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]

[scottishmummy]

Don't make me laugh the housewives are 1st dish out the precious moments and daft quips
They disadvantage selves by leaving job market,and being dependent upon waged partner

[Kazooblue]

Well. I think that is tosh Janey,highly unfair and yes discriminates sahp.

Love your ideal scenario that suits your life just fine and dandy and makes families on a lot less who often pay more to the state even worse off.

Jeez the selfish attitude of some.

And again what about the actual children involved?Anybody care to facility an upbringing that is preferable and beneficial to many.As. I said before childcare does not suit all families or children but hey as long as. Janey gets what she wants.

[OrWellyAnn]

Rain, can i just say that you seem to be speaking a lot of sense and very eloquently. :o

[FasterStronger]

Kazoo - non transferable tax allowances don't discriminate against SAHP because no one can transfer unused tax allowance.

so a couple earning 45k and 25k cannot transfer say 5k to have 40 k and 30k so remain in the 20% tax bracket.

[janey68]

Kazoo- rather than spouting emotional
Claptrap and insults, why not try to explain exactly what is discrimatory about it?
And as far as choosing a family set up which suits your family- well yes, precisely, that's up to every family isn't it? If you don't want to use Childcare, and you prefer to stay home and support your dh in his high flying career then presumably you've made the choice you want: I could equally level the cheap jibe at you : what kazoo wants kazoo gets!
I could have stayed home and let my husband climb the dizzy heights
If I'd wanted, but we chose instead to both earn more modest amounts and both have more equal input with the house and children. Horses for courses isn't it.

[Kazooblue]

Already have.

[stopgap]

I've experienced zero discrimination/resentment for being a SAHM. I'm in America (NYC) so maybe attitudes are different. Not that I've expected anything of the sort, but I've been commended for wanting to stay at home during the early years, which could well relate to the fact that nannying in NYC, by and large, is an utter shitshow.

[janey68]

Exactly fasterstronger.
You can guarantee if personal tax allowances were transferable, the first people to whinge would be the SAHM bleating that dual earners were transferring part of their allowance to get the maximum advantage !

[FasterStronger]

SAHP get pension credits worth about 2k per year.
WOHP get childcare assistance to 2.4k per year.

different but very similar in value.

[Kazooblue]

"Bleating" what's with the rude and patronising language?

[FasterStronger]

Kazoo - do you have any comments on my posts about transferable tax allowances and pension credits?

or not?

[Francagoestohollywood]

I totally agree with Janey68 post at 9.31. And I am a sahm most of the time.

[Goldenbear]

MaisieJoe, in some family units where there is one SAHP and one person working, the tax being paid by that individual is more than the combined income tax generated by two parents going out to work. My brother pays 50% tax and his wife is a SAHM. Based on your rationale they shouldn't qualify for childcare vouchers because the mother does not generate an income. However, as a family unit my SIL's SAH status accommodates the demands of my brother's career who in turn generates an income of which a considerable amount of tax is deducted, contributing to chilcare vouchers for those who probably don't generate as much income tax. They have never used the vouchers but frankly it is obscene to think my family is contributing towards chilcare vouchers for people on a combined income of £299,999 under Cameron's new reforms!

If we had Income-splitting tax system, SAHP's would be less discriminated against because their status would have some value - it would not all be about the person who generates an income. It is evident from this thread that income generated is what defines a person and that it is a valid definition??

[rainrainandmorerain]

(OrWellyAnn, you are most kind. And have great judgement )

[FasterStronger]

golden it is obscene to think my family is contributing towards chilcare vouchers for people on a combined income of £299,999 under Cameron's new reforms!

this is not true.

2 x 150 kpa salaries = a total of 120k tax per annum. you are not paying anything for them, they are paying it themselves (and quite rightly so)

[tilder]

Well this didn't take long to descend into a sah/wah issue.

FWIW, I've never seen or heard people that I know being derogatory about being a sahp.

Do I feel sahp are discriminated against? I guess a lot depends on whether you feel the tax and benefit system discriminates against those who don't earn a wage but perform a role, so could include all voluntary stuff like caring, clubs, charities etc as well as sahp.

As regards returning to work, I think a sahp needs to be realistic. Several years out means you are unlikely to be able to return at an equivalent level, means your qualifications and experience may be out of date etc. There is also a perception that many sahp looking for work want part time work that is flexible re school times and holidays. All these can, rightly or wrongly, make an employer think twice.

Is that discrimination? I honestly think a lot is due to practical realities of the workplace and sometimes unrealistic expectation. Sorry.

