to want to remind people who say the unemployed and sahm's are lazy and

[martini84]

Should go and get a job that on average 5 people apply for every job and this rises to 45 for entry level jobs.
Not quite that simple.

Why do you assume i know nothing about tax credits, the internet is a mine of information and within five minutes you can find who can and cant claim. You dont have to worry about me applying myelf to my job or using my intelligence, i do be it workng or volunteering.

I was proving a point hence referring back, you keep saying you dont claim benefits or that you dont need tax credits but are very open on here about what you claim, how you could claim more etc. Plus MN had no rules about posting more than once on certin subjects that i can see.

Lastly, its not "venom" because i believe that people should work and provide for their own family rather than other tax payers. Plenty of people share this opinion, most of those that have opposing opinions on benefits are usually claiming them.

Lyra, benefits were meant as a safety net to catch those in their time of need. You used them for a short period as intended. Its those that claim long term or have more childrem whilst already on benefits we need to tackle as we cant afford to pay people for their lifestyle choices. The less money in the pot the less we have for vital services.

I think it's very sad that some people seem to only find value in paid work. When did it come to the point that we're judged by what we do (or don't do!) for a living?

My cousin is a SAHM with school aged children. (No CB or anything. DH brings home a good wage).

I've had another family member - another cousin - snipe about cousin #1 behind her back. "She doesn't work, the kids are at school, she's just so lazy."

But cousin #1 DOES work. She has several volunteer jobs and is always busy until it's time to pick the kids up from school. When I said to cousin #2 about cousin #1's volunteering she rolled her eyes and told me, "but it's not real work is it?"

It's nothing at all to do with your other cousin. If a family want to use their income so that only one person works, that's fine. I do think that if the working partner is under a lot of stress financially, though, it's unfair on the other partner to not work at all.

Mummy

Why shouldn't I be open about what a person can claim, there are plenty of other sahm with dh working who know what they can and cannot claim. This in your book means they are manipulating the system.
The thread you are so happy to quote/refer from was started as a result of our accountant advising us to do this, not me finding a way of ripping the tax payer off.
There was if I can remember a mix of responses, some saying it isn't illegal and makes sense to take advantage of tax break to others suggesting it was morally wrong.
I haven't done anything illegal nor have I manipulated any system, but asking for opinions and comments in your book makes you guilty.
I am so glad that my life doesn't involve judging other peoples choices, accusations, name calling and the obvious bitterness you and others portray. It can't be good for your health and ultimately for your dc.
Anyway, I'm off now as have to get dd to a music lesson .

Freedom, ugh, your cousin is an idiot. So many organisations rely on volunteers to do work they otherwise couldn't pay for. If you cousin #1 is financially secure then why not do voluntary work over paid work. She's giving back to the community and should be commended for it.

I don't think you can extrapolate from your cousins' situations that most people don't value anything unless its paid work. If your cousin can afford to not work and her husband is happy with it and they aren't using benefits to facilitate that lifestyle, then frankly it's their business alone. Sounds like she's pretty busy volunteering too.

I think most people value many aspects of life.. I value my husband as a life partner and a good dad, and those things actually come way above the fact that he is damn good in his work role too. And as I've said time and again, I have never met any parent, SAH OR WOH who doesn't prioritise their family absolutely . I love my children far more than I love my career- but I do love my work life and all that it brings too. And of course friends, hobbies, being part of a community- all these things are valued aspects of life

if got a strange feeling this thread is about a comment I made on another thread OP?

Yes my opinion is that if ALL your children are at school, what excuse is there for not actively looking for a job? apart from 'i don't have/need to, as I would rather place financial burden on my partner'

its everyone's choice but you can't say working parents stop being parents when children are at nursery/childminders. If that is the case then you stop being parents when they are at school, so get a job.

Or perhaps another answer is its none of your business.

I don't have a paid job. I do not claim benefits nor place a financial burden upon anyone.

Morethan, I am totally baffled by your posts on this thread.

You are able to be a SAHM because of tax credits. Why is this hard for you to accept? You have chosen to stay at home - bully for you, but why deny it tax payers' money are enabling your choice?

I don't intend to look for a job when all my children are in school in September.
My husband's job won't change whether I do or don't work.
Any financial burden is borne by both of us regardless of who brings in what.
I like to be at home, he likes me to be here when he is but more importantly the biters benefit in my opinion, from the stability of my availability.

NeedSomeSun - I don't entirely agree with you because if a family can afford to have one partner not working (even with all kids at school or grown up ) then as long as they aren't receiving benefits then actually it's up to them how they run their life.

Having said that, I certainly couldn't see myself partnering anyone who expected never to work again, even with the kids at school, and was prepared to watch me singlehandedly working my ass off! It doesn't strike me as an equitable situation, but horses for courses. I also think that nowadays, people often partner someone with a similar outlook and capabilities, lots of couples meet at Uni or in the workplace so it's perhaps unsurprising that many couples both want a share of the working/ childcare/cooking/ pottering

As for your last point- these people who post that don't really believe that WOHP stop being a parent the moment they set foot out the door for work. It's just a cheap shot to try to make out that having another dimension to life as well as being a parent somehow diminishes being a parent . It doesn't. I've always found it similar to that feeling when you have your first child- you can't imagine ever loving the next one as much. Then you have another child and you realise the capacity to love gets bigger. Being a parent is like that... You continue to be a parent all the time.

Need "financial burden"- oh perleeeeease!

Yes we're broke but my being a sahm benefits my children in ways that are too numerous to mention.We've made choices that benefit our family and worked for them.

