Staying at home with kids IS a contribution and it is also WORK

[carshaker]

A lot of people don't respect a mum who's ' just at home '. Like she's not really contributing to the family.

The reality is though, that it's very much a big contribution, even if it's not financial.

If you took away the financial risk of staying home long term, what's the issue with it? Why is it considered by many ( especially women ), less than ?

If this is a woman's choice, what's the issue ?

It does not offset it unless she is in very low paid job.
Children have free childcare for 30h if both parents work. So unless she makess less than a day wage for a full time week of work she would be better off working.

This is lovely but you do realise that it is harder to work once they are at school? That actually you need to turn up more then? That term time only 10am to 2pm jobs rarely exist?

I am fully supportive of individual choices but it does make me laugh when I see this ‘I’ll stay home until they are at school’ which is in fact the WORST time to try and have a job. Primary school and a job is the hardest time to juggle, by miles.

Do you think this about working fathers too? If not, you’re just being sexist. Either way, you are being a jerk.

If all carers stopped doing their caring role, the value of their contribution would soon be recognised. The system couldn't cope with all the people suddenly in need of care. I think caring is the toughest job - tougher than being a SAHM or WOTH.

I think it's complicated. I have 2 tax payer funded degrees. Had my career continued, I'd likely be in the top 10 percent of taxpayers...as things stand I earn a fraction of what I could doing ad hoc hours (in a field relating to my old job for the LA) and pay no tax.

Equally, dh worked over 65 hours last week (he is a high earner and we live comfortably on his wages/family money) which if he had to do more parenting wouldn't be possible. To be fair, he is a good parent who makes good use of his flexible working to ensure he's as present as he can be. He has a management position and the hours he and his colleagues work set the tone for the junior employees. There are no women at all at his level in the company he works for.

On the other hand, I spent a day and a half volunteering in a various capacities at my kids primary last week. I also volunteer for Home Start and various other charities, turns out my background comes in very handy at writing successful funding applications. All in fields where there should be plenty of public funding but isn't.

I have a civil service pension, equal access to all the money dh has coming and savings of my own.

Would me paying tax contribute more than what I give for free? Not sure. Certainly if I returned to work properly, I'd have to give up some volunteering.

Really you think all kids been fit from a sahp?

what about all the ones the schools were concerned about during lock down? Whose only break from a bad home life was school? Or were just generally neglected?

are all the parents of those working? Or was at least a good portion of them sahp?

Being a sahp doesn’t automatically mean a good parent. The same as working doesn’t mean.

Plus not all working parents have kids in full time childcare.

and plenty of working parents manage to show up when their kids need them, physically and emotionally. In the same vein, plenty of people don’t feel their parents showed up for them even though they didn’t work.

The choice to work or stay at home isn’t all it takes to be a good or bad parent.

That’s quite a broad judgement. I would find staying home & having time far less taxing.

Also, the fact you’re on 24 hours a day is no different from any parent working full time and coming home to responsibilities.. it’s life.

I probably do think less of SAHM if I’m honest. I always think that return to work after 5 years must be a struggle and step down from their previous progression. That said, if we suddenly came into a lot of money I’d give up work AND use hired help :)

@Arewealljustloosingtheplot that's exactly what I did. Started work the same day DD started in reception full time.

I do realise I was lucky with the circumstances and everything lined up perfectly. Probably why it is just a (poorly paid) job and not a career.

But I’m an adult and have made an informed decision based on the individual circumstances of my family, so you don’t need to lecture or warn me of something that isn’t any of your business.

That’s incredibly rare. And the devil is in the detail. Which is why I didn’t walk in absolutes.

It’s definitely not what someone should plan on getting.

Ive done both SAHM and work in various degrees from cery oart time to full time.

For us we choose for me to stay at home when they were preschool as due to my traumatic childhood if was important for me to with ky kids. We decided due to me staying home to have them close together. At one point 3 would have been in nursery if id worked full time and i would have had to earn over £50k JUST to pay the nursery bill - so i worked a couple of evening waitressing or wfm
call centre in between maternity leaves etc
then once they went to school i worked very part time within school
hours and then once they got to secondary i increased my hours in steps to now working full time but DH wfh so is generally there when they get home.

