To think people who CHOOSE to be SAHPs should not claim income related benefits

[DixieWest]

I wholeheartedly support benefits for SAHPs and believe they should be able to live adequately without working if they can't work. When I say can't work I mean when one of their children is SEN, they'd have less money after childcare than they would claiming benefits, they are disabled etc.

What really annoys me is the following situation:

Husband earns 35k, wife earns 25k, they have a baby and wife decides to stay at home and therefore is able to claim 5k in tax credits.

They are just example figures as I don't know how much tax credits realistically are.

IMO if you choose to be a SAHP then you foot the bill.

I will repeat I have no issue with those who need to as they'd be worse off working. Do have an issue with those who'd be "slightly better off" working, don't and still claim. AIBU?

Not sure what figures are etc, but a bit unsure as to why someone should get any money for being a SAHP when the husband earns enough for them to live on.

No I don't have an issue with that whatsoever.

"They are just example figures as I don't know how much tax credits realistically are."

Why don't you find out then?

YABU. Tax credits also protect the child. If the mother chooses not to work does that the mean the child should live in poverty.

Also if mother went back to work she may well be in receipt of tax credits anyway.

SAHP also do a valuable job in the early years development of future citizens.

This thread has been sparked off by a friend who is debating giving up work to be a SAHM (single parent) as she'd only lose a couple of quid a month. I think SIBVU, benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice IMO. Maybe then we'd get fairer treatment and more resources for those who actually need it.

If you're on 35k you're not entitled to tax credits are you?

Too much meepimg from people these days over who they think should be skint or not. Keep your shovel in your own garden.

You really should have researched the figures before starting the thread.

As far as I'm aware, if he was earning £35k the only benefit available would be child benefit.

I think this boils down to having a society that in some way values the asset and importance of SAHP for young children. I'm glad there is some financial incentive as that supports the value of the role

You can make the same decision too. Nothing is stopping you.

Well, I'm going to be a SAHM - mainly because I want to be at home with my children, but also because DP and I are going to be better off with me staying at home because childcare would cost more than my monthly salary.

I think a lot of lower-income families (who would qualify for benefits) have a SAHP for financial reasons. For us, there would be no point working until all our kids are in school FT. The logistics (practical and financial) just wouldn't be worth it for us as a family.

BTW I'm not saying they shouldn't get them, I'm saying they shouldn't claim them. I think it's pretty immoral.

I'm sure SAHPs do a very valuable job, but I'm sure a nursery/childminder could also (whole other debate!).

But then again I'm in the "don't have children you can't afford" camp.

If anyone can link me as to where I can find out, I'd appreciate it.

Just gone on calculator. Nil tax credits if he is earning £35k. Only CB which they would get even if she worked.

Well said somedizzy

In that case maybe your ire would be better directed at the astronomical cost of childcare in this country.

Also you need to stop seeing benefits in isolation. They are a social investment along with other benefits like free education and free childcare.

Ie the money is invested in the person as they are likely to more than pay it back in future years and because good social investment can help minimise some of societies (costly) problems.

Oh, and yes YABU

Keep your own house in order.

With 2 children in full time childcare you would be worse off working on a salary of 25k and a lot of women earn far less than that. Yabu to make statements when you can't actually back them up with figures.

With the greatest of respect- what's it to do with you?

As a parent of two ds with SNs I would be better off if my dp didn't live with us. But he does.

Its a free country- individual choice & all that...

And redoing the figures if he earns £25k per annum, then they only get £1k in tax credits.

Unless there is such a pronounced social benefit for all of us in very young children being at home with a parent and not in full-time childcare that it is worth subsidising?

I'm not saying there is or there isn't, by the way, just that it's a relevant part of the discussion.

But then again I'm in the "don't have children you can't afford" camp.

Well if your circumstances change after you've had them, you can't exactly stuff them back up your chuff, can you?

itsallgoingtobefine whole other debate. But yes the cost of childcare in this country really gets my goat!!

No worra and I'm in complete support of giving people in those circumstances all the help possible. It's people who do it knowingly that irritate a little.

OP you may have got a decent debate here if you had actually bothered to find out some facts and figures.

The cut off point for tax credits is a household income of 26K. Your friend may well be better off as a SAHM, but that's because she wouldn't be paying fir childcare and commuting - Not because she's getting tax credits.