to be shocked, that the goverment do not pay towards chilcare costs for everyone?

[spottyoldzebra]

well they should stop going on about getting mothers back to work then.

I don't get this thread.

Is the question should a government assist where possible to help with child care costs?

Most governments do in one form or another whether it's tax breaks, or direct contributions.

It makes a huge difference for some people in terms of going back to work and for others it drastically improves their quality of life.

I have been on this site for 2 years now and I have never yet seen anyone accuse a SAHP with a working partner of sponging off the taxpayer. It is quite an incredible point of view to be voiced by supposedly intelligent women.

Don't kid yourselves that there is any special virtue in working to earn money and pay taxes. Yes, of course one person in a household needs to go out and earn the money. But it is only relatively recently that materialistic attitudes have emerged that have made it the norm for both parents to work for money, even if they could survive on one salary, while paying someone else to care for their children.

Just because you subscribe to that particular set of money-inspired values doesn't mean that everybody should. And to vilify parents who wish to look after their children themselves while their partner works - who are doing the most important job in the world? As Acinonyx said, shame on you.

hear hear twinkle, well said.

oops, I think I meant here here.

Icant believe the attitude of some of the mothers on this post!
How dare they judge whether some mothers have the right to SAH to be there for the children! If a mother chooses against their children being latch key kids then fine! I realise not all children will be going home to empty houses, but mine would be, and that I am not willing to do! We dont all have parents or other family members to watch them while I work. I used to come home from school to an empty house and felt lonely and yes, unloved. I realise not every child might feel this way, but I did. Of course my mother loved me and really had no choice but to work. Still, this doesn't change the way I felt! I will not have mine feel the way I did!

If I choose to SAH after working and paying taxes for nigh on twenty years...as well as my ex partner, then that is what I deserve, but most of all, that is what my child deserves!

I apologise to the op for getting off the subject, just had to get this off my chest.

yes but Twinkle many women have different reasons for going back to work! Its not always about materialism and refusing to downshift! For some yes they''ll moan about working but insist on having a huge house and holidays abroad! Some women have to work as they are the main earner! Some women want a career and should be entitled to one! Many women, myself included know that to leave the workforce for a number of years will drastically affect their whole career!

For me more flexibility is the key! Flexi hours would suit many women along with longer career breaks, creches and nurseries provided by the workplace would be a huge step forward too! However, the options are a lot better than a generation ago careers for women really did depend on being wealthy enough to have a nanny! I believe things are getting better.... slowly! The tax credits system has potential but many serious flaws too, it need sorting!

I'm not of the opinion that people 'deserve' to give up work and live on benefits just because they wish to.

20 years is a long time yes but many people work for 40 or even 50 years, continuing to pay taxes all the time.

I don't agree that you pay taxes just to allow you to stop working(general you) taxes are for the good of everyone, not something one pays into for years to reclaim later.

Taxes are not a saving scheme that you can cash in when you fancy - just because you have worked for 20 years doesnt mean the state owes you a living when you dont fancy working.

This is why IS is being changed so that it is no longer a lifestyle option, 7 is still too high an age I think but they may look to reduce it even further from the article I read today to bring it more in line with standard maternity leave.

Chosenone - I appreciate there are other reasons for going back to work, I do. I am a working mother myself. But the opinion has been voiced here that SAHPs with working partners should be out at work purely so they can earn money and pay income tax. That is absolutely the wrong reason IMO, and it is putting money before the children's wellbeing.

The main breadwinner in fact.

If taxes aren't a saving scheme to be cashed in on, which I agree they are not, then by definition what you pay in has no relationship to what you get out. So to accuse SAHPs who use the NHS, for example, of sponging just because they don't pay two specific types of tax, is to spectacularly miss the point.

Sorry for double post.

Oh God sorry, triple post - and then I'm done.

Chosenone again - I very specifically and carefully didn't mention gender in my post.

Happymum...Working for 20 yrs does not mean the 'state owes you a living when you dont fancy working'! What the hell are you talking about? It is not a matter of 'using taxes as a saving scheme to cash in when you fancy'

I will say it one more time, 'I worked for 20yrs and I CHOSE to be a SAHM, NOT CASH IN!!

And presumably judging from what you've told us, that you've therefore chosen to live on benefits, chosen to live off taxpayers when you are able to work.

I suppose all I can say is thank fuck that people like you are not running this country (yet)
What do you suggest? Run the country like the USA, mothers having to go to work, their children looking after younger siblings because their mother cannot afford childcare. You know, children, HOME ALONE!
Before long the likes of you will be saying that certain families shouldn't be allowed health care, it would only be a drain on the NHS! They haven't paid their share of the taxes!
Dont you get it? The USA have that sort of system over their that the likes of you are suggesting we have here. Does it work? Does it shite!
Mothers are leaving children at home while they are working all hours, including nights, while their children fend for themselves. They cannot afford childcare, like so many here, but thank god that we aren't in that position yet! Obviously with no thanks to the likes of you!

