Are you still a sahm if...

[Dancingfairy]

Just looking for opinions. Are you a sahm if you are a single mother with young children but on benefits?( so the key point having no partner who is earning the money for you to stay at home) Or are you just a mother thats unemployed?? (To do with a comment my sister made)

"Unemployed" is an economic term. With a specific meaning. Which specifically excludes people not actively seeking work. It is used extensively in economic data, in all serious newspapers and even on the crap TV news. What's the term for people who fail to grasp this?

Mail readers.

I’m a lone parent who is unemployed- but I don’t consider myself a sahm. I mean it’s what I am, I guess. When people ask, I just explain I had to give up work due to disabled and am unable to work.
Maybe I’ll start saying I’m a sahm. Then I don’t need to explain to nosy people the nature of why I’m not working- cause people are judgemental and nosy. My own Mum is.

PoorYorick

*due to disability 🙄 hate autocorrect

By the way, @NataliaOsipova , did you mean that the term 'unemployed' excludes people who ARE actively seeking work?

Maybe I’ll start saying I’m a sahm. Then I don’t need to explain to nosy people the nature of why I’m not working- cause people are judgemental and nosy.

Prepare for their next question to be “what does your husband do?”

Yorick Unemployed means available for and seeking work, as opposed to economically inactive? So the headline rate excludes SAHMs (and pensioners, the independently wealthy, students, people unable to work due to disability etc).

If you sah to look after your children then you are a sahp.
I don't count mat leave in there as you are technically employed and protected by certain terms and conditions of being employed.
It doesn't have anything to do with who pays the bills imo

Ah, I get it. Thank you.

Given that only a miniscule section of society can be sahps and still be net contributors as a household, I'm really not sure why anyone is stupid enough to think there is a difference.

Even above child benefit level, very few people earn enough to support a partner and dc entirely through private education and private healthcare. Or pay extra tax and national insurance to compensate for the none contributing sahps. So the majority are net takers.

And most people aren't in that income bracket. Single parents on benefits have to find work when dc start school. Couples can have no obligation benefits for a sahp till dc leave school. Or at least until uc takes over and closes this ridiculous double standard.

But 'married woman costs the nhs thousands in maternity care, state education and scrounges thousands in tax credits to sahp' just doesn't get the mail going in the same way a single parent does.

It's fuck all to do with cost to the taxpayer and everything to do with mail mentality thick fuckers.

Given that only a miniscule section of society can be sahps and still be net contributors as a household, I'm really not sure why anyone is stupid enough to think there is a difference.

You're forgetting:
A) only a small section of society are net contributors as a household - full stop. The tax is paid by a very narrow segment of society. The SAHP point is totally irrelevant here.
B) As I said above, the nature of the tax system means that a family with one working parent and one SAHP will pay significantly more tax than a family earning the same amount with two working parents.

Yes you are a SAHM. Although the Daily Mail would see you differently.

What am I forgetting natalia? That's my point, very few people are net contributors.

B very much depends on the income. And also in terms of contributions to public funds doesn't take into account n.i.

I agree with your sister. You are an unemployed single mum.

No I would say you are a stay at home mom.

Sorry rtft. To your children you are a stay at home Mum and that is what you are. How ridiculous to think not because you're single.

You're sister needs to get a grip.

In my opinion, you are a SAHM if you have made a choice to stay at home and look after the kids - regardless of how that's funded.

I think you are unemployed if you are actively seeking work.

Your sister sounds deeply unpleasant.

**Thehogfather explains it so well.

I laugh at friends getting little top ups, and DC's attending state schools, medical care and then judge single parents, As if their tax solely pays the teachers and doctors wage, and then the single mothers.

I am not a single mother, I have friends who are, it is hard without all the judgement added.

"Gwenhwyfar bad analogy. Neither pensioners nor children are of employment age. Whether it’s a partner or the state, someone is still supporting you to be at home."

It's not about being of employment age, and actually someone of pension age might still be fit enough to work. I don't think there's an upper age limit for working. Another example or rich people who don't have to work because they have another income. They are of working age, but are not 'unemployed'.

My point is that not everyone who isn't working is unemployed BUT it is possible to be unemployed and a SAHM at the same time if the person is registered unemployed and claiming Job Seekers Allowance while also looking for work.

It's is the same thing but sahm is a a label that's been used to denote relationship status as Well, bit like mrs/miss. However it's something that has never come up in conversations in real life, only on mn. Having been both I would take the label single mum over sahm any day.

You could be a single SAHM on a private income. Or supported by your parents or siblings. One doesn't necessarily need a spouse.

Or widowed or divorced after becoming a SAHM. Still a single parent. Still not looking for work until you start actually looking for work.

You’re a SAHM imo. Let’s hope your sister, or any other perfect tax paying pillar of society never find themselves in that position, because one day it might be them!