To ask how much your OH makes so you can be a SAHP?

[justasliver]

Curious. How much does your DH (or DW!) make in order for you to stay at home and not be skint at the end of the month? I don't know how couples do it!

I'm SAHP not because we can afford it, but because we can't afford the childcare. He earns just over 20k. We get tax credits, but always skint.

BTW nothing wrong with suggesting SAHM might think about the long term and quite significant ramifications of not working to their financial future.
For me working FT ensured I had a sound salary so if I was one of the 42% ( and I was -DH left me) then you and your kids aren't plunged into poverty. If I'd been a SAHM it would have been highly unlikely that I'd quickly find a job to support us adequately

It's a sound point and I'm sorry that happened to you windy BUT - if my husband leaves me it won't make much difference to my financial situation now. Il get half of our assets and well as child maintenance. maybe we'd have to sell our large home and buy two cheaper ones - fine. If I felt the need to return to a paid job when the kids are older and couldn't in my (before kids) career field I could get a job in a shop/childminding/temping - lots of options! Many of my divorced friends are still living in the family home, some work some don't. Hardly plunging into poverty!
And if people still conclude that I've 'wasted' my life, at least I've 'wasted' it doing something I loved that can only benefit my children..

My dh earns about 28k. We don't get any TCS. Live in the north west with one pre school dc. We are pretty comfortable, although not planning any more dc and money is a contributing factor!

Well a long time ago (23 years) I decided to be a SAHM. DH was on 16k or so (less than me) which was a bit rubbish even then. There were no tax credits. Our mortgage rate went crazy. We were very skint (but happy).

We moved up north in the hope our money would go further. DH's career went really well. I liked being at home. We had 4 kids. DH set up on his own, gave me half the business and a role in it. Life is sweet.

For us it has never been about the money. We were happy with a little house, camping holidays and picnics, never needed expensive days and meals out. Our kids are lovely so we have been very fortunate.

And biggest turn up of all, we are quite wealthy now, lovely big house, nice cars, much to the chagrin of certain people who were rather superior about their two salary lifestyles. We reckon we have enough to retire later this year (mid 50s). Again, it's not about the money for us, it's about quality of life.

The SAHP who say they do a job of childcare that working parents pay someone else to do, well that's false I work just short of 30 hours a week and have no childcare costs as it works around school hours. So I don't pay someone else to look after my kids I try and earn a living along side being there for my kids.
I cannot stand the idea of having a man support me I was brought up by a mother who was then bread winner so maybe that's why I hate the idea of it. I'm not sure but I just know I couldn't bare the thought of not contributing towards to kids upbringing financially. I want to know that when I eventually pass away I have done everything within my own power to ensure my children have everything they need and never go without.

My DP would say that I'm to independent for my own good and will not let down my wall and let people help me, but I don't see it as a problem so I'm happy with my approach to life.

EnormousTiger
I don't think we need "farming out" comments or "never there". Most men and women feel they do a reasonable job of being a parent whether they work or don't. Just be content with your choices

Exactly! grrr I hate agreeing with ET but as this is a very sensible comment I just have to 😂 I'm a long term SAHM and it's worked well for our family but I am sure that had I worked it would have worked out just as well.

Silentbat of course fathers also benefit from free childcare and they are responsible for their children.
But it's the free childcare that gives, in the majority of cases I know of, the mothers (not the fathers) the opportunity to work away from home and turn a profit.
You can argue that if both parents pay 50% of the cost of childcare, it makes it profitable but that's not the way most couples look at it.

If childcare cost outweighs one parent's earnings it does not make sense, to me, for that person to work, all things being equal. It is usually (statistically) the woman who stays home in this scenario. I am happy to clear this up for you .

Totally agree helloworld101, very enlightening thread. I never believed that one could be a SAHP with a household income of less than 30k. I think I have to start managing better my accountability. I love being SAHM at the moment but how long it will last though, time will tell.

Yes surveys show it is grumpy shouting angry nasty parents that damage children - that is parents - male and female and whether they work or at home. That counts so much. I love working and having children. My youngest are teenagers now. Other fathers and mothers don't work and don't need the money and are happy too.