[HappyMummyOfOne]

Dads get a raw deal as many women wont even consider swapping and returning to work whilst the male stays home. Many consider it their right to not work whilst the man goes out with the responsibility of being the only income earner. Many believe only one adult can work and deem themselves indespensible and couldnt possibly be expected to work too.

SAHM's may not be first choice job wise for employers but no different that others that have no recent work experience.

UC tighteng up allowing people the choice of not working will be good for the economy and our future children. Not working is a luxury, lovely if the household can support it and the non working person is happy to take the huge risk of having no income if their own should things go pear shaped. However that luxury should not be provided by the state. Schools, hospitals etc are crying out for money yet we give it to those actively choosing not to work at present.

[fedupofnamechanging]

janey, first of all there is no guarantee that 2 wohp will have greater expenses than a family where one parent sah, therefore there is no justification for 2 people earning 49k each to keep cb when a family with a single earner on 60k and a sahp will lose theirs. You assume they are paying for child care and have double the travel costs, but they a) have significantly more money coming in to cover these things and b) might have free childcare from granny/company car. You can never tell.

Also 2 people earning 30k each will pay less tax as a family than one person on 60k.Families with a sahp are therefor discriminated against if one partner is taxed at 40% compared to families with 2 earners bringing in the same gross wage. For this reason I believe the tax allowance of a sahp should be transferable. I don't buy the idea that 2 workers are generating more employment (by using child care, for ex) as that is all rather dependent on the jobs themselves.

To answer the OP, sahp are discriminated against when it comes to divorce and financial settlements. In sah, they are sacrificing a career to do something that both partners generally feel to be in the best interests of their family. It enable the wohp to build a career, but upon divorce the man often gets to duck child support with little consequence.

[Kazooblue]

Well by that argument Faster there is no argument re cutting CB and maybe as a 40% tax payer dp should get more given back.

We're supposed to be paying bak debt not helping millionaires,wealthy pensioners and families on 300k.

[sundaymondaytuesday]

10 years ago when I started thinking about starting a family there was a lot of pressure to give up work. WOHM were accused of being uncaring and the media tried to portray nurseries as being on a par with communist orphanages. At the time there were lots of jobs for skilled professionals and taking a career break didn't have to mean the end of a woman's professional career.

10 years on there are fewer jobs and the salaries are very low. Women are no longer vilified for working. SAHMs are now the villains they are portrayed as lazy latte drinking entitled waste of spaces. The language used by the Tory party when the CB changes were introduced has a lot to answer for.

I don't have a daughter but if I did I would advise her to develop a thick
skin because she will be in the wrong whatever she chooses.

[janey68]

Yes, 2 people working and earning 30k each will have a higher household income than one person earning 60k. We're going over old
Ground here- we all get that. We just don't all agree that its discriminatory against SAHP. You're not comparing like with like for
a start- it's trying to compare two working people with one.

Re: dual earners not having more expenses. Highly unlikely unless they are using a relative for child care and not paying them. Well frankly you can't legislate against individual family choices. If you get a family where 2 people earn 30k each and use granny as a free childminder - well, personally I would feel like I was exploiting my relatives doing that but it's a free country...

If tax allowances were to be made transferable, the reality is that you'd have dual income families transferring parts of their allowance to gain the maximum advantage as fasterstronger pointed out earlier. And
I can guarantee SAHP would still complain because they were still perceive the fact that dual income families were better off
as some kind of unfair advantage.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

I would not complain at all if we were allowed to transfer tax allowances between spouses. It seems to work well in most other European countries. Why not here? It would give families more choice as to how to spend their own money. We are a family unit after all and are treated as such for the claiming of benefits, so why not for the payments of tax? The child benefit fiasco is a nasty policy and quite deliberate by this government. They think they've been clever with this, but we shall see in 2015.

[Kazooblue]

No people don't get that and to just disregard it as old ground.

[janey68]

What you're proposing isn't a specific SAHM issue though . It would be about transferring tax allowances between husband and wife (or civil partner or some other chosen person). It would definitely lead to lots of dual income families transferring part of their allowance to ensure they paid less tax overall. It would be interesting to see where that led to; I suspect some SAHM would still complain because they seem to perceive the concept of a transferable allowance as something only they should benefit from. The underlying theme of a lot of these threads is that SAHM feel undervalued and want some kind of recognition specific to them, some sort of positive discrimination, to validate what they do.

[Kazooblue]

No I would like CB to be fair and at least an attempt to enable women to stay at home with their children.I don't think families on decent incomes should have help with childcare,poorer families yes but not wealthy families.