To wonder how it is affordable to be a SAHM?

[Moobieboobie]

This is not a WOHM vs SAHM debate but am genuinely curious ....... I am on mat leave with DC2 and keep being asked if I am returning to work. I would love to stay at home this time round but sadly this is not a possibility as both myself and DH earn roughly the same thus my salary is 50% of the household costs. We would not receive any benefits etc as we would still be above the threshold even without my salary. If there is someway around this please let me know as I will try anything!!

Childcare may erase one wage completely but if the other parent earns enough to cover that loss then why can't both parents work if they want to?

No one is saying someone shouldn't work if they want to. Just that in some cases it doesn't benefit the family financially.

I wonder how many women return up work even if the family is worse off financially just because they don't want to be a SAHM?

I know my sister does

Well I did with my dd... 11 years ago then I grew to hate work and now I enjoy being a sahm!

because for most families it doesn't make sense to one person to work for not just zero salary but negative salary, it's essentially a very expensive hobby at that stage.

However, there are obvious exceptions, such as where the lower earner has the long term potential to earn significantly more if they stay in their job. In a lot of cases, probably most 'ordinary' jobs, there aren't really the opportunities to eg double your salary in five years time. If you're in a job where that is a realistic prospect then of course it's more of a 'speculate to accumulate' situation.

writer

I think lots of people work when the family are worse off, in fact most duel working parents are worse off because of childcare, travelling, sustenance,
uniform or work clothes/ accessories.
Going to work is expensive and so many don't make a profit.

I wonder how many duel income families don't know how much it costs and how they would be better off financially by not working.

In my case, dh is a high earner, we live down south so do struggle, big mortgage, big bills, food, extra activities etc. i'd love to work but its not worth it financially or the extra strain on dh at the moment.

While we just have DD, it is financially beneficial (just!) for us both to work (I'm part time). If and when DC2 happens, we will probably bit a bit out of pocket every month for a year or two. However, I want to return to work and in my profession, it makes long-term sense for me to continue. I would struggle to find a new part-time post at my current salary after a few years out of the field. So to make life easier later, we may have to struggle temporarily.

In a nutshell, you need to live somewhere cheap and have a high-earning DH or have a low-earning DH and get topped up with benefits. I'm not being totally serious here but most of the SAHMs I know are in one of these situations.

We worked for one year where one of our salaries (we earned the same that year) were a bit less than what we paid the daily nanny. We both knew that over the years pay would increase at least for me and ab it for their father which it did. Also as a feminist I am very anti housewife for lots of reasons although I can see no point in setting them out here.

As we can see from the posts above many many lower earners with one wage are being supported by full time working mothers and fathers so that the lower earners get their child benefit, tax credits and housing benefit and do not have to work many or no hours. That is the welfare state we have created. Whether we think it is fair or not is another matter.

Fairylea I think you had the right idea. I would hate being a SAHM to very small children but once they get to school age it would be much more enjoyable :)

Oh oneskinny - I had another child, ten years apart so I worked while dd was little, then we relocated and then had ds and then I stopped work. I probably won't work when ds goes to school though, no desire to work ever again unless I am dragged kicking and screaming. Working in marketing in the city in London for years has finished me off......!

I gave up work and we relocated, so I had nothing to go back to. I was a fairly old gimmer having dd and financially established. I'm still sahming, give or take, and apart from giving up lifestyle (nice hols, clothes etc) it's been doable. I couldn't have done it quite so easily though, had circumstances been different. And nothing really prepares you for the magnitude if the expense, imo!

Greengrow.

So what are you suggesting then, that people should work if they don't gain financially or it even costs them to work.

My family would cost the tax payer far more if tax credits stopped. I'd have needed cc for 2 dc at a time for about 15 years which would have been more than we could afford, so we'd have lost our house costing the state more money just so I could work

Ffs Writer! This is unbelievable. I just do not accept that you can't understand. My 10 year old could understand, hell I reckon my guinea pig could understand if I explained it as clearly and as many times to her as people have patiently done on this thread.

Do you really want to be a writer? You'll need to sharpen up your reading and comprehension skills if that's the case.

After working part time for a year and DH earning next to nothing, topped up with tax credits, our situation has turned on it's head - DH now on £50k and I've been forced to resign as they wanted me to go full time. Wouldn't have been worth my while to keep working once childcare costs deducted. Recognise I am lucky though as I would have made some 'profit'. As I now don't have to work to keep food on our table and a roof over our heads though and I hate my job anyway, I think it will be beneficial for my family for me to be at home with DS. We are even going to keep him at nursery 1 day a week so that I can write, and keep on top of various things that are difficult to do with a 2 year old get my legs waxed, start getting osteopathy that I've needed since he was born, read Homes and Gardens.
God I sound smug. I am so excited for the future and for all the fun I'm going to have with DS.

Makes me laugh when people sneer at economising to be a sahp,inferring how awful life would be and how children miss out.A huge section of society live as frugally as us on the same if less with 2 working parents and get the most out of life just fine.

I do/did it because the benefits for my family and children are huge.I planned for it and I'm glad I did.It wouldn't be every families cup of tea but it has suited ours and I'm pleased with the values having to tighten our belts has given my dc.

Now we're on the road to secondary and their day will be longer we're all ready for me to get a part time job.We'll carry on living the same and after household jobs that have been put off spend most of it on travel which is the only thing I've missed.

Hybrid sahp is one of the wankiest terms ive ever heard

I think she meant (as did I) that people choose to work even if they are worse off but not to the extent it causes them huge financial difficulties.

I.e they'd be worse off but only by £100 a month or something which as a family they can still afford it.

I was just curious as to at what point do people say it doesn't make financial sense? Is it when the childcare costs are the same as one of the salaries? Or when childcare is almost the same as a salary??

Or do dome people say "well ok, childcare costs £120 more than my salary but I'm still going to go back to work."

OP, if you really want to do this, why not consider a sabbatical? Ask for a year or two extra mat leave as a career break. Ask the bank to let you go interest only on the mortgage for that period. Set aside some savings, if you have some, to be eaten up during the time at home. That way you don't burn your boats but you can have a bit more time at home.

Short-term it is affordable to be a SAHM by making some changes to life style. The long term thing is another matter, and it affects your pension, your chances of owning a home - or in your case, your chances of helping the DC in due course with a deposit- and your earning capacity in your 50s and 60s.

For me the right balance was 7 years SAHM, 5 years PT and then back to FT. It meant I preserved my career up to a point- I lost ten years, but it's not the end of the world.

Fairylea, respect. You are a glutton for punishment :o

There's no need to swear or be so personal minty - where did I ever say your reasoning didn't make sense?

Of course it does.

Of course I know that if childcare cost more than my actual salary then I would be a SAHP but that wasn't what I was even discussing. I was just meaning that I'm lucky I have a DH who can pick up the slack of the lost income.

Hybrid SAHP? What is that? I missed it.

writer I think when I went back it was partly because of non-financial things, oddly enough- for various reasons it became important to have a structure in my life apart from motherhood and marriage. But I was quite happy with near break-even to start with (probably did make a loss if I am honest) because it was about longer term- building up a pension, getting back to earning properly later on. In my 50 s I earn the same as DH and have a decent pension, so I am glad I did it. And the money i earn is being saved up towards helping the Dc with house deposits.

Apologies. (Though proud to excel at something, even if it is Wankiest Term 2014)

'2 people working outside home but fitting it together such that there is always a parent at home' seemed cumbersome.