Are SAHMS discriminated against. Red magazine are doing an article about it.

[Darkesteyes]

Just seen this on twitter.

Are stay at home mums discriminated against? Are you one and unhappy with benefits, or feel judged? Tell us.
[email protected]

Oops that was to Georgeosborne

I'm discussing your poor discussion style bolding a name and shaking metaphorical fist
I'm not belittling housewives I'm stating obvious being at home isn't equivalent of work
The skills if being housewife aren't necessarily comparable to working

There seem to be many articles in the papers over the last few days suggesting otherwise and that single income families pay more tax than any other OECD country.

Also, that dual income families pay less tax than their counterparts in other OECD countries.

I just want my husband to pay the same amount of tax as two people earning the same salary. After all, we are a family unit. He works hard, stays away from home and often does very long hours

My DF and I work hard, stay away from home and often work long hours.... I think we should get taxed the same as four people earning the same combined salary as us... after all, I support him and he supports me as we are a family unit too.

Maisiejoe, you clearly haven't met my SIL- 'disorganised' because she is a SAHM? She is a qualified accountant and is responsible for their investment portfolio. She doesn't volunteer for anything though.

Yes Georgeosborne I get that. But that doesn't make it discriminatory. It's a system you don't agree with. If you were to get a job, you would be taxed as an individual, and you still wouldnt get CB (though ironically you would have a sudden whoosh in outgoings with childcare)
So it's not about being a SAHM per se. It's the principle of individual taxation, and as much as you may not like it, there are many people who uphold it as an important principle, that people are individuals in their own right and not an appendage to someone else

Actually littlechick makes a good point. It sounds facetious but if we're working on that principle, why shouldn't 2 earners be taxed the same as 4 earners making the same overall income. After all, 2 workers are working twice the amount of 1.

I get where you're coming from janey, but what you're saying simply reinforces to me that removing child benefit from me, based on my husbands tax status is kind of hypocritical don't you think?

Didn't someone state that as her DH was a tax payer she was one too... We have fought hard to be classed as individuals. Now some want to go back to being part of someone to enable them to gain some money.

Georgeosborne- as I've already said elsewhere, I disagree fundamentally that CB was ever attached to the mother and not both parents. I guess it's a throwback to the old days, but really it should be in the name of both parents of the child. Now thats discrimination, that it is in the mothers name only.

Happy nappies, and Ihategeorgeosbourne, I agree with you. The biggest discriminator of SAHPs is the government itself. I don't expect childcare help, I don't now, and never have used childcare. I am a SAHM who also runs a small home based business. I have absolutely no problem with childcare help for low earners, infact I think it's essential. The problem is the new childcare tax breaks will benefit high earners, while completely missing the people who really need the help.

The government motto of 'This is a budget for those who work hard and get on' is both patronising and offensive. On top of looking after three kids and running my business, my husband works full time, and we both do voluntary work, including running a Cub pack, a kids football team, helping the PTA, and being vice chairman of the school governors.
We are not even close to being high earners, but this government is telling us by their actions that we are not 'working hard and getting on' .
So much for their Big Society. That seems to have been conveniently forgotten about!

High incomes (one person or joint income) shouldn't get CB. CB should go to low income families to support them get back to work or make up the difference if on low pay. I have little sympathy for people on high incomes that have had their CB removed. They should never have received it in the first place, they don't need it in the same way low income families do.

on thread housewives vociferously assert not kept women
But yet there call to be jointly categorized via tax as same unit,not individuals
In order to shuffle money about for benefit of prosperous dh

I agree chickpea, then the government need to stop paying it to families on a joint income of to 100k. If they had done this from the start, I very much doubt that it would have resulted in the resentment that families earning considerably less are feeling now. Also Budgie, agree 100% .

scottish, I am not a kept woman. My husband does paid employment. I look after our children. Some might refer to it as a partnership between husband and wife. Although, I appreciate that to some I may sound very old fashioned, but that's what I believe marriage and children is about.

If the government want to tax my husband as an individual, then they have no right to remove my child benefit, as I earn nothing. Can't have it both ways.

I personally think everyone should get CB (I know that's not a popular idea) but just because some are higher earners doesn't mean that they don't have financial problems.

DP earns just over the threshold for CB so a proportion is taken from us. £80 a month makes the difference between me affording an extra days childcare so I can get out there and work.

That should be two extra days childcare

Yes they do need to stop paying it to any couple hitting the single wage boundery but logistically this is defficult. But parents that are both in work should receive more financial support for child care than families were one parent is at home. No need for child care support when one parent is at home.

Also Scottish, what's with all this prosperous crap? A family of 5 on a single income of 50k is hardly rolling in it.

But do you not agree that the child benefit should be as much the fathers as the mothers, given that it is recognition of the financial cost of having children, and the father is the other, equal parent?
The fact that it was ever in the mothers name and not both is historical

How is it difficult Chickpea? Other benefits are means tested based on household income. Why not child benefit?

Exactly osbourne,you earn nothing.cb eligibility is based on total household income
Your dh exceed the eligibility tariff,so cb removed
I don't think the prosperous need cb,it should be redistributed to those in need

janey, I think it was an appendage of the married mans tax allowance. Was there not issues with feckless husband spending away the children's allowance down the pub?

If the government want to tax my husband as an individual, then they have no right to remove my child benefit, as I earn nothing

So are you saying that tax payers should pay you a wage for choosing to stay at home and look after your own children? I think most tax payers would rather keep their hard earned cash and spend it on their own children.