Thankfully dp and I are a team and he appreciates all I have done (and sacrificed)for our family and what I have done to actually give him his kids.

You know money isn't everything and I am so bloody grateful to have who values what I do a a sahp and who wants what is best for me as a person.

Janey, I had no intention of working FT after my DC were born. XDP appreciated that it was the fact that I was at home taking care of the children and the household that enabled him to to make the big strides in his career that he's reaping the benefits of today. Yes, he was bringing in the vast majority of the money but my role in our family's life was equally important.

Dp and I have been together 22 years (from uni)and over that time we've supported each other both financially and as a partner in many different ways.It ebbs and flows,we swap roles when it suits us as a family.

If we decide to have 1 wp to benefit our family that is our choice ditto if we decide to have 2 wps.

Needsomesun, what excuse is there for not working when your children are all at school? How about the fact that the school day is six hours and most jobs to not fit into those hours. There are still childcare issues etc to deal with. And there are school holidays, sick days etc to contend with. Some people will find it easier to deal with all that depending on finances, family support etc.

People broadly do the best they can in their particular circumstances. We all mostly just try to find a way to live and work that suits us and those we love the best.

To say 'I couldn't do this' often denies the reality that you simply don't understand the other persons history and situation.

I don't know why people get so tetchy - I have repeatedly said that as long as families can support it, it's up to them how they choose to run their lives - be it both working or one working.

All I qualified it with, is that nowadays society is very different to yesteryear -eg more women than ever go onto higher education, they outnumber men in many professions, and no longer have to give up their career on marriage, and parallel to that, men tend to no longer be seen as providers and disciplinarians, but instead can cook,take care of babies etc without it being seen as a slur on their masculinity. Therefore it shouldn't be surprising that an increasing number of families want more balanced roles between couples. That's all. It doesn't mean people can't have dad working full time and mum at home, or mum working full time and dad at home IF they can fund it. Personally I cannot imagine myself partnering a man who didn't work even if our kids were at school /grown up - it simply wouldn't strike me as a good balance for either of us. But how people run their lives when they fund it themselves, is entirely their business.

Need

I am a sahp and I am as active in my dh career as he is, we both share domestics, educating our dd, etc.

janey

Many sahps support their oh very well and contribute to the family dynamic far better than if they were working. I also work my ass off, sometimes still working at 2am due to nature of the business. When you have a family business you never clock off, go home.
That's not to say we don't have time off, relax or enjoy life at all.
I don't understand your point about the person you partner in life. I married my soulmate, we met whilst working, we have the same outlook and capabilities. We have been together nearly 25 yers married nearly 22

exactly what pag said.

We all can only comment based on our own thoughts, circumstances and experiences.
We cannot comment on other people's choices or insist that we would never do x y or z because we don't know the other persons circumstances, other than a few sentences on a forum.

I think if everyone remembered that, there would be a lot less venom on threads like these.

Janey, my post was intended to illustrate that it actually can be a good balance when partners have complimentary roles, whether that be paid work or otherwise. You made it sound like SAHP sit around all day doing nothing and watching their partner "work their arse off". If that's not what you meant then I apologise.
Running the home/caring for the DC isn't less of a role than working for money. That's the point I was trying to make.

I think people get tetchy because instead of posting 'I chose to do x' in a positive way they can't resist saying 'I would never do y' in a judgy way.

'I would never farm my kids out'
'I would never respect a partner who sat at home while I worked my ass off'

That kind of thing. Both equally unnecessary and crap.

It's difficult to explain it more simply...

People partner (hopefully!) the person who they feel is their soulmate and they work as a team. For many couples that may mean fluctuations of one giving greater support financially, or in other way.

Due to systemic societal changes, however, it seems MORE likely that nowadays, more couples aim for a balance of work/ child/ domestic responsibilities. Simply because it wasnt like this in the past. Roles were polarised. Men were educated to a higher level generally, had access to certain professions etc. Women actually had to leave certain professions on marriage. Maternity rights didn't exist. Paternity leave.... What was that lol? Even though many women always did find bits of work, it was often piecemeal, pin money jobs while granny or neighbour watched the child. Society was structured in such a way that these roles were default positions. No matter how much a man might have wanted to downsize and be a more hands on dad, or how much a woman wanted to use her capability in a professional capacity- they couldn't.

It is perfectly fine for families to carve up roles into dad working full time or mum working full time and the other partner not working, if they can fund it. All I am saying is that it is a natural reflection of societal changes which means that people aren't pigeonholed anymore.

People in paid work can also sit on their arse quite a bit. DH will be home any minute with tales of interesting google facts and Facebook updates. I used to work with him - I know what he gets up to half the day

And Lyra- if you look at the context of that comment, I was saying IF our children were in school all day or grown up, I would not be happy to be sole earner and for my DH not to work out of choice. Even if he kept himself busy with cooking dinner, hobbies etc I would not want that situation, because I would prefer not to have that sole financial pressure (and I also quite like cooking myself!!) I certainly never suggested that a SAHP of pre school children isn't busy! I remember those days well as I only worked 3 days a week when mine were tiny- it's hard work!

Yes we do fund it however I personally am slightly concerned that those that can't fund having a sahp for however long as would benefit their family don't get support in order to do so.

One size does not fit all and frankly I know many parents with 2 working parents on their knees who would give anything to have 1 parent at home (or on reduced hours at the very least) as they feel it would be hugely beneficial to their dc and family as a whole.

Is it fair that only the wealthier families will soon have this choice? I don't think so.