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

Whilst we as a country cannot afford to properly fund our NHS and schools, and whilst we cannot sufficiently support those in genuine need, we absolutely cannot subsidise a family to have a SAHP. If you want to live on one income then you you have to accept a lower standard of living. The OP wants to be a SAHM on the same family income as pre-children, all funded by the tax payer.

The suggestion was made many pages ago that there should be an increase in tax rates specifically to subsidise a SAHP to not work for at least the first 3 years of their child's life. Obviously that could mean a subsidy for 3, 6, 9, 12 or more years for those with larger families. I've stated throughout that I am more than happy to pay tax for education, healthcare, social care and all the other funded services which need to be provided by the state, but I do not see why I should subsidise the lifestyle decision to stay at home for 3 years or longer regardless of income levels. If a family decides that having a SAHP is important to them, they should be able to fund that lifestyle decision themselves. There are far more worthy causes demanding state funding, such as child and adult social care, education, the NHS etc.

I would love a Jaguar F Pace. I can't afford one. Therefore I don't buy one. I can't expect the taxpayer to subsidise my want of a Jag.

Stickerrocks

I do see your point and agree to a certain extent.
However, I've never met anybody who believes it's their right to be funded to have a sahp. Most women and I say this as have only met one single man as a sahp, tended to just do what was financially beneficial for their families.
That until recently meant they were supported by tax credits to enable them to be a sahp.
I took advantage of this for 25 years as it was the system and still would be had I not started pt work.
My decision had nothing to do with cuts as we would/ are still entitled to TC whether I work or not.
Tbh it was my conscience of receiving other gov financial assistance and nothing to do with benefits that made me seek work.

My point is, it's ok to vilify those who chose to sah and take tax credits, and other benefits, but that was the system that worked for many families. Do you really expect people to turn down money they are awarded?

my rudeness is it Stikkerrocks?

And this little gem comes from the very same person who accused me of being bitter that I couldn't stay at home with my children.

The same person who now acknowledges the salient fact that I've never had any designs to be a SAHP.

So not only are you wholly contradictory but also hypocritical.

I'm not being rude, merely candid when I state that I'm inordinately glad that you're not raising my children.

Furthermore I remain advocating for taxation rises to facilitate families to have a SAHP until the child is three.
A SAHP, not a SAHM.
I am proposing a change of the status quo and I would hope that as staying at home to raise children was consequently appraised to hold higher value by society as a whole;
That this would have the implication of encouraging men to take on the role in equal proportion to women.
I believe that this would benefit children immeasurably but also have a positive effect upon women, men and the division of overall domestic labour and what is currently termed 'wife work.'

Oh and false analogy;
I can't actually believe that you are talking such crap, we're not all mentally deficient enough not to recognise a false premise when we see it.

Your ownership of a jaguar wouldn't benefit society.

Children spending their early years with a parent rather than a caregiver would.

Remember all of those studies which I directed you towards, easily accessible through google scholar, plus the previous poster who offered to avail you of the study which she had herself conducted?

Under threes have better emotional, social and neurological development when they are cared for by a loving SAHP.

I still haven't seen a link to a proper peer-reviewed study in a good quality journal. I'm not going to give up my career and bring my children up in poverty on the basis of an unpublished PhD thesis.

Plus man has been breeding for 3 million years, often with no idea where to source food. The comparison to a Jag is a straw man argument.

I'd like a holiday in the Caribbean but it has not been my primeval instinct for 3 million years to go there. Breeding is not a luxury, it's inate . Not a good comparison at all

People are saying that being a SAHP is a luxury, not that 'breeding' is a luxury. Why do you keep twisting other posters' words?

Families are welcome to have as many children as they choose. I simply do not support the taxpayer subsidising a SAHP to stay at home for 3 years regardless of their family income level which was the proposal. If a family needs financial or other support from the state, that is an entirely different issue.

Because someone said don't have children if you can't afford them and comparing them to Jaguars etc.

Stickerrocks. That's fine. I disagree, though. I think every family should start off as equally as possible. If they want one parent at home, it should be supported just as much as a couple should be where botg work. It still costs the state money either way so i don't see the issue

But we have STATE funded childcare too

You can find me offensive or rude but i wont keep apologising for my opinion. I could say everyone elses comments are rude or offensive but ur all entittled to ur opinions & i personally, dont bash people just because their opinion is not the same as mine. This the only thing i dislike about mumsnet, the op has asked for opinions but everyone just picks at the people who dont have the same opinion as their own. I couldnt tell you how many children, at our nursery, we had to consoled on a daily basis because the children are desperate to be with their parents. Whilst the parents are at Work, the nursery workers are on the other side of the spectrum teaching the children & again trying to comfort the portion of children (usually full time children) that are not ready for nursery, dont interact with other children & spend all day crying for their mothers/fathers. I have already said that some people have to use childcare & for their own reasons but im allowed my opinion just like the rest of you. I was lucky to be a SAHM & this was a decision me & my dp made & we suffered finacially. Our choice.

