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?

The threshold for tax credits rises with each child. Therefore you can have 4 kids and choose to be a sahp and have a partner earning £45k and still get child tax credits.

I said I think CHILD tax credits need to be scrapped, not WORKING tax credits. They are an unfortunate necessity.

If you can't afford to have children on two wage packets, plus two wage top ups, plus subsidised childcare, plus child benefit, then you shouldn't have children until you have improved your earnings.

Some people will never improve their earnings. You might have a nice little career going, with opportunities but not everyone does.

You live in a bubble.

We get tax credits on 28K with two children. I am a SAHM looking for work. If we didn't have tax credits we couldn't eat. We live in SE and rent (obviously we can't buy a house on 28k) is astronomical. Rent plus bills = DH salary. Tax credits and CB is food, nappies and shoes money.

Some people do need to credits, but I do get what OP is saying to some extent. I have worked out that having a third child would net me the same income increase as going back to work. I am choosing to try and find work because obviously the long term prospects are better, plus I have professional qualifications with good prospects. If I didn't have good prospects I guess having another baby would be the most profitable thing I could do. That is a bit crazy.

I don't think the answer is to end tax credits though. Looking at housing costs might be a better starting point.

Yes and WooWoo, someones gotta do the minimum wage jobs, how would things get cleaned or purchased, if someone wasnt there to do it.

No, I earn a low wage actually.

I just don't think that having children is a right that we are so entitled to that other people should have to pay for us to have them.

Really, what is so wrong with people being provide for the children they have chosen to create?

Fizz, im in Essex and the rent here is disgusting, im worried all the time, when i go back to work im gonna pay more rent than i do now, and more if my landlords decide to whack another £25 on my already £595, tiny 2 bed house, and my house is the cheapest among others the same as mine, some can go for £100 more than mine.

She's looking at things in a shortsighted way because she may be only a little worse off financially on benefits vs her current role and salary but benefits levels are currently frozen and her earning potential while still employed is likely to be better than 'frozen'. And I'm sure others will agree that once you get off the employment wagon it's really hard to get back on again. Then what she is getting from benefits vs what she could be earning in future would be much more than a few quid. I'm always disappointed when people do their sums and think they're 'better off' on benefits because they don't see the long term earning potential of being employed and the salary increase above inflation (in some companies) or a promotion with a better salary. Benefits levels get set by the government so you have no control over your 'earnings' that way. YANBU to think that choosing to go on benefits should never be a positive choice compared to being in work with the potential that brings.

Yes, someone has got to do the minimum wage jobs, but it doesn't have to be parents!

I think everyone who works full should be able to have a decent standard of living, and if wages are too low and these workers have to be topped up by the state, then so be it. If they want to have children, then they have to do it on their wages and their top ups, and should get subsidised/free childcare to enable it.

If jobs paid an appropriate wage we wouldn't have a need for tax credits.

That is the real problem.

Yes, someone has got to do the minimum wage jobs, but it doesn't have to be parents!

Minimum wage is all im likely to get right now!!

Oh and I'm one of the mums who chose to sahm when dh is earning minimum wage in a job that years ago would have paid very well.

I think you should only be a sahm if you can afford to support yourselves, unless exceptional circs.

Yes let's bung all the kids in childcare FFS It is not the answer.

So becoming a parent has now to be based on your income, so what should be the minimum wage before we are allowed to breed? DO we have a north/ south divide? Forced abortions for those that don't meet the criteria.

MN is fucking nuts today.

Becoming a parent should be based on your ability to provide for a child, yes.

Providing financially is a normal part of being a parent, seeing as how children need stuff that you have to pay for. It's not rocket science.

And what are you on about with forced abortions?! We have free access to contraception in this country, we have morning after pills. And if we had free childcare, then there would be no reason why people couldn't work to provide for their own children.

You need to be able to provide financially for your children

Agree, free contraceptives are available.

Yabu and haven't thought this through or done any research before posting.this fictitious friend wouldn't be getting any benefits except cb and if you look at childcare costs and factor in commuting ect you may find she would actually be out of pocket if she returned to work. When I calculated it to go back to work after first born I would have been paying out more than I was earning on childcare and and second baby there was really no point! But no one is paying for this decision! Infact I'm actually saving the gvt giving me the childcare element if I had used childcare. As it happens I do work but around my husbands 65 hour week so I work nights and early sand lates between us working a 95 hour. 7 day week anyway I digress...

My DD is conceived and born at a time where her dad worked a good job, and i stayed at home, then he left when she was 18 months old, leaving me with 100% care, so i never walked in parenthood with the expectation of having others support her, I've been a SAHM with her and now looking for work to support us both, but its not easy.

I forgot life is perfect when you live in a bubble.

Perhaps it would have been easier for you Lucius if you had been able to access free childcare when your dd was 18 months old, and there was a better system to ensure that non resident parents also pay for their children.

DH earns £30k and we're not entitled to anything except child benefit so I would do some research before you go throwing figures around OP.

woowoo

What happens if you were able to comfortable support tousve when you had children, but then one parent got made redundant? Or just cost of living rocketed a ate up that 'comfortable' cushion? Or any number of other unforseeabke/uncontrollable circumstances change.

Should the kids then be put up for adoption on the basis that the parents can no longer afford them??!!

It would have been WooWoo, but its not, i have to make the best of a shit situation, like alot of parents.