Just get on with what feels right for you. Mind you I've "abandoned" all of mine for a week in the sun on a Caribbean island this week (paid for by my work) which is rather nice but plenty of non working parents, male or female, with older children could do the same. My advice to my children is pick careers you enjoy and are adaptable and where ultimately you could work for yourself (where the real power, control and money and wealth tends to be) and try to spread risk in a family - several income sources are a good idea; one a bad idea. I agree plenty of divorce couples cope but there is more of a struggle if there is only one wage and I know plenty of men who have disappeared with all the money - one went to Thailand. ; another hid it off shore; plenty on MN have partners who are "self employed" with a tiny tiny wage so pay just about no maintenance. It happens time and again

Pringle what did you do work/childcare before they were school age?

Glad you're happy with your set up. It sounds like it works well for you.

Love the way working mothers say SAHM's should work in case their husbands left them. I DO work, but only because my husband is there to look after the kids while I'm on nights, I couldn't do my job if he left, I'd have to find a new one. I think many mothers (and fathers actually) understate the amount of support provided by others in order for them to go out to work. I know a guy who says his wife would be so bored if she had to stay at home, shame households need two working parents etc. but neglects to mention they have both sets of gps on their doorstep who do the school runs and after school care.

Hopefully adults that don't feel angry and resentful towards me because I was never there.
Sorry though is that an assumption? Like the one you just made about sahm's having 'nothing' when there kids grow up?

Perhaps if the Goady Fucker hadn't ASSUMED mothers who choose to work "farmed" their children out she wouldn't have received that retort from me.

That one SAHP was obviously being daft and clearly does not represent all SAHP.

I may be going off piste here, but if you are asking the question 'what does the family income need to be for there to be one full time parent, then it would be beneficial financially for both to work part time, use both tax allowances and potentially bring both parents below £50k to claim child benefit. On paper it may seem that it's not worth it for the lesser earner to work, but it might be if you both work part time.

It would take some number crunching though, but give you many more choices.

BUT - if my husband leaves me it won't make much difference to my financial situation now. Il get half of our assets and well as child maintenance. maybe we'd have to sell our large home and buy two cheaper ones - fine. If I felt the need to return to a paid job when the kids are older and couldn't in my (before kids) career field I could get a job in a shop/childminding/temping - lots of options!

Mollyringworm you've just highlighted the kind of romantic and unrealistic thinking that so many women hold and that gets them into huge financial trouble. Your financial life won't be any different if you and your DH split? My ass.

Child maintenance only lasts so long and household assets probably leave you with the same or a smaller property, that is assuming you get half after the court battle (btw your major asset right now probably isn't your house but DH and his regular income).

So then you're age 50/55, no kids at home and no child maintenance, no job and haven't worked for years so you think you're up for some 'temping' job as you describe, but you actually discover that after years of not working there aren't 'lots of employment opportunities' as you suggest (talk to professional women about the difficulty of getting back into the workforce). When you finally get a job after a few weeks of 'temping' you learn that it's not as fun as you thought but you've got to do it and do it full time because you've got another 10 years until retirement and you've got to pay for that retirement as well now -- -which you may or may not have saved up for as you may or may not have a pension. You're now looking at the possibility of a much more impoverished retirement due to lack of pension and savings.

Think it's not true? Talk to some older divorced women and look at the poverty rate amongst older women in this country compared to men. Think it's tough making ends meet at 30, try doing it at 80. I'm being a bit cynical here but women really do need to take the long view and by staying out of the workforce longer than they need to, just because they can, and giving up their income and employability they take on huge risks that can have massive ramifications for their future.

Jesus horsey horsey the woman could have died. You can't really make that assumption. Icy knows best what the circumstances are.

As I said, isn't awful when people make enormous sweeping assumptions without being in full position of the facts?

