To think that it's ok to want to bring up your children and to be a mother, just as it's ok to go out to work instead?

[bronya]

I was brought up to 'have a career' and to think about work not babies. I admit I'd be bored doing nothing, and love the tutoring that I do - but I have no wish at ALL to be the main wage earner and leave the childcare to someone else. When my DS was born, it felt like I was complete. I'm happier, have more self esteem and confidence than I've ever had. I've met many other mums who feel similarly. Surely, our choice is just as valid as those who are WOHM? The point of feminism was that we should have that choice - whichever one we choose is our decision, surely?

[Retropear]

And being in the forces is hard too Monica.

I've seen how hard it is for both.

[Bumblebzz]

If you looks at things that way retro (always comparing what others have/have not) of course "it" isn't fair. Life isn't fair. The options are to either get over it or try to change itif you feel really strongly you could (get politically active).
However all the talk of fairness I find tedious, we all make our own decisions based on all the info available and given we are fortunate enough to actually have options we should be happy with our choices.
For example, I work full time, I could whine that I'd rather be at home, spend time with my child, etc, but I want to work and have to accept the trade-off.
If you choose to be a SAHP surely you should be happy (very happy) that you can do that and not get so wrapped up in what you perceive you are missing out on.
I don't have a car but I don't moan about my tax contributing to roads. Many people don't have children and still pay towards our schools. So not everyone gets CB anymore, big deal, it was past its sell-by date and so long as those in real need are provided for, why waste time worrying about it.

[monicalewinski]

I feel all warm and huggy now!!

Thanks for the responses - I'm off out now; I just wanted to say that the thing that pisses me off more than anything is how we get played by the divide and conquer politics (me included - I have had many a 'justified outrage' and then read some other views and gone ).

And Retro - my life is soooooooooo much harder than anyone elses - you have no idea!!!

[Retropear]

It's not exlusive re unfairness but I think it was the 50k is wealthy rhetoric that went with it that hit sahp more and many sahp were more reliant on it.Many,many families are on £50k and keep it.Obviously those on 50k and another will be on lots more but I get there is unfairness there too ie 2x30.

Given that the average household income is £40k I don't buy that single earner households on 50k -60k could ever be described as rich.When you factor in the loss of an additional tax threshold of £10k they're the same or not much more - so pretty average.

Either way it's pants.If you're on 10 and 40 you're going to have to be very careful re pay rises etc.Doesn't exactly encourage the middle sector to do overtime does it.

I just think having a sahp could be valued more as a valid choice and if we're going to fund the choices of those where working doesn't even contribute to the national coffers then things that would make quite a difference to families with a sahp such as a transferable tax allowance should be given too.

[Retropear]

Bumble I do see I was lucky but luck shouldn't come into it.It shouldn't be impossible for others to have the same,it should be easier.

They are our children and either choice should be valued and if one is going to be supported then so should the other.

It's not a permanent thing and if parents who desperately want to work are deserving of help then so are parents who desperately want a period of time with their dc.Either being miserable isn't exactly great.

[Retropear]

Wp are and will be having financial help with their choices from voicing their perceived unfairness re the cost of childcare.

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

but isnt that up to 20% of the costs of childcare? up to £1,200 per child.

so the WOP pays 80% (creating more work for someone else).

what could the govt subsidise in an equivalent way for SAH? that would create jobs?

[Retropear]

But you those jobs will more than likely be under the tax threshold and creating jobs isn't exactly the point is it.

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

But you those jobs will more than likely be under the tax threshold

yes - but creating low paid jobs helps reduce the benefits bill

creating jobs isn't exactly the point is it.

I think this is the point.

[Retropear]

So it's not about helping struggling families with childcare bills then?

If it's just a money making scheme I can think of better ways to make money than by giving families on as much as £300k help with childcare.

Families are already paying childcare,the gov helping out isn't going to make more jobs.The same people will be working,the gov will just be paying some of their wages.

