To give up work and become a SAHM?

[YouAreMySunshine9]

This is more of a 'what would you do' but I suppose I am posting here for trafficking Have name changed as the figures I give will out me.

First DC is due soonish and I'm thinking, after maternity leave, that I should give up my job because financially, it's not worth it and I want to SAH with DC as it'll have more benefits to it?

Myself and DH are both low earners. I earn just under £20K, he earns £21K.

We aren't entitled to anything with us both working, but, somehow top ups would make us better off if one of us didn't work?

I'm quite a poorly person, I have an autoimmunity disease so I have a feeling working just to pay childcare (if it even ends up covering that?) and missing out in DC's first for it will send me into despair.

My concern is... The whole career break thing. I would go back to work when DC is a few/3 years old but I'm not sure how it'd impact my job prospects. I work as a Medical Secretary in the NHS.

I would say work part time, but I'm not sure we'd get any help there either and it's a lot of huge effort just to fork out to pay for childcare.

What would you do?

I'm really worried

Get over yourself hibas, my opinion is my opinion! Carry on justifying why its ok to get others to look after children. I never aimed my comments at anyone, just stated my opinion. I apologise if ur taking my comment as aimed at a parent in particular but im not & im sorry if my opinion offends you or anyone else. But thats my opinion. That children are ours to teach & not for someone else to teach them. Using a top up from goverment is no different to using goverment paid childcare! Id rather my taxes went on a top up & a child gets there mother at home than pay for a child to be in childcare if the parent wants them at home! This also frees up more spaces for children needing childcare for parents who dont have a choice.

What are the chances even if you are at home that you see the "first steps" anyway? You probably will be on the loo or it will be afternoon on Saturday you went to Tesco whilst their father had them. My granddaughter did her first crawl when away on holiday and I was there - very unlikely but it happened. It's all random anyway.

Children want happy parents. I always worked full time and have great relationships with all 5 children and they are pretty appreciatvie I can fund them at university now because of my career rather than saying no problem, happy you don't fund me because I will always remember you changed 15 nappies a day not 2.

In regards to first step, first word etc, I don't think it's THAT important in a sense when if it happens without you there, yes you may miss it but when you first witness it, it will still be your first time and the experience will still be precious although it may not be the child's actual first time but it's not likely the child would be able to say it wasn't his/her first time ifywim.

However, if you are staying at home for 5 years to be with your child, you are probably not paying much tax. Encouraging mothers (& it would undoubtedly be mothers) to stay at home for 3 to 5 years removes a valuable resource from the economy. Employers would be reluctant to take on young, female members of staff, as the probability of them leaving would be so much higher and the investment their employer makes in them wasted.

Your argument also ignores the fact that not all mothers are the best teachers of their child. Some people are quite simply better at other things and have no interest in changing nappies, walking around the park for days on end or attending toddler groups where the only topic of conversation was whether Calpol or Nurofen was best for a vague temperature. Pursuing my career gave my child a far better start in life, but that is simply what suits my family.

Exactly. I missed my DS's first steps because I was in the kitchen and he was in the living room with my dad. pru Its not ok if your opinion is vile, ignorant and offensive. You might be a sahm. It doesnt mean your children will be happier or that you are a better mother than those who choose to work. All it means is you have made a different decision to them. Your decision is based on someone else being able to support you. Nothing else. You wouldnt be able to make it without someone else funding you, whether that be a partner or the state. Working people. I choose to work so I can equally provide for my family, as I would rather both of my childrens parents worked fewer hours and spent time with them than one parent does everything while the other parent works 70 hours, meaning they can't (often because they dont want to) do the day to day things that are involved in childrearing that working parents also do when they are, you know, bringing up their children, despite your nasty opinion.

It's a good general rule of thumb that when the only defence someone can offer of their opinion is that they're entitled to have it, they're probably talking complete shit.

I don't use childcare, btw, and I was in the room for both my children's first steps despite the fact that I work...

Pru24, that may be your opinion, but it is incorrect and offensive to all the parents who are working and bringing up children. DH and and I have always worked full-time and used a lovely childminder and nursery to care for our two DC during the day. Our two DC are happy, lovely children and don't seem to have suffered from being in childcare. As someone else said, having the money to provide a good life and opportunities is as much a part of bringing up children as changing nappies.

I have no issues with families who choose to have a SAHP if that is what they prefer (and can afford it). But in my opinion, a preference is all it is and I have never come across any good quality evidence to support the idea that the SAHP set up is best for children.

And it would definitely be mothers

Good grief, how prescriptively misogynistic.

I'm glad my children aren't being raised in your house.

