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?

Sahm shouldn't be supported by benefits if it is through choice.

op I've tried to see if you've made any sense but sorry yabu. Wth???

When you give up a job then surely you free up a vacancy....one person stops work to receive benefits and do a job that 99% of men wouldn't want to do and a very valuable job it is too! At the same time someone maybe ready to go back to work steps into their shoes and maybe even stops claiming benefits....

I really don't see a huge problem in this!

Pointless thread.

Next...

I am struggling to see the sense of the thread also.

Its built on sand not fact.

As many others have pointed out your ire would be better spent elsewhere.

It is a rather clumsy attempt at Mumsnet AIBU gold: benefit bashing and SAHM bashing. All we need now is a spot of p & c parking angst, a wedding 'dilemma' and MIL angst and we'll hit the jackpot.

By the way OP YABU and WRONG

I want to live in a society which values the contribution of ALL of it's members. Millions of those people will never earn more than the bare minimum. Millions more will slip in and out of relative poverty. I think it's fair to say the massive majority of them have much of value to share with the next generation. This makes them worthwhile parents, and it is the role of the state to facilitate that activity. Some of that involves direct financial support for parental choices, such as sahp.

I don't want to live in a society which places financial values on a pedestal whilst ignoring other key aspects of life. I detest the idea that fundamental life choices are separate from state activity and thus only available to the chosen few. I can't process the suggestion that we should entice a huge number of immigrants in times of plenty, only to discard them when things got tough as anything other than feeble thinking.

I'm not even a SAHM, but I have given up a full time job to claim more benefits and become a ....................................student!

Yabu. If she's a single parent then giving up paid work isn't a bad idea. She'll never be rolling in it on benefits, but if she's doing the job of 2 parents then paid work on top of that may be too much for her. I'm a working single parent and I cost the country/NHS far more by working and being mentally and physically burnt out.

Great post oxford

It's basically OK to look after kids and give benefits and help EXCEPT if you are the mother..crazy!

It's almost taboo to suggest a mother may be special to a small baby and that many women want to SAH or work p/t..

Agree also that many people sacrifice material stuff to stay home,not all, but many.

People accept the 'norm' too readily. Who came up with the current ideas of work? Who says that 40 hours is the magic number of contributing. What about in the past when work in and out of the house was valued?

And not everyone can 'fit work around their husband' if their husband is away at work or works rotating shifts.

I actually have a big problem with the way that society at the mo ment will pay for children to be in childcare while their parents work but won't pay for their parents to stay home and care for them. I hate the way the state treats children as chattels who's care should be farmed out to a professional regardless of whether a parent wants to stay home with them or not.

Women should be able to do what is best for them and their family, whether that is working or staying at home. But at the moment for most women unless they are a single parent entirely dependent on benefits or have a wealthy partner there simply isn't the choice. You have to go out to work.

I would certainly support the widening of tax credits so that the childcare sum could be paid directly to a parent if they choose to do it themselves rather than employing a professional.

It wouldn't cost much more money, would free up jobs and give women a genuine choice.

"No-one is asking for a bloody medal, just that people stop with the bullshit about it being some luxury lifestyle choice, FFS."

I have recently come to the conclusion that anyone who uses the phrase "lifestyle choice" is thereby proven as a complete and utter wanker.

If being gay is a "lifestyle choice" and having children is a "lifestyle choice" and being fat is a "lifestyle choice" and not being able to find a job is a "lifestyle choice", then "lifestyle choice" just means LIVING YOUR FUCKING LIFE.

When did we become a nation of begrudging misers, constantly looking at our neighbours and wondering how much they are COSTING us?

It is really starting to do my head in.

And what ina just said too. That is all exactly how I feel, but without enough swearing.

"I'd much rather my tax enabled people to work and pay their own tax than have it enable people to have children they can't feed, clothe and house without claiming benefits."

I agree. Children fare far better in life if bought up in working households than on benefits. Why would anybody choose it as a lifestyle choice knowing their childrens outcomes would be affected is beyond me.

Nobody is made to have children and the clap trap that they suddenly cant work is sheer nonsense, dont want to work yes but cant no. Childcare is expensive but its not like it comes as a shock and there are jobs that can be done around partners etc.

I wonder how many SAHM's would be happy if their partner quit work too, after all his child needs him to be home 24/7 and he cant work and parent

A house with one sah parent is a working household. How can you possibly be ignorant of this fact?

Exhibit A

stupid pointless thread

I agree happy. Money should be provided to people to help them if they help themselves first. Not to fund a parenting choice.

When these magical jobs appear that means no childcare, let me know!!

Are you daft? You don't get £5000 in tax credits with one SAHP and one on £35k, I barely get that annually and I'm on considerably less than £35k as a single parent with full time childcare to pay for ffs. Why are you bothering to work yourself up about something that's not even true? Was there not enough bollocks in the Daily Mail today for you to froth about rather than pulling random numbers out of your bottom and pretending they make a political argument?

I actually have a big problem with the way that society at the mo ment will pay for children to be in childcare while their parents work but won't pay for their parents to stay home and care for them.

But society does pay for parents to stay at home and care for them.

People can and do live quite easily on benefits until their youngest child is five years old. They make a choice, and society pays for it.

and its a choice that we are made to feel ashamed about, whilst also being made to feel ashamed that we are dumping our kids on others, parents cant win either, SAHP is lazy and wanting free money, Working Parents are crap because we dont wanna raise our kids ourselves.

Agree with the comments about SAHP not always being a "lifestyle choice"

I gave up work 15 years ago and as far as I know (and am prepared to be wrong) that help with childcare costs was not available back then

What I really don't get, and this may be pure ignorance but I have had some wine and am feeling brave, but why is it ok to say that being supported financially as a SAHM is wrong but being supported financially as a WOHM (with childcare help) is not wrong. Are they not both choices?

And I know that people feel financially that they should work and others feel that it's better to not work, but I am confused (and possibly a bit pissed)

Seasicksal

Totally agree, you said it so well.

HappyMummy

I believe my dcs childhood would have been affected if they had had childcare. We the parents are the best people to bring them up 24/7. Other people can think what they want too, its a choice.

Lucius, if you feel that as a parent you can't win either way, then you will do what you feel is right. People's opinions on what is right differ.

Rufus, the diffence is that while both are taking form the state financially, only one is contributing financially.