Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To ask why you go to work

481 replies

IamthepermedowlofVeronica · 10/04/2016 22:10

Try to be brief but thorough....
Due back from 1 years maternity at the beginning of June. Hate job, don't want to go back. Have had offer of temporary ad hoc work between June and start of summer hols.
Wondered how much job seekers is whilst I apply and interview over summer hols. Did the online calculator tangy: If I work current hours and pay childcare I would earn £6 less than if I signed on job seekers.
So why should I go to work (no career, just a money earning job) and how does signing on work? Has anyone found it detrimental to confidence etc?
Hopefully I'll get another cash earning job in September or,something when ds will be 15 months

OP posts:
SmarterThanTheAverageBear16 · 12/04/2016 14:32

Wow. I'm astounded to see the amount of people who don't think that caring for your own children is a job!?

Of course it isn't a job. A job is a PAID position of employment. SAHM is unpaid, and no-one employs you.
It's not a value judgement, its a simple statement of fact.

Its the people who want to be paid by other taxpayers for being a SAHM that is the problem here.

MiniMover · 12/04/2016 14:46

jw, you do realise that what you are doing is not supported and condoned by the government because the agree with your choice or think you have the right to sah. It is confined by the government because they don't want your child to starve or be disadvantaged. They want him/her to grow up with better ethics than you.

MiniMover · 12/04/2016 14:50

It's fine to sah if, as a family unit, you can afford that option. I did it for many years. I wouldn't have contemplated it had I needed to rely on benefits. But then I wouldn't have contemplated having children in those circumstances either.

ToInfinity · 12/04/2016 14:55

Its the people who want to be paid by other taxpayers for being a SAHM that is the problem here.

But aren't people who go to work and use childcare that is subsidised by the tax payer expecting the same thing? For the taxpayer to subsidise their choosing to work?

Obviously some people need to work, that's not what I'm saying, but of people I know personally who have DC, most could financially afford not too, but to choose to do so for a number of different reasons. Why should their choice to work be seen as more acceptable then someone else's choice to stay at home and care for their children themselves?

NewLife4Me · 12/04/2016 14:58

tax credits are only benefits since the Conservatives got in, oh and since the cut off was lowered from 42k.
I bet there are loads who are benefit bashing who readily accepted their tax credits and cb.

witsender · 12/04/2016 14:58

Looking after your child isn't a job FFS. It is your occupation at this moment. Look after someone else's child for money, and it is a job.

NewLife4Me · 12/04/2016 15:01

On what grounds is it better ethics to woh and tell your children they are in childcare for no financial gain to the family.
I could never have done this. We all have are values and they differ to each person.
Just because you believe you are doing the right thing by working doesn't mean that everybody has to agree with you and ditch their values.

SmarterThanTheAverageBear16 · 12/04/2016 15:03

What values make it ok to play the system by claiming benefits because you'd rather not work?
IF that is the values you have, you SHOULD be ditching them!

SirChenjin · 12/04/2016 15:05

On the grounds that childcare is a temporary thing, that good childcare is a wonderful thing, that working will bring you and your family financial gain in the long run.

If your partner or private income supports you then fine. If not then get your backside out to work and don't expect other adults to support you by their work ethic.

jellybeans · 12/04/2016 15:08

Good point toinfinity.

Somehow it is all fine and dandy for the better off to get free or subsidised childcare

SirChenjin · 12/04/2016 15:10

The better off to get free or subsidised childcare? Where is this childcare of which you speak? The only ones I know who are getting subsidised childcare are the people on benefits or tax credits.

DerelictDaughter · 12/04/2016 15:11

I work because the sneering attitude of working mothers I know has persuaded me that I am an inferior person if I could leave the house to work but don't.

Joke! I work because I like it. And sometimes I haven't worked (when it was easier for me not to with small children around and no family input and no budget for full time nursery) and that's been good enough.

MiniMover · 12/04/2016 15:12

They are in childcare because it is my responsibility to support my own children as long as I am able bodied enough to do so. So that part of my tax can go towards supporting those unable to support themselves.

SmarterThanTheAverageBear16 · 12/04/2016 15:13

Somehow it is all fine and dandy for the better off to get free or subsidised childcare

And where does this mythical thing happen? I don't know of anywhere handed out free nannies or creche places? Do share, we'd all love some of that pie?!

MiniMover · 12/04/2016 15:15

Where is this subsidised childcare?

jellybeans · 12/04/2016 15:15

SirChenjin

What is wrong is that people are bejng made to feel bad for having time off with ill children. It has been mentioned on this thread a parent worried sick about it. Parents SHOULD be able to put DC first but many workplaces do not allow this.

You seem to have taken my post the wrong way.

NewLife4Me · 12/04/2016 15:18

SirChenjin

I know few people who would work for no financial gain and childcare is a requirement until they are 11 if you need wraparound care.
Why do it if you don't have to?
Some people manage to have one earner and a sahp with tax credit top ups and until recently when the gov began their campaign of benefit bashing, changing goal posts, was quite acceptable to society. It was never mentioned when the middle earners were "entitled", now they aren't there is so much jealousy and people have fallen for the gov propaganda.

jellybeans · 12/04/2016 15:19

The poster was talking about those who claim more in childcare than they would to stay home in TC. But this is ok even if they are not earning enough to pay tax etc. Saying that, I have heard many a tory voter up in arms that people are expecting others to pay for their childcare and they shouldn't have kids they can't afford. Tories are planning for subsidising childcare for those earning up to very high wages.

LittleMisslovesspiders · 12/04/2016 15:19

Where is this subsidised childcare?

Oh yes, please let us know jelly

phoenix1973 · 12/04/2016 15:19

I am only entitled to £20 per week apparently (JSA the national insurance aspect of it only for 6 months). Not claiming it.
No way I am being treated like scum, looked down on or hoop jumping for that.
Instead I am a housekeeper 2 days per week at a well known family leisure retreat. It's not much money but better than 20 a week and I am less looked down upon (fractionally).
However, I feel so low in confidence and hope this won't be forever. I need a job up to 30 hours per week and haven't had one since last October.
I feel guilty that my partner works full time and I don't. He hates his job and I wish I could ease his load. I am a low earner unfortunately so we cannot swap places, even if I worked full-time.
I would just love to NOT always be thinking about the money, worrying about the future, waking in the night wondering if I will EVER work again.

LittleMisslovesspiders · 12/04/2016 15:21

Tories are planning for subsidising childcare for those earning up to very high wages.

Any proof or pure heresay?

SirChenjin · 12/04/2016 15:24

That's the thing because work does conflict with putting your child's needs first which is shown when they are ill.a parent should be able to stay with the child.

Can you see from your post why I took it that way? There is no conflict in terms of work versus our children's needs. If you mean that some work places should be better providing flexible working to enable parents to take time off to be at home with their sick children then you need to say that.

MiniMover · 12/04/2016 15:26

Of course some work places could be/should be more flexible. That's a different argument.

SirChenjin · 12/04/2016 15:26

New - if you know a few people who work for no financial gain whatsoever then they are very, very lucky.

childcare is a requirement until they are 11 if you need wraparound care. This makes no sense whatsoever. Care to elaborate?

NewLife4Me · 12/04/2016 15:35

You said that childcare was temporary, I don't think 11 years is temporary.
I know not all jobs would require this but not everybody has a support system of free childcare from family.
With a dh who works all over the place sometimes with very little notice whatever my hours were I'd have had to have had childcare, including school holidays.
It just wasn't practical for us, when the dc were at home.
I still can't earn more money as that wouldn't suit our circumstances either. So sahm I remain.

Swipe left for the next trending thread