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?

Remembered what my question was supposed to be about

What I didn't say, and should have said, was relating to the completely disgusting phrase used by an earlier poster.

They said , referring to SAHMs at the time, was " people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them"

The OP said that if some one who choose to stay at home should fit the bill. So why don't people say that about working people who are paid so badly or the childcare costs are so expensive that even though they work their socks off they need to claim for childcare vouchers

They both made the "choice" financially to work or SAHP. So is it still the whole taxpayer bit? Are tax credits and childcare vouchers given to part time workers? In which case they may not be paying tax

And by the way I don't agree with that phrase at all, should never be that only the rich have children, wages should be much better than they are for lower paid workers and childcare is incredibly expensive ! I am just curious as to people's thoughts

happy mummy you can say what you want but statistics show children bought up by their parents and not in a nursery or childminder are happier and healthier.

If your aim for your kids is a little robot who will eat and sleep when you tell them to who will grow up to be a good little worker who "works hard" and pays tax to the government like a good little boy,then you are right,but i dont want my kids to grow up thinking life begins when they leave school get a job.

Because if we said that about working people then we'd effectively be saying that some people aren't worthy of having children, even though they are contributing to society and doing jobs that society needs someone to do.

That would be wrong because it comes too close to eugenics to be right.

By subsidising childcare for people who work and pay tax, we are just using the system we pay into to support people at the times of their lives that they need support. Its a service that all working people could benefit from because its a service that all working people contribute to. The same as we all benefit from the existence of the police, the fire service, hospitals etc. Except that people will only benefit from free childcare if they are also contributing to paying for it.

Lmao at the idea that there are 'statistics' which show us that children are happier and healthier if they are brought up by a SAHP and that going to nursery turns them into robots!

By all means don't work if your partner can support you and you are both happy with the arrangment. Be confident in your decision! You don't need to make up bizarre stories to try to justify it.

Apocket, i doubt there are any stats that show children are healthier if they have a sahp! There are bugs all arounds and certainly they are rife in schools.

As for DS being a robot as i expect him to work and not lounge on benefits, words fail me. I want him to do well in life, be responsible for himself and to not expect others to pay for his choices in life. PMSL at the thought of all workers being robots. Am sure all the males providing for their wives to stay home will be thrilled with that description.

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

^^ worra :o

and yabu op.

Hmmmm knew there was a reason that my kids were unhealthy ... what a laughable made up stat.

On the other hand
I don't agree with people choosing to live on the state unless valid reasons either.

But I do get 6 k a yr in benefits so probably a hypocrite lol

I'm very confused at this thread. I'm a sahm (but I chose to freelance and get some extra cash) and dh earns about the same as the dh in the example. Afaik we can't claim any benefits, even if I wasn't freelancing. Don't you have to be actively jobseeking to get JSA?

Apocket could you give me a link to those stats please ? Thanks

I can't believe people think that kids won't try as hard at secondary school because they can just get tax credits.

There is a ridiculous attitude in this country in that you are only worthwhile if you are working. Let's stop believing the lies in the media and the crap spouted by the politicians. Most of them barely know what hard work is anyway.

Instead of supporting parents, we instead choose to guilt trip anyone who dares to make a different "lifestyle choice" to ourselves. "how dare you stay at home and steal my taxes" "how dare you go to work and let your child become a robot" (seriously, robots? wtf?)

Here's a shocker - raising children is hard work. No matter whether you work or stay at home. It's costs are both financial and emotional.

But whilst everyone is arguing about who is the best mum, the real problems get pushed aside. Divide and conquer, isn't that what they say?

Seff- it's not as simplistic as kids consciously thinking 'I won't work hard and aim for an interesting career because I can get topped up with tax credits'. Values and attitudes are formed in a far less black and white way.

But there is absolutely no doubt that the daft system in this country can act as a disincentive. If someone can work, say, 16 or 20 hours and end up topped up with tax credits to have almost the same in their pocket as if they worked 30 or 35 hours a week, then undeniably people will take advantage of that system.

Tax credits are an insidious thing- not simply because of the reasons stated above but also they can lull people into a false sense of security. They provide no long term benefit. At least with earnings, you are paying into your pension and making some long term as well as immediate financial gain. Also, the moment tax credits are reduced or pulled altogether, you're stuffed. You are at the mercy of govt policy.

apocket Did you know that 78% of statistics are made up on the spot?

