...to still be sooooo angry at the UNFAIR way the Government has decided who does and doesn't get Child Benefit!

[candyandyoga]

I know it's done and dusted but I'm so fucking annoyed. How can they get away with their bonkers policy that if two people in a relationship earn just under the threshold they keep their CB but if one person earns over the threshold they lose it!?!

Or being so miserable at being separated from your baby you can't hold a job down.

But square pebbles - people's definition of 'short time' varies enormously. To many people, maternity leave is the short time that they want at home (though to many of us a years maternity leave actually seems quite long). For other people it may be 3,5, 8 or 12 years. There is no agreed consensus because families are individual

You are bloody working though if you're caring for tiny children.

Not everybody can just rock up to work and request reduced hours in this climate.

My dp's job wouldn't be possible.

My poor sister couldn't do her valuable job without the hours of travel up and down the country she does- it's.her.job!

I don't understand that last post either from square pebbles. Surely what matters most is the children and ensuring that they are happy and secure.

"If it pisses you off so much get a part time job and get your DH to cut his hours"

It does piss me off.

Because a) it's not regionally adjusted (60K is a huge salary for those living in areas where property is cheap, but really not a fortune for those of us in London and the SE)
b) because some people CAN'T work part-time. My DH can't do his job part time. He just can't. It's either all or nothing.

Happymummy.

You are assuming that everyone has children to use childcare to enable them to work. Some people prefer not to do this but this does not make being a sahp a luxury. I chose to be a sahm, but had I wanted to work it wouldn't have helped my family financially. The cost of childcare would have been far more than I could earn, even with a good career. I don't see the point in working for nothing (at best), there are some positions I could have applied for that would have actually cost us for me to work.
I just do not see how being a sahp is a luxury

A year,18 months or even 2 years per child aint a lot by anybody's standard if it is for the benefit of a child.

The fact that the needs of children come so far down the list(actually rock bottom)and we're all being forced to buy the Tory line that any sahm is a feckless layabout is just shit.

Teenagers are more expensive IME than smaller children because:

When I needed childcare I was able to claim up to 70% off through childcare tax credits.

Now they are teenagers there is no EMA and I am funding them for school/college costs (transport, uniform, extra clothes for PE, drama, sports), trips, additional books and materials, adult sized appetites, a heck of a lot more energy costs at home, and more expensive shoes and clothes. They have to pay adult fares on buses and trains and pay teenager rates to go to the cinima/theatre for educational trips.

It's a relative luxury though morethan to have a parent at home

I have a friend that had to give up work as her sobbing toddler and her snobbing to work became too much to bare.

It happens,we're all human.

after the age of 12 being a SAHM is hardly essential though. if you do it after that age you should fund it yourself and not expect others too.

even on the minimum wage you could earn 12k so you wouldn't need benefits. why should hard working parents subsidise you?

But square pebbles- a minute ago you were talking about a mother being so upset at being separated from her child that she might not be able to hold down a job. That sounds far more like putting the mothers Desire to be at home top of the agenda , rather than making it about the child

I agree by 12 it's not essential.

But how many sahm are there with zero children under 12,the only people. I know who could do or who want to do that were my parents generation.

Pardon,I don't get your point?

It's not exactly a crime to hate being separated from your baby so much so you find it hard to work is it.If it now is then really I think this country is more shit than I thought it was.

Yes I agree soverylucky. If a parent is really so unhappy that they cannot hold down a job then at the very least if they can afford to stop working they are better off than a parent who hates working and is unhappy but can't afford to give it up

Sovery not all women are of equal strength.

And not all babies will thrive at childcare-babies differ.

Oh fgs what's with this whole 'it's not a crime' !

No one said it was!

For the record, I loved spending time with my children, but it didn't render me incapable of leaving them to be able to work. If a parent really can't bear to leave them then no it isn't a crime - but that doesn't therefore make it something the govt should pay for either

Squarepebbles

I have been a sahm for 20+ years and whilst I have not been in the position of having none under 12, I would have if their birthdays had been different.
I knew from day one that I didn't want to work and was determined to be a sahm. I too found the thought of leaving ds1 unbearable.
I love being a sahm and have no regrets, financially we have made sacrifices and at times its been really rough, but we are on the right side of it now.

If my children had been totally unable to settle in childcare or if I had been so distraught I couldn't hold down a job , then DH and I would have had to rethink. But I wouldn't have expected the govt to give me money because of it! I'm not sure what would happen in a family where both parents felt so upset at not being with their child that they couldn't work.

Well then Sovery perhaps we should be looking at ways to facilitate more women to take a short break.Why should just the alleged rich have that luxury?

Even in Sweden every mother gets 13 months pad leave off then 3 months fixed.There are plenty of creative ways that could be looked at.