BUT i was very confident in having completelt joint transparent finances with DH - never once has he acted like the money was his and not mine. He has always recognised that although i bring in less money, I contributed in many other ways to keep the family going. He now is happy with where he is and so I al able to work away when needed whilst he keeps things running at home

Every one is different and all you can do is make the choices that are best for your family. There was a point that 2 of my 3 kids had numerous medical appointments. I think in a week we had physio, occupational therapy, hydro therapy, consultant, ENT, speech therapy - no way i could have kept taking that much time off work for months and months. It wouldnt have been obvious to outsiders though what ky kids health problems were .

many SAHP take on other roles other than ‘cleaning’ all day. Volunteering which is invaluable to society. If we all worked all day long a lot of stuff would not happen to the detriment of community. They take on caring for elderly relatives.

indont beloeve that anybody can truly ‘have it all’ if you are smashing it at work and habing a clean organised home then maybe your social life or sex life suffers, of you are having fun and working hard then home life sometimes takes a hit. Thats ok bUt i think unless you outsource a lot of tasks then you are always chasing your tail. SAHP probanly enjoy habing a relaxed peaceful family evening and weekend instead of spednong that time catchkng up on house work and errands.

Parenting is the hardest job in the whole world. Period.

Oh so you’re also very tetchy about it! unsure why you’ve taken offence , wasn’t a lecture but you carry on!

It’s isn’t tax inefficient, your DH is still entitled to tax free pension contributions. The discrepancy will be due to your own workplace pensions I guess? In mine and DH’s case, we are fortunate to always have our personal allowance for our pensions and ISAs maxed out so of course it makes sense that we would utilise both our accounts.

Of course, they’re contributing! 🙄 Great example of what the OP is talking about. It’s also beneficial for young children to have a parent at home when they’re at school so they can be dropped off and collected by a parent, not to mention the fact the SAHM is able to cook proper meals, look after children when they’re ill rather than shoving them off to school when they feel crap and letting them infect others.

Obviously good quality parenting is important, but however great quality the parenting is from a parent who works F/T and only sees their DC briefly before bed, the children would be better off with more time with their parent.

I’m now working P/T as my youngest DC is older, but I was a SAHM for years. What decided me was thinking about my own childhood. It became clear to me that being at home for young children is best. Yes, yes, it should be a choice, but the government would be better off scrapping their obsessive nursery schemes and using money to allow more parents to stay at home. This would not only benefit the individual children but society as a whole IMO.

Not work? Tell that to the country's nursery workers and cleaners and chefs and gardeners and taxi drivers

Your the one who commented on MY post but I’m the tetchy one 😂

Ok hun!

also , it’s you’re …

"The outcomes of children of working mothers Vs non-working has been studied. I believe the evidence points to daughters of working mothers earning more over their working lives than daughters whose mother's did not work. Those involved in the study did control for other factors, like family income, education levels etc, so it appears that the actual fact of having a working mother does have a positive "impact. https://www.hbs.edu/news/articles/Pages/mcginn-working-mom.aspx

Positive impact if earnings are the only measure of success in life. What about all the other factors like relationships, mental wellbeing, physical health?

I would not normally say this, but duck off with that reductionist sexist bullshit.

I can’t think of what I’ve not done. As DT’s are now in their early 20’s I’ve the advantage of seeing the benefits of our decisions.

But I pay tax at 45% but he would only get the 20%.

You’re right that once you’ve paid 60k into the higher earner’s pension and maxed 2x ISAs then it makes sense. We’re not at that stage sadly.

That’s tragic you felt the need to edit that post minutes later after you posted the original message to comment on my grammar 🤣🤣

Get a life, hun.

I think most people’s concern is around things like financial independence, pensions etc. you hear of women who don’t spend any money on themselves, it all goes on the kids. That’s not ok!

My reply is to point out that derogatory comments in this thread - yours included - that suggest women who are SAHP are somehow stupid, lesser, submissive compared to their working counterparts are deeply offensive.

My DH would not have the home and assets of the value he has without me; severe SEN meant I could not even go to a coffee morning without any sense I would finish my drink, let alone offer myself up as a reliable employee. My DH would not have been able to have the career he has had without my taking the primary role in caring for the kids, managing the house projects, and should we ever have divorced his career would have been over as he would not have been able to manage his time with thhe kids with his current role.

We are who we are as a couple and as individuals because of the equally valuable roles we have played in each others lives. My children are who they are, both heading to uni because, as a couple, we chose for me to SAH to support them and him.

My being a SAHP is of no less value, in social, familial or economic terms than the roles played by mothers who combine salaried employment with raising their families and to suggest otherwise is deeply misogynistic. Women/couples should be free to choose how to conduct their lives, including opting to have one parent at home, judgment or being sneered at by mothers who chose to work. This is what the OP is querying.