To say that if I hear the Tory cliche "hard working families" once more

[DreamingofSummer]

I'll personally nail Osborne's scrotum to the floor

Being a sahp contributes to society big time

In what way?

A postman's wage never supported wife, children and a mortgage as a rule.

Fair enough, I wasn't around back then to be able to speak from experience. But my in laws seemed to manage it, as did most of their peers from what they tell me. Mil did do some odd cleaning jobs, but she was mostly a SAHM until her dc were at secondary school.

Either way, it's irrelevant to how things are now nowadays.

Consider if every SAHP got a job and claimed childcare costs to do it - many of them paying very little or no tax at all - do you think help with child care would still be sustainable? Of course not.

We wouldn't be talking about every SAHP, because many SAHPs are funded by their partners wage, which is fair enough IMO. They might not be contributing financially, but they aren't taking money from the government to fund their lifestyle choice either so that's up to them.

But if every SAHP that claims child tax credits to enable them not to work got a job, then the money they are already getting could be diverted to funding their childcare. Then we would have more child are workers as well as parents being economically active, which has got to be better than paying for people to do nothing except for themselves.

"Despite the stories of people fleecing the state the latest estimates suggest that just over £1bn, or just under 1% of the budget, was lost through fraud in 2011-12. That compares to (almost certainly conservative) estimates of £32bn lost in unpaid tax in the same year."

Who mentioned benefit fraud? Thats illegal and not what the discussiom was about. The amount taken from the pot by people able to work but choosing not to, choosing to work little or having more children despite not being able to afford them must be immense. It makes sense to crack down on this, not just to save money but to stop children having a bleak outlook in life.

Whilst i believe parents should fully support any children they choose to have, if we do have to subsidise anything it should be childcare. Needs to be capped higher than just expecting 16 hours work though. At least then, the child grows up in a working household and after a few years childcare wont be needed and the adult will have a job still. Some wont get promotions but many will or pay rises etc. The number of SAHP that belileve they will simply waltz into a job in future is amazing. Despite having no recent work experience, an employer will nearly always choose a person with experience and recent skills than somebody who has stayed home not working for years.

As for "being a SAHP contributes to society big time" Being a SAHP just means that you are basically unemployed and happen to have children. It benefits you but not society. Am sure it will be countered with "my husband needs me not to work so i can support him" but given thousands of couples both work, parent and look after a house it gives the impression of a helpless adult that needs to get a grip. If one has shift work or is away with work, then its not rocket science to work out that the other simply works office hours where childcare is available.

That figure would include fraud, Happy But let's play it your way. There are very, very few people who choose not to work. And so what if that's what they do, it's their choice, I don't like it, you don't like it, but it's their choice. It doesn't have any effect on me day or night until some blithering idiot from the Daily Mail starts on about 'all those people' and 'hard working tax payers'. Then it becomes nasty, it becomes about believing the nasty, insidious little lies that you are spreading here and there along with the mail. Then it becomes about picking on a benefits bill and not really looking at cuts elsewhere. It's called scapegoating and people are dying because of it. The benefits bill is not spiralling out of control, it rose steadily from the '40s to the '80s, it peaked in the late 1980s. As a percentage of GDP (and this will scare you) it fell under the Labour governments of '97 - 2010.
Figures etc available from the ONS.

'Whilst i believe parents should fully support any children they choose to have, if we do have to subsidise anything it should be childcare'

If parents should support themselves then why shouldn't they also pay for their own childcare? Sometimes this costs more than if they stayed at home.

'being a SAHP just means that you are basically unemployed and happen to have children.'

many SAHP see it as their main 'job'/vocation. You can call in unemployment if you like but many people would object and prefer 'looking after family and home' or whatever to describe them as caring for their own DC.

' Am sure it will be countered with "my husband needs me not to work so i can support him" If one has shift work or is away with work, then its not rocket science to work out that the other simply works office hours where childcare is available.'

Hmmm I am one of these limited by husband's shifts and working away. But no thanks I would rather pick my child up from school and be here in the holidays. It's so much easier having me at home. Easier all round. Why create more stress? You are being very simplistic and don't know people's specific needs. the only f/t dual shift worker families I know have parents doing free childcare. I don't know any at all that use paid childcare overnight and evenings. And it isn't that easy to 'simply work office hours' if your skills and experience is in another field!!! Many many jobs require flexible hours these days.

Why are some of you WOHM so desperate to have all DC in childcare and parents working f/t even though it may not be best for their individual family? How on earth will you feel when you retire?

The point is that it shouldn't be their choice if they can't afford it without the state paying for them to live.

There clearly are people who choose not to work, and that choice enabled by our current system of child tax credits. If the state didn't provide that choice, then it's not one that would be available for people who want to be SAHPs to make.

I don't have a problem with the individuals that chose to take advantage of a system that's available to them, I have a problem with a government that makes it possible for people who should provide for themselves to not bother because they'd rather spend their days going to toddler group.

As a SAHP, I contribute to society greatly. I look after my children - same as a childminder would, so I contribute that way. I also volunteer in two community projects, which I wouldn't be able to do if I worked.

I have no problem at all with women going out to work if they have children, but I do get mightily fucked off with the suggestion that I make no contribution to society because I don't get monetary reimbursement for my work.

If parents should support themselves then why shouldn't they also pay for their own childcare? Sometimes this costs more than if they stayed at home.

