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?

happy mummy I chose to SAHM but not everybody does, sometimes it feels like there is no point working when you get no benefit from it, either financially or mentally

And that's where the problem lies Rufus, there isn't much point in working with the system the way it is.

People would be able to feel they benefit from working if childcare was free, and child tax credits didn't exist.

I see what you mean woowoo

I'm not going to post again cos my brain has literally stopped working, will probably look again tomorrow and think of a fantastic argument

Night

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

No, that's one difference. At the same time, one is contributing more to the upbringing of a child than the other. Either contribution to society is valid.

My DH earns 35k but actually we need the credits. We live in a very expensive place!

The main thing for me is to bring up happy well adjusted children. This means being mostly a stay at home parent (for me) and providing a fantastic base. They in turn will contribute to society and pay your pension.

I don't think that parents who WOH contribute any less to their children's upbringing than SAHPs do.

Children who have working parents still grow up with their parents values and ideals, and with their love and support overwhelmingly being the biggest influence in their lives. They have their childcare carefully chosen by their parents, they don't just get dropped in for random allocation of childcare which may or not fit in with the parents.

The stuff that a SAHP does in the hours they could be at work can be done just as effectively in the hours they are not at work when it comes to the bits of parenting that really matter. The person changes the nappy and provides the lunch is not the person that does the actual parenting.

"I don't think that parents who WOH contribute any less to their children's upbringing than SAHPs do"

Well they're in direct contact for a significantly smaller amount of time. Stands to reason that personally as a parent you are not directly responsible for what your child experiences whilst in child care. Rather, your labours are enabling those positive experiences. As I said, either is valid, neither is inherently superior.

"They have their childcare carefully chosen by their parents"

I trust that the nappy changing and lunch menu at your selected childcare provider is of an exceptional standard...

Woo TA is just ridiculous.

You spend all day loving,giving values,teaching,comforting,encouraging,knowing and nurturing your child's personality(a peronality only you know the best),educating yourself,giving yourself,teaching your child about yourself,showing your child the world in a way only spontaneity can,showing your child his community.......

I could go on forever.

You can't do it to the same extent in 2 fractious hours before bed and sorry there is no childcare facility on the planet that can do it as well as most parents.

I've worked in different settings(some Outstanding),I know there isn't a single setting that could have done as good a job as me or provided what I did.More importantly there isn't a single setting my dc would have preferred to spending the bulk of their time in over their own home with me or dp.

I do find this issue interesting as having been lucky enough to be a sahp without any tc etc I'd like all parents to be able to have the same(let's face it most will be a wp too eventually).I can't see that without TC etc(which as a policy I disagree with)it would be possible.However it gets my goat when the middle income families who get nothing get stung with CB yet those on far more keep it and get help with childcare.

Those that are really vilified in this country are middle income families with a sahp. Those either side or with a wp get support.It isn't fair and it bugs me when sahp losing CB are vilified by some who are happy to take TC yet could go out to work.

Lets value all SAHP,they do a valuable temporary job which goes past in a blink of an eye.

AIBU to think the state shouldn't give additional benefits to people with hamsters? I haven't got the exact figures but my neighbour has a hamster.

I expect you get about £100 per hamster

Would they be working hamsters or stay at home hamsters?

Retropear - how do you work out that families on a higher income than those losing CB are keeping their CB and getting help with childcare?

I'm presuming you are talking about two people earning more than 50k between them vs one person earning above 50k?
If that's the case then I don't think either family will get help with the cost of childcare (although the dual earner household will get CB as long as they individually earn less than 50k).

Tax credits are exactly that TAX CREDITS. Namely an identification that at this point in their lives the person can't afford exorbitant taxes. You need to be on 40k to pay childcare for both.

I have nothing against sahms (apart from the smug ones who think it makes them better ) but if mum works she is also paying taxes. Therefore adding to the pot for everyone else. Staying at home is a choice, if you want more money find ways of earning it. Do a party a week and sell ridiculously overpriced cookware to all your mates or something, Best of both worlds. It's much harder for those on lower household incomes.

Of course the whole things a joke, people who are self employed and have a company can earn what they like, make sahm a director, ensure they both earn 49 k and keep the child benefit.

not rude she's taking about childcare vouchers. Which of tax credits are a handout these must be too.

Oh not to mention schools and people on 100k a year using the state sector.

Oh yes I forgot about childcare vouchers.
It makes sense now.