I have no idea whether they work or not, but I thought tax credits were brought in to make the 16hrs work more financially rewarding than no work at all.

Merrymouse- I think that was the reasoning behind them: that someone should have an incentive to work 16 hours rather than none. The problem is though, that unless you have a system whereby people are always better off the more they work, then people will abuse it. At the end of the day, 16 hours is very part time, only the equivalent of a couple of days a week. If someone doing the same job full time is only marginally better off, because tax credits and other fringe benefits are reduced, then there is very little incentive to work full time. Society has also become very short term oriented too which compounds the issue. If people have money in their pocket in the here and now, they tend to bury their head in the sand about the long term and whether working more hours will lead to promotion, more interesting work, better pension etc

I can understand the reason behind tax credits, but I still think they were a massive mistake. The gap between benefits and earnings needs to be bigger. Benefits should be a safety net providing the basic requirements. Working in any job, however lowly, should make one tangibly better off.

"Working in any job... should make one tangibly better off."

I agree! I wish!

Sorry woowoo I thought you were in the "shouldn't have children if they can't afford it camp"

My mistake, but some people who quote that (not yourself obviously) are saying that people on benefits who can't/don't work at all shouldn't have children, and as you say that is close to eugenics

woowoo even if you believe that sahp have no benefit over childminders etc, why is it fair that if I looked after three of someone else's children I would receive taxpayer's money through childcare credits paid to the parents then paid to me. But not for looking after my own three hypothetical children. Why is looking after someone else children if more value to society than looking after my own?

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?

Puritan work ethic, IMO. We might be less overtly religious now, but I think the idea is very ingrained that "hard work" and moral rectitude are inextricably linked. And enmeshed with this is the use of remuneration as a measure of "hard work", which leaves the more nebulous worth of an unsalaried SAHP an unknown quantity.

I was a SAHM when my kids were small. DP doesn't earn a lot, but we have no debts and low outgoings (no car to run, reasonable rent etc). But even so, tax credits made it possible. Do I feel guilty? HELL no. I'm not qualified for anything, so any work I got would've been low-paid and unskilled. Would I really have been more of an asset to society serving coffee or flipping burgers, my babies in nursery at the state's expense, than caring for them at home (at far less expense to the state) to a far higher standard than any childcare setting could provide?

But the point we are making is that any job, no matter how unskilled, ought to pay enough that you shouldn't need topping up. A combination of high living costs (I'm talking house prices and essentials like utilities) and low NMW mean that people who are working need to be topped up by tax credits. It's ludicrous.

Also, the issue about looking after other people's children is a red herring because if you do that, you are doing a job, it's regulated and subject to all sorts of conditions and market forces. As has been said countless times, looking after ones own children isn't the same, it's something we all do.

"But the point we are making is that any job, no matter how unskilled, ought to pay enough that you shouldn't need topping up."

The problem is not one of wages but one of living costs (notable house prices) that have spiralled out of control.

On that point about looking after other people's children being 'the same' or even comparable as looking after ones own: it really isn't.

When I had my children, I went back to work 3 days a week and used a cm and later nursery for childcare.
I guess as an alternative, I could have stayed at home with my children but registered as a cm myself, and would actually have been better off during those early years as I would have been earning without paying childcare.

However, I didn't want to- for many reasons. I adored being with my own children, but didn't feel any burning desire to look after anyone else's. As a cm, I would have had to meet various standards, complete all sorts of paperwork and ultimately subject myself to market forces by proving that I was better than alternatives such as other local cms or nurseries, in order to get, and retain, business.
This is not something I wanted to do. Which is fine. But it proves the point that becoming a registered childcare provider is totally different to the experience of looking after ones own children

I agree entirely that taking care of other people's DC is not the same as taking care of one's own. Increasingly, taking care of other people's DC means working to external public standards which may be entirely unrelated to the standards one sets oneself.

Childcare is a cost of working and should be tax deductible

Childcare is only a cost of working if the job could only be done by someone who had children in childcare.

That is true fraidy- unless you need to have children to be able to do a particular job then it isn't a cost of working directly; however many people (me included) believe the rules should change to make it tax deductible when it's childcare directly enabling a parent to work.