Because there is nothing wrong with a system that we all contribute to helping people out in the most expensive years of their lives. That's exactly what the state should do - take money in tax during the majority of your working years so that in the small amount of time that an individual can't contribute they can be helped.

many SAHP see it as their main 'job'/vocation. You can call in unemployment if you like but many people would object and prefer 'looking after family and home' or whatever to describe them as caring for their own DC.

And that's absolutely fine. Just fund it on the WOHPs wage instead of the taxes that come out of other people's wages.

If it's easier for your family to have you as a SAHM then be a SAHM. But society doesn't owe you an 'easier' ride, and if you want easier, then your partner has to earn enough to pay for it.

Bringing up your own children makes no difference to the rest of society. You are contributing no more than working parents who also do a good job of bring up their children, so don't kid yourself that you are contributing just as much if you are also taking out.

Voluntary work is great, and it is a contribution to society. But it's a contribution that many people who work also make. All of the volunteers I know (and I know many) either work, are retired, or have a disability that makes paid employment impossible. Society does not need to fund SAHPs who may or may not choose to volunteer so that community work gets done.

Society doesn't fund me, my DP does, actually. And I didn't say working people don't volunteer, I said I couldn't volunteer if I worked. Nice of you to say I make a contribution, though.

ah a SAHP/WOHP bashing each othet thread.

Hope the Coalition people are monitoring this thread.....they must be delighted.

FWIW, I think a contribution is a contribution....whether voluntary or paid.

Then your situation isn't a problem. I don't think anyone has said that they do have a problem with SAHPs if they are funding that choice themselves. I certainly wouldn't say it, because I pretty much did the same thing when my dc were little and I only worked one day a week.

so the discussion is only about those people who can work but choose to be a SAHP and claim top up benefits?

can it also be about the lack of investment in the economy and 6 people applying for every job

becuase one does follow from the other

"As a SAHP, I contribute to society greatly. I look after my children"

All this time I thought parents looked after their children due to them being part of them and they loved them, how strange to view it as a contribution to society. If you didnt loook after them it would be neglect.

Our PTA, Governors and community group all work with the exception of one or two retired people so being a SAHP doesnt automatically mean they are all out volunteering.

Choosing to not work is fine providing your partner is supporting that choice not the state. Likewise choosing to work to support yourself doesnt automatically equal children in childcare. Many parents work school hours, jobs around each other etc.

i think you are unnecessarily picking apart the contribution to society aspect.

any good parent is bringing up their child to be a full and contributory participant in society - they just are

i think you are under a misapprehension that jobs which suit circumstance are aplenty

they just aren't - if they were there would hardly be this ridiculous childcare situation

I made it quite clear I have no issue with people working. My objection is simply the attitude that SAHP = no contribution.

Many people will work in school hours...

....if they have the option and can afford childcare,

...if they can find a school hours job.

Fact is many cannot do this.....and they have to claim tax credits to manage. Lets not forget that tax credits were not traditionally seen as "benefits", that's a new definition in the past few years.

It does not mean that they are making no contribution to society.

I care for a disabled child. I also volunteer as a School Governor and as a parent support worker with an education project which helps people get the skills they need to go back to work.

At least three parents I have worked with are now working. I woukd call that a contribution.....and the same of any othet volunteer.

Looking after your own children is a pretty minor contribution to society though, and unless you are doing it well, which many don't, then it isn't a contribution to society at all.

It could be argued (although I wouldn't bother) that having more children than would replace yourself and your partner is detrimental to society because of over population.

No one gets pregnant and thinks to themselves 'how wonderful that I now have this child to benefit my fellow citizens'. They have children because they want them for their own enjoyment and fulfilment. And there's nothing wrong with that as long as you can afford to pay for them.

'Hardworking families' makes my blood pressure shoot right up. Patronising cliché.

As for SAHPs, even though I WOH full-time, I can see that unpaid labour has value. And having children is good for society.

Unpaid labour isn't recognised by society esp. politicians esp. when it's largely carried out by women.

'Hardworking families' makes my blood pressure shoot right up. Patronising cliché.

As for SAHPs, even though I WOH full-time, I can see that unpaid labour has value. And having children is good for society.

Unpaid labour isn't recognised by society esp. politicians esp. when it's largely carried out by women.

As a man, I hope people don't think I'm overly sensitive in asking this, but if we are going to talk about nailing male politicians scrotums to the floor, are we all OK with a similarly colourful image for female politicians?

Maybe some fishing wire threaded through the outer labia with a large needle and tied to a nail on the floor? Although we need a catchier way to describe it.

Lets not forget that tax credits were not traditionally seen as "benefits", that's a new definition in the past few years.

Tax credits have always been benefits, the labour government just did an excellent job with their propaganda that allowed people to believe they were actually some kind of tax credit.

How they managed it when they are benefits available to people who pay no tax is beyond me, but when you suddenly start giving millions of people something for nothing then they become pretty easy to convince.

If fairness, nailing scrotums to the floor is a concept already embedded in popular culture, its not MN fault if there isn't a female equivalent. And I suppose there aren't currently any female politicians important enough to apply any female equivalent to, anyway.

Tax credit.....shit name I agree but there have always been payments to families.

Incidentally we are an aging population here....children and raising children should be seen as having value and worth. As such we need to recognise that sone families will function better if they have a parent at home. Not all families are the same.

I do agree that there are lots of benefits to work...not just financial. .., its about routine, getting up everyday, having adult conversation, feeling like you have achieved something. Lots of benefits to work.....the above are what I miss most,

And there's nothing wrong with that as long as you can afford to pay for them.
There are some couples where both have a disability, rendering them unable to work, they manage on benefits, are they too not allowed children?