About 265000, but we used to manage on 26000 a year although that was quite tight and with only one child (we have 2 now), we could do with a lot less, but it depends what you want from life, the more money you have the more you spend

I'm a SAHM. DH makes about £80k including over time. We live in the north west so our house was cheap compared to alot of areas (we have £135 left on mortgage). We've been seriously renovating though so still skint at end of month. One child and one on the way. I was on barely above min wage so we would have been at a loss paying for child care. I think he takes home on average about £5k a month but it changes every month depending on ot and where he's been working. It sounds alot but we've practically rebuilt the house so it all gets sucked in.

DH has been a high earner for the last 12 years or so, so I appreciate that we are very lucky and that our experience is not typical. However, we have never really been big spenders, have paid off our mortgage and have instead saved/invested our income as he would like to retire in about 5 years (when he will be 45). The idea was that we would have more time to spend with the DC, to spend on our volunteering interests, or to travel the world.

It will be interesting to see whether people (not just on here - sometimes total strangers in RL) feel free to tell him that he is being foolish/wasting his life on domestic matters/ will be bored / is letting down men in the workplace and that his brain will rot. I strongly suspect that they'll wish him luck. It seems to be fair game to tear a strip off parents (and let's be honest here - it's statistically more likely to be women) of young children who are trying to make it work as best they can in a variety of sometimes challenging circumstances, but if I or DH were to reframe exactly the same situation and say instead that we were financially able to retire early, that would presumably be acceptable?

It's all relative, my DH earns around £200k ex bonus which sounds great but we have a million pound mortgage, run two cars and have kids in private school so while it sounds like a decent whack, we don't have an awful lot left at the end of the month. I was a SAHM parent but felt skint (again, it's all relative) so went back to work about a year ago.

Yes, Rock, I think people have some very odd and knee-jerk attitudes.

A friend of mine has been a SAHP for the last ten years, but she has essentially retired too! She earned a lot of money between the ages of about 9-20, then had another reasonably well-earning career for fifteen years, then had dc at 35 and hasn't worked since. The anti-SAHPs would probably judge her - but she hasn't done anything differently from someone who starts f/t work at 23 and never takes a break. She's just done it in a slightly different order. (She does do a bit of work from time to time, but very infrequently.)

People's situations are very individual and circumstance-specific. I wish everyone would just do what suited them and not obsess about what everyone else is doing.

I was a SAHM when dh earned around 50k+, we managed well on that. Probably better than we do now that he earns slightly more and I have a part time job actually .

You can argue that if both parents pay 50% of the cost of childcare, it makes it profitable but that's not the way most couples look at it.

Yes absolutely, that's the point and the problem. Lots of couples do think of it that way, although there are also others who think it's the responsibility of the mother even if she earns more, and that is exactly the attitude we shouldn't be taking.

If childcare cost outweighs one parent's earnings it does not make sense, to me, for that person to work, all things being equal. It is usually (statistically) the woman who stays home in this scenario. I am happy to clear this up for you smile.

Again though, this doesn't mean the father isn't also receiving the benefit. Both parents profit from the lower earner, whoever that is, being able to work without childcare costs/with reduced childcare costs. It isn't just the mum being done a favour!

There are also lots of couples where the lower earner isn't in profit or is even making a loss in the short term from working, but in the long term they are better off. People may also factor in the ability to get back into work later, career progression, pensions. Lots of relevant factors. There are some couples where it will make sense to work even at a short term loss, others where it might not even if there is significant profit.

Yes, we worked at a loss of a year (one of us did - we both earned the same) after full time childcare but knew with determination and hard work we would get promotions and pay would go up.

On the question of whether we would suggest a man retiring at 45 was foolish - I actually would although I am happy people take their own decisions. My father psychiatrist -had a good few patients who retired early hated it, rowed with spouse, had depression - and also people tend to go down hill after retirement physically and mentally so working as long as you can is a good idea. This is just my view. I would also prefer more women than men to be in work at least until women have 50% not 20% of the highest paid jobs in the UK. In fact if women got to 80% I would like that too. We have a very long way to go but are making progress particularly now women under 30 earn more than men and I think 60% of graduates are now female in the UK.