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]

I think this has raised some interesting discussion about the concept of 'unfair'.
Many workers have had pay cuts. Many people are doing the same job, or working even harder, as they were 2 years ago for less money than they got then. Meanwhile their rent, childcare and other bills have increased. So putting it into context, it's difficult to feel sympathetic about the loss of something which was never earned money but a benefit. And I speak as a family who no longer receive CB

There will always be some people who resent the fact that dual income families may earn more overall but still get CB, but tbh if you've ever paid nursery fees you will understand exactly why dual earners might need it.

No Goldenbear, I don't think I'm missing the point. I think I've got a very good grasp of the fundamental issue which is that some SAHP are offended because they perceive that their home work has not been acknowledged by the government and that they should be paid for staying at home and parenting. It just won't happen. The economy is on its knees as it is.

Little chickpea, as I said in my post earlier, working parents' contribution to the economy is valued by the gov't (as well as you) and they subsidise childcare for them. A household who provide the childcare themselves is penalised. Are they not contributing to the economy long term? If a parent has a career break they can still contribute at a future date for many years, and they are contributing in other ways. The economy is not the be all and end all. What about other outcomes? Why is the model of two working parents with children in paid daycare the one that should be subsidised? Why can't all parents receive a universal benefit to put towards childcare if parents work, or household expenses when parents sacrifice their own salary in the short-term?

I am not stinking rich but I have lost CB....

Yes cos they charge us the same for wine

You're suggesting a universal slush fund for housewives cause they gave up work
If one chose to get by on one wage,it's their choice I'm not minded to pay mums latte fund
There is universal free 15hr per week nursery at 3yo

maisiejoe

Its all relevant, to me you are stinking rich, but i am not meaning it nastily, as money isn't important to me beyond basics and a bit more. We would have to earn a lot more before our cb was stopped
I'm from the old school of not got much, don't earn much but everything is owned. just the way it worked for us.
I

From an economic point of view we have employed a childminder and nursery and those workers have been kept in employment because of my need. The SAHP is undertaking the role themseles through choice. I really don't see how and who is going to pay them for this choice in the current climate

I would be quite happy with the idea of a universal benefit. An amount could be paid to all adults which would cover the absolute basics and no more, with any earnings on top of that. It would be far better than tax credits and would incentivise people in that the more they work, the more they get to keep. Bring it on!

But I have a feeling we'd still have some SAHM moaning because dual income families would earn more...

To clarify- I mean a universal benefit for all adults, not just parents.

Errr no Janey not if they're earning over 60k,that is deemed as wealthy so sorry more than enough to pay for childcare particularly if you factor in the lower tax taken off too.

Lets not forget single income families have the same pay freezes,costs etc and if on 50-60k it's pointless doing overtime as it'll get taxed 40% and will cause a bigger loss of CB.

It is utterly unfair single income families losing CB when dual keep it.Nobody has been able to justify it.

maisiejo, we can afford for me to not work (just), because we live very cheaply. We rent a very small house, and drive one knackered old car. We don't really have holidays, except maybe the odd long weekend with family. I scour the second hand shops looking for good quality clothes. We meal plan carefully and our dc don't do every activity going. We manage. Our bills have increased considerably too. Our land lord has put the rent up and dh's commuter costs are astronomical. Life isn't always a bed of roses.

'latte fund' - DP pays for that.

Am happy with that Janey

Scottish, yes those wicked, wicked people giving up work to look after their babies full time- what were they thinking these wicked parents?

Good- glad we agree

You've chosen to live on that one wage George?50k isn't breadline
If it isn't enough retrain,study towards a Wage
Can't have it both way chosing to live on one £50k wage but complaining it's not enough

I have every sympathy for sahm who want to be in paid employment but cant find it. I don't have any sympathy for sahm who have chosen not to work. I really don't understand what your problem is.

I said this near the beginning of this thread I think?

What would seem unfair to me would be if a sahp was actively seeking work, had to attend an interview and really did have nobody to mind the dc. I think this would be discriminatory. I'm suggesting for this reason a sahp should receive subsidised childcare but I do think there should be something in place for times such as this, and awarded on individual merit. I never have wanted to work but even if I had it would have been difficult. When our dc were little we were in a new area, not built up friendships/ people we could trust. We had no family near at all and dh worked away a lot. How on earth would somebody in this position be able to attend interviews? Also on min wage couldn't have afforded nanny or cm.

I think sahp should have NI paid for, you know for those that don't claim benefits.

I just watched 16 and counting lastnight and was appalled at family on benefits, whilst those who work harde get taxed more and when you are in a position where you can afford I e not to work you are still at risk of losing NHs and possible, if anything left, a pension. It is mostly women in this position too.

scottishmummy can you quit with the 'housewife' it makes you sound stuck in the 1950's?

sorry should read not suggesting

And George that is your choice. Of course it is. However it wouldn't be my choice, so there we have it. I choose to work full time without a break. Consequently we can afford more but my life isn't a bed of roses either.

Even the very wealthy have issues (and I don't mean me!) You only need to look a lottery winners to see that money doesn't always bring happiness!

I still don't understand why the government want both parents in work. Obviously, they will generate more tax for the exchequer, but seriously there is a serious shortage of jobs. We hear this on the news every day. Surely, it would be better if parents, where one is a high earner didn't both work in order for there to be more jobs for families where no one is in paid employment. Surely if a family can manage on a single income of 50k, then wouldn't it be better, if the other job was freed up for a family where both parents earn nothing. If all stay at home mothers, married to high earning husbands go back to work tomorrow, will we not end up with a situation with some very rich families, not really in need of two incomes and some very poor families desperate for one job?

The fact is mums and babies/children want to be together/need to be together and this attitude of who gives a shit,let's do nothing because I went to work is selfish.

Basically the view on here is every mum should put their babies into nursery and that is that,nobody is even bothered to try and facilitate enabling the mothers who want to be with their tiny children. The only reason I can see why is resentment towards sahp.