[janey68]

Bumblezz- you make a very good point. Lots of people are paying through their tax for things they won't directly benefit from. Childless people are still contributing towards schools. People who take care of their health and never visit the doctor are still paying for hospitals.
If you obsess about whether life is 'fair' you'll probably live a miserable, unfulfilling existence. Life is about making choices from those available to us, within the context of our own lives. Govts change, Policies change. If id had my children a few years later id have been entitled to 6 months off work instead of 3 and my DH would have had a fortnights paternity leave. I could stamp my feet and cry 'unfair'- but what's the point? That way of thinking just leads to bitterness. I made my decision to be a WOHP and like Monica said earlier, although it was hard at times ( physically tough to be ebf and going to work, and mentally quite tough to pay my entire wages on childcare) I am comfortable with the choices we made as a family

[Permanentlyexhausted]

It is about recognising that access to good quality childcare is very expensive in the UK, in comparison to many of our European neighbours. It is about recognising that this puts the UK as a whole at quite a disadvantage compared to those countries we compete against on the world market. It is about recognising that there is a significant and costly loss of skilled workers because childcare is not accessible to all.

It is not really about helping struggling families and it certainly isn't about having a pop at SAHMs. It's bigger than those petty concerns.

[Permanentlyexhausted]

I meant to link to this article about comparative childcare costs in European countries:

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/21/child-care-costs-compared-britain

[BitOutOfPractice]

How? How can the same people have the time, and more importantly the inclination, to still be arguing on this thread after 6 days?!

[Permanentlyexhausted]

For the same reason you bothered to come back and comment, I guess.

[Bumblebzz]

Retro, are you annoyed because:

• working parents get some (minimal!) tax relief on childcare

--> i don't understand why this bothers SAHPs - if you want tax relief on childcare, you have to earn money to pay tax to then get relief, no-one actually gets given money here.

• the model for working out CB isn't perfect and some households do worse than others that have a higher HH income depending on the income combinations

--> It's a less than perfect model because it would be very expensive to do it differently and that would eat into the benefit. You seem obsessed with the definition of rich/wealthy, if you replace those words with ineligible, would that help, because that's all it comes down to really. There are rules/thresholds and some people benefit because they meet the eligibility requirements and some don't. Back to my roads/schools analogy..

[Retropear]

No it's the lack of thought re helping sahp and gov rhetoric(actually most of my gripe is with the gov policy and rhetoric).

Re tax relief my partner does pay tax and I do his/our childcare so I would like to see a transferable tax allowance up to the same income ie 150k.Families with a sahp take a financial hit to look after children they chose to have just the same as those with 2x working parents.

I'd also like to see some help re childcare for those retraining,studying and on work experience whilst having time out as a sahp.

Re the cost of means testing they manage it with CB so it's not an argument to not do it with childcare,WFA or anything else.The fact is they want to send a message out which we all get loud and clear.

[monicalewinski]

Bit to be honest the last lot of posts have been exceptionally non argumentative and I've learned a lot from the 'other side' that I'm not privy to in my normal everyday rl.

Thanks for the responses Retro, it makes sense to me what you're getting at now and I absolutely agree re the help with childcare etc for retraining/studying etc.

It would absolutely make sense for a transferable tax allowance between wages/all on one - there's something in the back of my mind about did that not used to happen? It got switched to tax credits from tax allowance I think, something to do with it being fairer on women? I can't remember and am probably waffling - but it would definitely be easier, surely, if it was all done on tax and pay.

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

I would like to see a transferable tax allowance up to the same income ie 150k.

but the help for WOHP is up to £1200 per child per year.

to be fair the SAH scheme could only cost the same amount.

[Retropear]

You yes I agree,similar amount and with the same income threshold.

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

the problem you have is SAH is only 10% of women so you wont win in a democracy.

but I wont get my improved corporation tax idea either. really if business taxes went up, I would not be complaining months/years later.

that's the bit I don't get.
what's the point in being annoyed?

[normalishdude]

I think it depends on who pays for it.

[Bumblebzz]

Retro

I see what you are looking for but unless it's economically viable I don't see it happening. It is in the government's interest (and by government you can read country, us, our collective bank balance, to pay all our national bills/debts etc) to encourage more women to work outside the home as its boosts the economy (cf. womenomics) but other than being seen to help couples, there is no economic value (that I can think of) for the government to help SAHPs be SAHPs.