And I strongly agree with riversleep that it is far better for both parents to work fewer hours so that both can spend more time with the DC. This is certainly our preference and what we hope to achieve in the coming years (as I also believe that school age children need their parents just as much as pre schoolers, if not more).

I gave up work to be a sahm for financial reasons and because I wanted to be a sahm, it was important to us. I don't see the point in being employed and it costing you to work, especially if that means missing your children.
25 years later I walked straight into a min wage job which is just what I wanted at this stage in my life.
I love having no responsibility, but will have to stay in min wage jobs until retirement as at 51 I don't want to retrain, gain promotion, responsibility etc.

We all know that you were the exception when you returned to work and your partner stayed at home with your children. Speaking with the experience of operating payrolls for clients, I have never seen a father take more than 2 weeks of paternity leave, even though the option is open to them. What you do suits your family, what I do suits mine. Your rudeness to anyone who dares to express a different opinion to you speaks volumes.

The benefit system is changing too, and where you used to be encouraged to be a sahp and have tc top ups, now you are required to work before you gain tc/uc.
All of a sudden TC became termed as benefits, shortly after some women had to return to work because the cap was lowered drastically.
I think we are our own worst enemies tbh and it was working women with their "curtain twitching" as termed by DC that vilified sahp's.
Until then there was no stigma attached to being a sahp, I'm not sure if we'll ever learn to just support each others choices.

There is no stigma attached to being a SAHM. The point most people are making is that the country cannot afford for every family to have a SAHP topped up by TCs. So why do some families feel entitled to it when others have to pay for it. If you want to SAH but can't afford to live on one salary, then get an evening/weekend job. This is what women have been doing for generations.

Well said Stretch.

The care system, retail sector and many others would collapse if the supply of labour fell because people were subsidised to such a level that they could choose to stay at home. If a subsidy system for SAHP then proposed a cap on the number of children if would apply to (along similar lines to the child benefit rules) there would be outrage from those families who wanted larger families. The economy cannot support lifestyle choices. The state is there to support those in need, not those who want to stay at home.

Can you only be truly equal as a woman if you work full time? Does the contribution to the house have to be financial? Is that what we value? Money? If so, that is truly depressing.

What we need to accept is that there are different ways of doing things. I sometimes think the tax credit argument is a red herring because so many other arguments have arisen here

Not all sahms or part timers are brainless bints with zero ambition setting a poor example to their children. Or hapless bimbos living either off their men or the state

Having a career break or cutting your hours when your children are tiny is a good a reason as any. Lots of people take time out for other reasons: to write a book, travel.

Ive seen many sahms start to retrain for careers, not even at their youngest's start of pre school reception, but when their last approaches secondary. They are my inspiration. It disproves everything on this thread

On the subject of equal, the question of whether part timers can be seems to presume our male partners all work full time. Not the case! One can be part time whilst also doing more hours and/or earning more than one's partner.

Not all but still seems to be the general rule amongst the people i know

Of course there is a stigma attached to being a sahp if you receive tax credit.
The curtain twitching was responsible for the change in tc/ uc coming in.
People didn't like the fact they chose to work whilst others didn't, they didn't want others able to claim tc when they weren't in that position themselves.
There really was no problem or stigma until then.
Having claimed tc in it's various guises over 25 years now, I can remember when the tide changed.
It really has nothing to do with how much it costs to top up low income families.

Snobbery?

Stickerrocks

Not all sahp's are able to earn a huge salary and the tc system did used to pay at a level to allow a sahp, there were still plenty of carers and retail staff, and nothing collapsed
With 3 dc our tc award was considerably more than I'd have made from working. By the time child care and other work related costs were taken out of a wage I'd be minus, with tc I was plus.
It doesn't take too much intelligence to work out why some people chose to be a sahp.

Actually alabama my children see both their mother and father working and taking them to school and cooking their dinner. But there is no getting away from the the fact that the vast majority of childcare responsibilities, and for that matter all the accusations levelled against working parents are overwhelmingly about women.

Gilly not denying that. My argument is that I should not be penalised through higher tax rates as a worker to subsidise anyone regardless of their family income levels to choose to stay at home to look after their children for the first 3-5 years. Having a child is expensive and the costs mount up as you need a larger home, larger car and so on. Nobody should have a family on the assumption that the state will provide for them, as current provision can be taken away at anytime at government whim, as the current child benefit changes prove.

Or non working but it's far more stigmatised to be a stay at home dad

It's the argument that all families should have a state funded SAHP that I have objected to throughout this entire discussion, subsidised through higher taxes, not whether the TC system should exist.

You are not penalised. You rightly pay higher rate tax as a high earner which goes into all sorts of things, besides benefits - pensions,schools, hospitals and things some of us might disagree with such as wars, mp expenses, tax relief for all kinds of things for those who are already earning well enough already