SAHPs

[AvadaKedavra1]

So a little conversation on FB, well a debate.

Here is snippet:

Me: Those who choose to spend time as stay at home parents should be able to afford such a luxury. If you can't afford it, it's simple, go to work.

Poster: little bit ignorant.. I’m not saying their whole life I’m saying until their 5. Until they’re emotionally ready to be away from their parent

Me: Some people don't have that luxury. 5 years is a long time to be out of the workforce. Sorry but I want the best for my little girl and I want her to know when she grows up she can have a career as well as children. You won't have much luck apart from a minimum wage job if leave work for 5 years. Career gone. Poof.

Emotionally ready? I was 16 weeks when my mum went back to work full time and our relationship is great, she's my rock. I'm also a lot more realistic knowing my mum had to go out an earn a living. Christ these days it is a rare luxury for a mum to be at home for the first 5 years, it isn't financially sustainable for most. Besides, kids need to mix with other children, learn to be separated from mummy/daddy well before they go to school. My little girl will be just turning 4 when she goes to school.

You are the ignorant one if you are that blind sighted that you think it's that simple to just stay at home for 5 year when you can't afford it!

I definitely don't agree with 'let's stay at home for 5 years and rely on the benefit system to put food in my child's mouth'.

Ludicrous and entitled.

Was BU? What are your thoughts?

I'm a SAHP abs depend entirely on state benefits (aside from child maintenance). Questions OP?

I actually think it's pretty awful that both parents are often needed to work in order to support a family. It's a depressing system when you're working to hand over all your wages to have someone else look after your children, and society should do something about that, including the possibility of making SAHP an option.

Many parents who work full time are also receiving benefits.

YABU if you're refusing to acknowledge that other people's opinions and choices are valid. You're also pretty bold to be making such statements when you haven't yet been in that situation and may well change your mind before you go back to work.

FWIW, I went back to work after a year off. It's such a difficult decision...on one hand, I wish I could be with my daughter every moment of the day, but on the other hand I've worked hard to establish my career, I love my job, and several years down the line when the kids are in school then what would I do? So for me going back to work was the right choice. My DHs job at the time meant I could have afforded to stop working if I'd wanted to (things would have been tighter but manageable) but his job meant him being away for weeks st a time, so now he's changed career and although he earns less he's now home every evening.

I'm totally rambling. But anyway I suppose the crux of the matter is that no, I couldn't give a fuck if we're 'funding' people to have a few years off work to raise their kids. It's a much better use of money than some things the government wastes money on!

And if I had 12 kids, I'd probably want a bigger house.

It is really up to each family what they do. I intend to stay home till my boy is 3. Will do bits and bobs such as leaflet delivery, avon etc til then.
But me and husband agreed we will make it work. We are used to not having much money and are lucky to live near a beach so hobbies are mostly free.
If both parents arent totally on board i get it. Or if you need more money to get by i guess.
Plus inner city and other places are expensive to do anything. Live and let live, i see no gripes with what others do

I actually think it's pretty awful that both parents are often needed to work in order to support a family. It's a depressing system when you're working to hand over all your wages to have someone else look after your children, and society should do something about that, including the possibility of making SAHP an option

Or at the very least more flexible working, decent pay and subsidised childcare. Yes, state subsidised.

While some like to think there’s no such thing as society, we need to have a collectively healthy, economically active population in order to be a successful country.

Employers have too much power over individuals. We cannot easily demand higher wages, cheaper housing and childcare costs.

That’s where the state needs to help.

The statehelps business plenty. Unfortunately that just lines the pockets of a few rich people. That wealth does not benefit the rest of the economy - we’ve seen it time and time again, continuously since thatcher through New Labour and to now.

Threads and attitudes like yours just show how little value society places on raisimg children in this country. There is literally no need either to be so judgemental of people’s childcare choices in the first case, it has absolutely nothing to do with you - at all. Why bother antagonising other people regarding their choices just to, what? Justify your own? Or because you’re having a panic about them possibly claiming tax credits for a handful of years of their working life?

I’m a sahp to my 19 month old, we claim no benefits (not even child benefit). Surely, that’s my choice?

There’s pros and cons for either choice, it’s about what works for your family isn’t it?

Not everyone has these amazing careers everyone on mumsnet seems to have to start off with pre-children, so your sneery bit about low paid minimum wagejobs is all some of us can get despite having uni degrees for varying reasons (my dad died, I had to look after my grandmother and alcoholic mother at 19 so though I graduated all my dreams went down the drain).

Don't judge people. Only dicks judge people.

What about the benefits working parents get? Government subsidising childcare through tax, giving 30hrs free childcare to working parents. Working tax credits?

Will you be claiming any of these when you go back to work?

silver
I value raising children. I support having a good welfare state. I don't believe that people should be expecting years out of the workforce because they want to stay home and haven't bothered to check their finances before having more children.

There should be more done to support childcare costs and more changes to working patterns, more flexible working etc in my opinion, but I don't agree with people expecting subsidised years out of work based on making choices they can't afford.

If people wish to stay at home then great. If people wish to work then great. But i don't believe that people should be expecting to stay out of work when others are picking up the tab.

Not only that but years out the workforce has implications on NI contribitions, pension contributions, whether someone will qualify for the full state pension, in lots of situations time out of the workforce has knock on effects on earning potential once back in the workforce so paying someone to remain out of work by choice is paying them to make choices which will continue to limit their security later.