I have skipped most of the thread because SAHP threads always turn into a bunfight and never actually answer the question.

OP if you're there (doubtful) I have 2 pieces of advice:

1.Never, ever, ever ask AIBU a SAHP question, or indeed any question upon which anyone can make a moral judgement about your parenting. Of course you're not unreasonable to make a choice. The benefits stuff is a red herring.

1. Don't make any decisions until you absolutely have to - i.e. when your maternity leave is ended. And then think about whether you want to go back to work and research what your job prospects will be in 3 yrs' time. Personally I would not make the same decision (to SAH) again, but neither would I go back to full-time work.

It's a personal decision and as such is not a reasonable/unreasonable issue.

At no point did I say don't have children if you can't afford them (I've scanned back through my posts to check for typos too). My car analogy is based on the lifestyle you want and the lifestyle you can afford. Being a SAHP is the lifestyle choice I have consistently been discussing, not people's right or otherwise to have children.

The legal right to take 12 months mat leave was a huge leap forward, which means families can spend the first year together without feeling pressurised to go back to work immediately. That is a huge development aimed at giving the support you want in terms of time if not money. It is a generous provision compared to that which available elsewhere and historically.

It's your choice, it's not really affordable to have children these days on 2 relatively low salaries and high rent/property prices (unless you got on the property market years ago or have generous/rich relations) without help in the form of tax credits or family childcare. Do what you feel works the best for your family and don't feel guilty about using tax credits if you need them.

So basically, you want taxpayers to raise your child because it's easier for you to stay home?

You're right Pru, I do find your opinions offensive and rude, but I reserve the right to challenge them, as I do for any offensive and factually incorrect opinions.

Your description of nursery is nothing like any childcare setting I have ever experienced. If anything, our nursery felt that the full time children were easier to settle than the part time children.

As I said before, I have nothing against the SAHP family set up. But I will not tolerate being told how to bring up my own children by someone whose lifestyle I am helping to subsidise.

who use it because they dont want the hassle themselves, would rather Work or dont want to be around the child they chose to have.

The mind boggles. Wouldn't know where to begin with this sort of bile.

Im a working mum with a child in nursery and I find this whole 'I'm subsidising your lifestyle' argument spouted in this thread both imbecilic and offensive.

Economics are complicated. Tax credits were only really introduced to get employers off the hook of paying workers a reasonable living wage. House prices have been kept high to protect them as assets for the rich. It is not at all unreasonable for a mum or dad to consider staying at home to be their child's primary carer if the other has a full time job. It's only because our economics are so fucked that tax credits are used to ease the burden a little.

Staying at home to raise a child is a worth while and important thing to do. It's only the capitalist, patriarchal society we live in that refuses to acknowledge this and insists on families farming out childcare against their wishes and to no real benefit to anyone.

^^this

OP has already made her decision. She just wants people to reassure her it's the right one.

Lauriemarlow that is the most sensible and intelligent post I have ever read on one of these threads. Thanks.

Stretchoutandwait

Yeah you are free to challenge it as is anyone else & visa versa. I personally dont need someone to validate or prove their points to accept someone else has another opinion to me. Where i live, its common to put your child in childcare because the parent would rather be at Work for a break or Plain just dont want to be around their kids and they have no problem telling people this. Its no different to the number of parents putting status's on facebook moaning about having to have their kids for the 6 weeks and how they are dreading this time with their children! (again where i live, this is common) I NEVER said this applies to every parent using childcare & iv said about 3 times now that everyone has their own reasons but no one can say the parents i am refering too dont exist! Like you said, in ur EXPERIENCE, everyone has different experiences & different opinions! In the nursery & the school i have worked in, that has been the case & that is my EXPERIENCE of it. Why do people come on here just to argue and try to disprove anyones opinion that is not the same as their own.

well said laurieMarlow

I want to add it's ironic that women fight for equality when the patriarchal society we live in is the reason so many women choose to work and use childcare.
One day we may have real choice, it won't come from believing that both parents working is the ideal.