

Family with a SAHP where earning partner gets a small amount of tax credit thereby reducing their tax bill :tax credit = a benefit

Family where parents earn nearly £300k between them and claiming childcare subsidy: childcare subsidy = tax reduction

These are two sides of the same coin. Talk about double standards people!

fedupofnamechanging · 23/03/2013 07:47

I never expected to be financially rewarded for staying home with my own dc. However I did view CB as a tax reduction for dh paid in recognition of the fact that children are both expensive and of benefit to society. The fact that everyone got it meant that both rich and poor were invested in the idea of a welfare state, because everyone was getting a little something back. In making it conditional, it pits people against each other. Meanwhile the Tories continue to cut everyone's income and essential benefits. But there's no one left to object because we're too busy bickering amongst ourselves to tackle the real source of our problems - the corrupt banking and political systems we have.

edwardsmum11 · 23/03/2013 07:58

Tbh I'm a sahm and don't understand the upset. Think the free place at 3 will be useful to his social development though.

WileyRoadRunner · 23/03/2013 08:06

None of it really matters.

If the Tories are re-elected they will scrap any childcare help for WOHP's too.

They will state that we should all be responsible for our own children.

Then the SAHM/ WOHM discussion will be irrelevant.

fedupofnamechanging · 23/03/2013 08:13

As for the transferable tax allowance, if dh's wage was split equally between the two of us, we would pay less tax on that and therefore have s higher income than we do with dh earning that same wage all by himself because of paying the higher tax rate. This is effectively penalizing me for being a sahp.

janey68 · 23/03/2013 08:14

The principle karma states is correct. Everyone needs to be invested
in the concept of the welfare state (even though obviously the main beneficiaries are the needy). The welfare state relies on people doing those high pressure, tough jobs as HR tax payers. It's so easy to knock families who have both parents on good incomes- even though those people are generating employment through childcare and paying loads into the pot.

The welfare state is a constant balancing act: talking care of the needy while simultaneously incentivising people to try to be independent of it. Govts have got this badly wrong in the past- many people trying to be independent have found that they are no better off (or only marginally better off) than if they stay at home, or work greatly reduced hours. What the economy needs right now is to encourage adults to work, and anything which supports families doing that is a good thing. God knows, there are enough 'barriers' which potentially act as a disincentive (the huge cost of childcare being one, transport another) that incentives are needed. At the end of the day, a family with a SAHP don't have these day to day expenses. Childcare is not a necessity: it is when you work.
And please don't anyone try to make out this is anti SAHM- each to their own, I have no problem with a parent staying home if they want, I just think they shouldn't begrudge families where both parents work.

Cabrinha · 23/03/2013 08:15

Startail - "some of us choose to bring up our own DCs".

You know that parents who choose (or have no choice) work + child care are still bringing their own children up, right?

My 4yo spends 4 long days a week at nursery where 5 highly qualified, committed and frankly lovely women help me to bring her up. But I'm still her primary carer, you know? I'm still bringing up my own child.

janey68 · 23/03/2013 08:21

Karma- cross posts there with your last post. The whole point is that if you and your dh were both working and between you earning what he currently brings in as sole earner, you would be talking about a totally different scenario. The man hours worked would be double- the two of you working, not one. You would have to pay for childcare which you currently don't. You would have increased transport costs, as you'd maybe have to run a second car or pay two season tickets. Believe me, If you were both working to bring in the same as your dh does now, I think you'd very quickly change your tune and realise why the govt is supporting families where both parents work

Original poster
catinboots · 23/03/2013 08:22

OP here

Oh blimmin heck I really didn't want to start a bin fight.

From my in depth skim and scan read of the thread, it seems it's not about the money? It's about the societal recognition and general respect from the Tory party?

I think that's the bit that has shocked me so much... I though we all just muddled along doing what we need/have/want/choose to do.

Fucking arf that people feel they need approval from a load of politicians. Really? You're going to sleep sounder tonight because George Osborne is ok with the way you've chosen to lead your life?

I couldn't give a hoot if him or any of the other clowns had anything to say about me and my family choices. Yes, I'm pissed at anything the govt does that affects me - but really? Will I lose sleep of their or society's 'valuation' of me and my role???

Nope

And I say that as a FT WOHP. Previously being a FT benefit claiming SAHP and pretty much covered all of the bases in between....

OP posts:
Yama · 23/03/2013 08:32

I see the old 'divide and conquer' Tory strategy is working.

fedupofnamechanging · 23/03/2013 08:36

janey, I don't in truth have an issue with financing childcare for working parents. I do feel it is unnecessary to do so for very high earning parents though, just as I feel it is unfair that 2 people earning 49k each get to keep cb, but a single earner getting 60k loses theirs. It's about double standards and fairness.

How many hours of work a couple would need to do, in order to generate the same salary dh currently earns isn't relevant because the end result is still the same. Also high paying jobs tend to involve very long hours/lots of time away from home. In truth I think dh is probably working my 'share' already.

It's also impossible to generalise about expenses generated by jobs. A lot of people find it very expensive on terms of travel costs etc, but others get company financed cars or work from home or have lots of support.

janey68 · 23/03/2013 08:36

I agree, the 'recognition ' and 'value' issue puzzles me too. If you want to stay at home, do it Because you want to. Don't look to anyone outside your family (especially politicians!) to validate your choice. It ain't gonna happen and neither should you need it!

fedupofnamechanging · 23/03/2013 08:38

Again, it's more about not being negatively judged and financially penalised, rather than being positively valued by politicians!

Partridge · 23/03/2013 08:39

All the not giving shiny shits/flying figs/rats arses is really cool and all - but I happen to sometimes feel a bit vulnerable and would like to feel valued. Sorry if that makes me really pathetic, like.

Partridge · 23/03/2013 08:44

I'm not expecting statements from the government about value but equally not demoralising and patronising rhetoric that validates those who think all sahp are lazy good fer nothings.

janey68 · 23/03/2013 08:50

I really think 99% of this 'SAHP are lazy good for nothings ' is in people's imagination. Where, for example, have you seen that on this thread?
The reality is that the vast majority of people believe its fine to stay at home if it suits you and your partner and it's affordable. All they take issue with is that SAHP should expect the exact same financial 'advantages' as WOHP. And to me, the huge irony is that WOHP have far more expense than SAHP (unless of course they use relatives as child minders and don't pay them anything- but frankly we can't legislate for individual family scenarios. I would feel terrible earning a wage and expecting someone to care for my precious children for nothing- but that's what some families do and that's their business)