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]

[OrWellyAnn]

Fasterstrnger. You make a very good point about the pension credit v childcare assistance, but it does depend on our generation actually getting our pensions...not personally that hopeful ours will ever come :o

[ihategeorgeosborne]

I just want a fair tax and benefits system. We all know that a couple on 30k each pay less tax than a couple with one earner on 60k. So why add insult to injury by removing the single income family's child benefit? Then they really take the biscuit by giving a tax benefit to the dual income family in the form of child care benefits. These three measures tell me loudly and clearly that this government doesn't care for families with a SAHP. It cannot be a coincidence that the SAHP family is considerably worse off when these three measures are taken into account.

[maisiejoe123]

Well, we have double travelling costs and no relatives to help with childcare. I have to say I see no case for SAHP's to get any childcare vouchers. They are the childcare!

Its like me saying that I would like a Disability Allowance and not being disabled.

GoldenBear - taking the example of your brother. He pays 50% tax and his wife doesnt work. Why should they get childcare vouchers. She is the child care!

And Karma - when you choose unwisely and your relationship breaks up and you have also chosen to be a SAHM, what has that got to do with the government. Do you want to be paid for making mistakes...

[Kazooblue]

Maisie you have been told over and over again sahm mothers having vouchers isn't the issue with this,you seem to be ignoring what people are saying.

As an aside there are many sahm that do need childcare.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

I just want a fair tax and benefits system. We all know that a couple on 30k each pay less tax than a couple with one earner on 60k. So why add insult to injury by removing the single income family's child benefit? Then they really take the biscuit by giving a tax benefit to the dual income family in the form of child care benefits. These three measures tell me loudly and clearly that this government doesn't care for families with a SAHP. It cannot be a coincidence that the SAHP family is considerably worse off when these three measures are taken into account.

[Kazooblue]

My sister has no travel costs(company car and allowance,two dc at school,helpful grandparents),she pays less tax,will keep CB and get help with the little childcare bill she has.Totally wrong and a waste of money that could pay off debt.

[fedupofnamechanging]

janey, I wouldn't complain about dual income families transferring their tax allowance and I don't know anyone who would tbh.

Sahm don't spend all their time comparing their lot to that of wohm and feeling hard done by, but we would like not to be financially disadvantaged for a lifestyle choice which is what happens if you have one hrt payer in the family and one sahp. That's not the same as expecting money for looking after our own dc (again, no one I know would see that as reasonable), but we would like to be on a level playing field. The cb fiasco does illustrate that sahp are at a financial disadvantage.

[Kazooblue]

And what Ihate said-with bells on!

[janey68]

Ok- genuine question here.
If tax allowances were made transferable, Mrs
A, who's a SAHM with a higher earning husband can transfer hers. Mrs B can do the same- her children are all grown up but she does voluntary work. Mrs C has grown up kids too but doesnt volunteer and spends her days lunching and at the gym, but never mind, that's between her and her breadwinner husband. Meanwhile Mr and Mrs D both earn and are going to juggle their allowance to pay the least tax possible.

Is this really going to make the SAHM who are feeling undervalued any better? Because reading the many threads on it, what's coming across as the major theme is that they want some sort of exclusive recognition. If they are given some advantage which is then available to WOHP too, then I honestly think we'd just have more of the same threads, saying they feel undervalued and unrecognised.

Id be interested in hearing what any economists have to say about how it would work in reality too- im just looking at it from the 'people' aspect in terms of how people perceive themselves, but god knows what impact it would have on the economy...

[maisiejoe123]

A company car is a perk with a lot of tax attached to it, its not 'free', you often only get it if you are putting the miles in.

Sounds Kazoo that you are pretty envious of your sister tbh....

Many SAHM need childcare - really what 50% perhaps? Why??

[fedupofnamechanging]

Maisie, I would like to see sahp protected if their marriage breaks up and the working partner has benefitted, career wise from having a sah spouse. The government has a responsibility to ensure that maintenance orders are complied with. as things stand it is too easy for men (mostly) to retain all the financial advantage and the state does little to protect women.

I was answering the wider question of how sahm are discriminated against. It's not just about getting child care vouchers. Personally, I don't think a sahm needs them, but equally, I don't think two high earners need them either.

But somehow it's okay for the state to finance their lifestyle choice. The only people who should be getting child care vouchers are those who actually need them, unless as a country we are going to offer free childcare to anyone who requires it!

[Kazooblue]

Heaven forbid that young children utterly miserable in childcare and mums pining for their dc should have help to be together.

Childcare is not good for all children and families,are we supposed to just ignore that.

[Kazooblue]

No Maisie not jealous,you never get those years back.I know how miserable leaving her children made my sister.

[Kazooblue]

Never said 50% however many mums are carers or students.

[maisiejoe123]

Karma, actually I dont think the SAHP should be protected by the government due to her/him chosing to get together with someone. No one is forcing you to be with this man, have his children, give up work and then complain you would like some protection because you chose unwisely.

Its funny how we have 100% choice in our partners and when it goes wrong we want the 'government' to sort it out.

[Kazooblue]

Many would like to go back to work eventually,training,courses etc.

[fedupofnamechanging]

You are putting the miles in, because that's your job. If you are getting a company car, it doesn't cost you what it would if you had to use your own car or use public transport.

janey, I don't want an exclusive perk, but I don't want to be at a disadvantage.

I'd happily settle for scrapping the 40% tax rate across the board. I don't see that any govt has a right to take nearly half of what someone earns above a certain level.

And I think the economy would be just fine if the govt focussed it's attention on tax dodging big business and dealing with corruption within the financial industries.

[maisiejoe123]

Kazoo - you choose what is right for your children and I will chose what is right for mine.

Thank you!

[mirry2]

The tax allowance is for parents working outside the home, who have greater childcare expenses than sahm.What's wrong with that? This is a non argument.

[fedupofnamechanging]

No maisie, I think the govt do have a responsibility to ensure that men pay for their children and fulfil their obligations. Why should high earning men be able to dodge that and keep all their money, then the state ends up paying for their kids.

[Kazooblue]

Well Maisie many can't because sahp just get penalised and not helped.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

It would make me feel considerably better if government policies were fair and not just pathetic soundbites promised into the far off distant future, in the hope that they might get elected again. Obviously, they have no chance of that but that's for another thread. I don't need or want child care vouchers. I stay at home and look after my children. Why would I? Equally, why should I be stripped of £200 a month in child benefit, when families on nearly twice our income keep all of theirs? Now they will have this nice little earner on top of their massive joint incomes and child benefit. Is it any wonder that families with a SAHP are getting a little bit pissed off to put it mildly when we are having our incomes reduced and told that it is fair, when it clearly is not.

[janey68]

(whispers)My children were very happy and thrived at their cm
and nursery. I expect someone who doesn't know them will pop up
in a minute to tell me different though

[Kazooblue]

No it isn't Mirry because wealthy families(over 60k)shouldn't be getting it.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Also, agree with karma. Why should people pay 40% tax on earnings above 32k? They are paying the same percentage as people earning nearly 150k. How is that right? The government seem to think that 50% tax is too high for people earning over 150k, so how the hell can they justify 40% tax for people earning 32k.