Staying at home is a choice, not a right.

What about my child's right to have a parent available to them at all times? I believe my children should be raised by me.

I am a SAHM, dh now earns a good wage so we only get the minimum here (Australia) which is similar to CB. So we are comfortable. But in the early days we did have TC until dh reached the threshold.

I had children, I will raise my children by being with them as much as humanly possible. Now they are both in school I volunteer in the community while I look for something that will fit in with their hours. I also have to change my career due to medical issues, so it isn't easy finding something.

That is your belief and therefore it is your choice.

These debates usually descend into a pointless round of trying to add up the minutes per week spent under the same roof as your child, and whether you can impart 'more' or 'better' values to your child in x, y or z minutes

Look, surely the bottom line is that the important thing, for children and society as a whole, is to be raised well, with physical and emotional needs met, to become well adjusted successful members of society? THAT is what matters.
And that can be done in a variety of ways. You can be a brilliant WOHP or a brilliant SAHP (or conversely you can be a bad WOHP or SAHP)

If there were clear evidence that the problems in society- people turning to drink, drugs, forming poor relationships, ending up jobless, depressed, with criminal records etc- were caused because of having parents who work: then yes; there would be a very clear argument for saying that society should fund a parent to stay at home. And actually if the above were true, I'm damn sure the govt would be doing that already because it would be more cost effective than picking up the pieces of those damaged lives.

But it isn't the case. Some parents may want to stay at home, and believe it to be the best thing for their children- which is fine. But you cannot extrapolate from that a whole argument to say that it's better for society.

I have no issue with a family agreeing to one parent staying at home if it suits them. No problem. I do however have a huge problem when they try to make a generalised judgement from that and think that it's 'best' for everyone else to do so. I know that being a WOHP has worked fantastically well for our family but I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else what they should do

As a bit of an aside, tax credits were a total utter mistake. NMW should be far higher. Someone working in a NMW job should be significantly better off than someone not working. And the more hours someone works, the more they should be tangibly better off as a result. None of this fannying about being able to play the system by deliberately keeping hours to a minimum to then get topped up by tax credits. It doesn't take a huge amount of brain power to see that a system which doesn't incentivise people to work is screwed.

Personally We never benefited from any childcare subsidies, and actually even when We paid the equivalent of my income in childcare, looked on it as a long term investment and the nursery my two went to was so wonderful I saw it as money well spent but I do think childcare should be tax deductible- that would make a big difference to many people.

I agree Janey re tc and I don't thinks helps re aspirations in secondary ie if you know you'll just get topped up why bust a gut to get exams?

We've sacrificed quite a lot to have a stay at home parent as we thought it best young children (just as others may sacrifice a lot for private education if that's their belief). If we didn't think it the best environment for small children we wouldn't have done it and kept two incomes going.

There isn't a doubt we'd be better off now but we feel we provided the best start we could by having asahm.

Tax credits were the worst thing ever introduced. They allowed people to quit work or reduce their hours to the bare minimum whilst other tax payers paid for that choice. The sooner they are scrapped the better and people will have to start financing themselves and the choices they make.

Childcare is a cost of working and should be tax deductible. The more workers we have the more tax we have. Keeping people in jobs should be the aim. People dont stop being a parent just because they work, they di all that plus provide for themselves and show their chidren its very possible to do both. I dont want boys to grow up believing they have to work as male whilst the girls get the luxury of not working. Seems a waste of education and leaves them very vunerable should things go wrong.

Given stats show that children bought up on benefits fare worse in life, i dont think having a SAHP is the ultimate goal and certainly not a choice the state should pay for.

i personally dont think you should expect help from the state if you want to stay at home OR work,but then imnot a fan of depending on the state full stop really,thats just me,id o everything i can to not have to.In my ideal world taxes would just pay for theings like the emergency services and general maintenance and education,healthcare would be private and the standard would be a lot higher.

I agree that SAHPs do a valuable job, but I don't think that it it so valuable that it should be state funded.

When children start school there is no difference between the children who have had a SAHP and those that haven't. If having a SAHP was that important that it was worthy of the state paying for, then there would be a significant difference in the development and abilities between the children that have a SAHP and the children that don't. But there isn't. Both groups of children can be equally happy and well adjusted and ready to learn at school.

Having a parent at home all day just doesn't make enough difference to a child that it is worth the state paying for. That is why it's a choice that families should make based on money they have, not money they are given by the state.