I'm a stag at home parent and don't claim a penny in benefits.

What truly pisses me off with these discussions is the " want whats best for my child and my child will know you can have a career as well as childten"

What makes you think that's the best? Best for you? Fair enough that's your opinion.

The best for me is giving 100% to my children as I did give 100% to my successful career for 15 years before i made the choice to be with my choldren full time. That's my choice. My children will know you can do what makes you and your family happy.

maisy if you value raising children surely you can see how society would benefit from more families having the option of having a SAHP

Also your career isn’t “gone” after 5 years . I and many friends had that time period out and we all have thriving careers now thanks.

Babies and small children need looking after, someone has to do it.

Not all families have enough income to either enable one parent to stay home full time, or to pay for adequate child care.

Therefore the state supports those families with benefits.

I think judging any parents for the choices they make re work and looking after young children it's pretty shitty, whether that's about them staying home or going back to work.

The consequence of your view is that only those people able to work in jobs with a certain pay can either choose how to childcare, or indeed whether to have children. So if you're poor/ less able to earn high wages, you don't get to choose, and worse still, children of less well off parents suffer.

There's been no good research showing that the so called 'epidemic' of people having babies to get more benefits is anything like as prevalent as certain newspapers and politicians would have you believe.

Time and time again it's been shown that the bigger drains are our economy come not from the poor, but from the rich; eg tax avoidance loses the country far more than benefit fraud. Strangely, it's never the loophole that's closed.

Let's value parenting more and enable people do it in a way that works for them and their families.

Your about NI contributions. I’m a stay at home mum and I claim child benifit so I get my NI ‘stamp’ but as my husband is a higher rate tax payer he has to do self assessment to return the child benefit. It’s a pain in the arse. If you are a sahp you can the gov will ‘pay’ your NI contributions until your youngest child is 12.

I think you were being really obnoxious. Firstly by copying a Facebook argument here and secondly by making loads of ridiculous statements that your career is necessarily over if you take 5 years off. Many careers are in demand and can easily be picked back up.

It's also fairly stupid to imagine that most people will suddenly not be relying on the state if they're working. Very few salaries will cover living expenses and full time childcare. Having children shouldn't just be the preserve if the rich.

The well being of the child should also be a factor. Many countries encourage an extended maternity leave for that reason which I think is a great thing.

Seline
I can if it goes hand in hand with reforms where people are able to keep their hand in some of the time and it's affordable. Personally, I see more value in both parents working part time and having greater flexibility. (Of course that's more systemic change and would need to see changes in housing policy etc too)

I don't believe in the current set up that it's right for people to have years off work, paid for by the taxpayer, not paying into a pension, jeopardizing their entitlement to the full state pension etc. That's even more concerning if the person at home for a lengthy period of time doesn't have any legal arrangement to protect them and ensure balance should the relationship fail.

E.g. If maternity/paternity leave became 2 years and can be shared out equally and there was more done to prevent women's outcomes being limited by having children whilst men get to continue building their career and assets then I'd support that.

But I don't see what's right about people choosing to have children and expecting others to fund them for years. Sure, sometimes situations change and the welfare state should absolutely be there, but continuing to have children knowing you get the clock reset on being out of work and someone else will keep funding it, I don't agree with it.

I agree that having one parent stay at home with a child/ren is a luxury and not a right. It should not be funded by the state but unfortunately it is.

Benefits are very different now I hear than they were 11/12 years ago but I have to admit being a little annoyed at my mum friends who didn't go back to work after having their first as 'it wasn't worth their while'. Two still don't work despite their youngest being nearly 10. Now one I know her husband now has a well paid job so I suspect is not on any kind of money from the state but the other is now a single parent and still doesn't work.

While it was hard for me working (admittedly we could afford for me to go down to 3 days) when my children were young it did allow me to keep my career ticking over so that when the time was right I could go back full time and I now have a much better paid job than I had pre DC's. I would not be in this position had a given up work.

Maisy I'd agree more flexible patterns are a great idea but I think the option for staying at home should always be available. Providing people are aware of reduced contributions then i don't see the issue

Is that any different from having children an expecting the state to educate them or to provide healthcare? I get the feeling this may be an instance of the pit calling the kettle black.

PinkPrincess people have different priorities. Not everyone wants to go back full time or have a career.

Seline
That's where we'll disagree. I'd happily see an increase in statutory maternity/paternity pay to make it more extende, but don't believe the state has an obligation to fund people who make decisions and choose to leave the workforce for years.

In the case of your friends pink, if they can afford to stay out of work and have made that decision being aware of the financial implications later on, have appropriate protection so that in the unfortunate event of a split they've not given everything up only to be shafted by an ex who legally owes them nothing more than child maintenance etc, then that's up to them.
What people choose to do with their household finances is their business. Working vs staying at home isn't superior. Staying at home vs working is superior. As long as families do what is right for them and they can afford and nobody is being taken advantage of then it's nobody else's business in my opinion.

Done to death on MN. Go search the threads and you’ll find plenty SAHP/WOHP ‘thoughts’.

Generally: women are more likely to be the ones to stop working. Because they generally will be earning less. Childcare costs are huge, some families will just about break even. One parent giving up work makes it easier for the family as a whole, but is a massive compromise (usually, again, by the mother in the scenario). You’ve made an assumption that benefits will claimed. Not the case.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. You have yours. I don’t really get the point of you starting this thread when you’ve already got one going on FB.