Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

276 replies

DixieWest · 29/11/2013 12:17

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?

OP posts:
SoupDragon · 30/11/2013 12:13

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.

I agree with this. Perhaps it would be better to say that all people who choose to have children should not claim state funded benefits for them.

janey68 · 30/11/2013 12:28

Yes- though I think a really important distinction needs to be made between tax breaks (as I suggested above) and benefits. I think tax breaks on childcare would make a real difference, and it doesn't mean 'giving' any money to parents: it's simply allowing them to pay their childcare our of gross income, rather than taxed income (and then the cm or nursery gets taxed again!)

Norudeshitrequired · 30/11/2013 12:50

Soup dragon - what about people who have jobs and get made redundant / become too ill to work, should they be able to claim state benefits for their children?

pianodoodle · 30/11/2013 12:56

Perhaps some of you could just take it as a given that someone has to have children Grin

It's pretty much... life.

Also, presumably if you don't choose to have children you may at some point in your life find yourself reliant on the children of those who did.

Perhaps the doctor who operates on you in 30 years time might be one of those children you didn't think your money should help to bring up?

Ffs. I can't believe the way people get so het up about another person receiving what usually amounts to a bloody pittance anyway.

intitgrand · 30/11/2013 13:12

'With the greatest of respect- what's it to do with you?'
I can't believe the way people get so het up about another person receiving

..Because as a taxpayers they are working their butts off to pay for your choices!! And some of those taxpayers will be working mothers who would prefer to be at home with their DC

Retropear · 30/11/2013 13:49

What Soup said with bells on.

Kids cost,everybody knows that.

The costs for both sahp and wp are temporary,both are responsible and both could save,wait and limit their family/lifestyle to what they can afford prior and after.Thus both should be treated the same ie if the state is going to help one they should help the other.

Oh and having been a rec teacher with friends still in the job in many cases you can tell the kids who have been in poor quality nurseries of which there are many.

If I had had to have been a wp I would never have used a nursery.Sorry I make no apologies for that.

Retropear · 30/11/2013 14:06

Happymumofone I am and a sahp and have never in my entire life claimed benefits,aspiring to be a sahp for a while is not aspiring to be on benefits as most households will have a working parent.

You say you work and claim 6k in benefits.

This is what gets my goat. Sahp are likened to benefit cheats,accused of being lazy etc yet most work hard and many don't claim a bean.

How is state help ok for one sector but not another?

Also children who don't do well on benefits generally have no wp,are living in poverty and have poorly educated parents which isn't reality for most families with a sahp. We're talking 1 sahp not 2 here,you seem to be treating both as the same.

TheOnlySeven · 30/11/2013 14:23

When I worked FT before having DCs I earned 12k, my wages wouldn't even pay for childcare. DS has a life-limiting medical condition, I'd rather be at home spending time with him. Sometimes you don't know all the facts.

MyMILisfromHELL · 30/11/2013 14:38

Where the Jeff did you pull those figures from, op? The threshold household income for claiming tax credits for 1 child is something like £26k & £31k for two.

In the example you've given, the family would not be entitled to benefits & would live off one salary.

I haven't bothered to read the thread. It's simply ridiculous that children should suffer because you have some kind of vendetta against sahp's.

Many can not afford the extortionate childcare costs for under 5's and or have no familial support. I find your POV totally short sighted at best, ignorant at worst.

HappyMummyOfOne · 30/11/2013 14:44

Retropear, please point to the post that say i work and take £6k in benefits as i can guarantee you wont find one but feel free to make up statements like that Hmm

Retropear · 30/11/2013 14:47

Apologies 'twas mum of beauties but the point is made none the less.

An awful lot of 2x working families claim more in benefits than those with a sahp.

Having a sahp is nothing like having 2 parents out of work.

mumofbeautys · 30/11/2013 15:17

It was me who said I work and take 6 k a yr in benefits

mumofbeautys · 30/11/2013 15:19

I do think there is a difference between working and claiming and not working.
If it's a choice if that makes sense ..obviously benefits need to be there .. redundancy etc

pianodoodle · 30/11/2013 15:22

Because as a taxpayers they are working their butts off to pay for your choices

That's nice. I do hope they get to keep some money for themselves though, you know, as a sort of thank you for being so saintly.

mumofbeautys · 30/11/2013 15:24

I do think it's changed though over the years because what is deemed enough money for a quality life is higher and includes more things .. on another thread that stated what was deemed as a a person's needs including something like 90 pound leisure activities lol like seriously

lanbro · 30/11/2013 15:51

OP, do you realise that most SAHMs have worked prior to having children so have also paid taxes? I paid into the system for 15 years before becoming a SAHM so I am simply benefiting from that now for the good of my children. Once they are in full time education I will work and pay taxes once again up until retirement so for a maximum of 6 years I'll take out compared to approx 35-40 years of paying in!

lanbro · 30/11/2013 16:02

Oh, and presumably the WP id also paying taxes!

janey68 · 30/11/2013 16:20

I'm sure a reception teacher can spot which children have come from homes where there may be one or both parents at home but there is a lack of stimulation or good quality parenting. So I'm not sure what the point of the post singling out nurseries was (unless it was another tired old dig at WOHP of course!)

The points made earlier on this issue is that there is NO clear divide between children with WOHP and those with SAHP, in terms of their skills on starting school, leaving skills, health, happiness and so on. There simply isn't- despite the fiction spouted earlier on about there being 'statistics to prove children with a SAHP are healthier!!!'

If there were a clear link between better outcomes for children with SAHP then I would take seriously the suggestion that there should be some kind of govt support for it. But there isn't. Good parenting is what counts whether its by WOHP or SAHP

I'm also not a fan of govt top ups at all; it's not an answer for anyone, working or not. The answer is quite simply to make hard work pay off, so people have an incentive to earn, to go for promotions to harder, more challenging / difficult jobs which we need people to be prepared to do. If you know that what you gain in higher wages will be lost through tax, loss of any top ups or fringe benefits then why is it surprising that this country is in the mess it is

Madmammy83 · 30/11/2013 16:30

OP mind your own business. I stopped reading after this:

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

You're a fool if you think any nursery can 100% replace the care a parent can give a child. If there are supports available for parents who choose to stay at home, that's a good thing. If you don't agree with it, don't do it. You sound jealous of your friend tbh.

Madmammy83 · 30/11/2013 16:32

Oh and by the way, we all pay tax, whether we work outside the home or not. This uppity attitude of people with 9-to-5 jobs of "I pay your taxes so I get to pass judgement on you" drives me up the wall. We all pay tax every time we do a grocery shop, or pay a bill, or buy fuel. Just because someone may have a different less structured schedule does not entitle you to dictate how and where taxes are spent.

janey68 · 30/11/2013 16:33

I have never met a parent who expects or even wants a nursery to be an equivalent to parental care so tbh I think that's a red herring. Ime parents see nursery as another dimension of the child's experience: not an alternative for anything or an equivalent

tinkertaylor1 · 30/11/2013 16:43

We all pay tax every time we do a grocery shop, or pay a bill, or buy fuel. Just because someone may have a different less structured schedule does not entitle you to dictate how and where taxes are spent

agreed!

Retropear · 30/11/2013 16:48

For under 2s that life experience is not ideal.

Grennie · 30/11/2013 16:51

My SIL is a SAHP and says quite openly there is no point her doing paid work, as they would lose benefits.

Grennie · 30/11/2013 16:52

My niece and nephews are all of school age.