TheFalcon.....NO I have not chosen to live off benefits....are you thick.....why would I choose to live hand to mouth....why would I choose to not have a bloody holiday for over twelve years....why would I choose to cut my own hair instead of hairdressers because money is so tight......why,why,why!!
Because I CHOSE to be a SAHM.
Can you grasp what I am saying? Or is this a new concept to you?
Maybe it is something that seems unimportant to you, to be a SAHM. In fact, now that I think about it, I can see that you obviously dont think you need to be their 24-7 for your kids! Well I do! And when I think that my kids can do without me to be their when they get in from playing,school or bloody college, then and only then, will I CHOOSE to go back to work!

Just maybe, thats what living in a democracy is all about, Having the right to CHOOSE how you wish to bring your kids up.

Choosing to be a SAHM is fine, as long as the state is not expected to pay for it.

This is why the ruling on IS being stopped when children reach age 7 is being bought in - benefits were designed to be a safety net not a lifestle choice.

Of course you have chosen to live off benefits, otherwise you'd work when the children were at school etc.

Lukily you wont have the choice to expect the state to pay for you whilst your children are at high school or college.

Being a SAHM doesnt make you the martyr you seem to think it does. Teaching your children the importance of working and supporting themselves is an important lesson. Its one of the reasons behind the new changes, to try and break the cycle of numerous generations claiming benefits as there parents have done before them.

My dd has had one career in mind since she was a little girl. She is working towards that goal, has never even contemplated not working for a living, as it should be.

I live in a deprived area, high unemployment and lots of single mothers whose own mothers bring up their daughters children, the fathers of these children dont even know how to go about getting a job, never mind keeping it. In other words I do not need some HappyMummy trying to inform me of the importance of children working and supporting themselves in the future. I know this, better than most.

As for the 'martyr' comment, well what can I expect, if you cannot explain your views without resorting to insults, then you have lost any credability you may have had.

jj- I'm sorry- but your children attend school during the day?
I thought you were allowed to work up to 16 hours per week before your benefits were affected- I think it's very difficult for people who are not in your situation to understand why you do not work during the day? Could you explain why you do not, so we understand better perhaps?

Whilst I have chosen to work, as for me, I don't think it would be best for my children if I was at home 100% of the time, as a family we really would not survive if I didn't- and I think many other people on here are in similar positions, which is probably why we cannot understand how you manage.

Have you finished frothing at the mouth yet JJ?

No I'm not thick, and yes as a result of choosing to be a SAHM you have chosen to live on benefits when you could work.

No one is entitled to that imho, not even in a democracy.

I've no problem paying for people on benefits who are unable to work or who are temporarily umemployed but I certainly do have a problem with paying for those who decide not to work. That isn't a right.

I do agree there should be more help with childcare though paying 100% of everyone's childcare costs is not financially feasible or perhaps even logistically so.

I can understand why people choose to be SAHMs but no one has the right to do so at the expense of the taxpayers, and I do realise that people who are on benefits have to count every penny.

As for healthcare, I'm very much in favour of universal healthcare, health care I would consider a right and very basic need of all people whether they pay into the system or not, but deciding to stay at home on benefits is a very different matter.

I'd like to stay at home too, and have my needs paid for, and never have to worry about getting a job again (actually I wouldn't at all, but that's beside the point). That isn't a realistic picture for most people. Most families have to compromise somewhere along the line. That's not to say they leave their children on their own after school. There are lots of options, some better than others but again most people compromise. Those that don't have to compromise generally do so because they are wealthy.

I can see if you are at the margins, where working brings in little extra value for the money and stress options are not good, but that should only be a temporary position surely? What about training to be in a better paid position in the future? I would worry if I were in my 40's and not working, because once the children are at school, or certainly if you are planning to opt out of work for longer getting back again will be even harder. I find your position very difficult to understand to be honest.

Even if someone feels they can't cope with working a normal days work, there is no excuse for not working while your kids are in school. It's going to make bugger all difference to them anyway while they're in school is it? - well, let me rephrase that, the only difference it'll make is that they'll realise their parents actually have an existence outside the home and don't sit watching daytime telly or hoovering during school hours. And if your children have any aspirations at all, then they'll probably realise what a good thing it is that their parents actually have an independent existence!

I typed a long post, but lost it.

I have started a part-time job, evenings and weekends, 17 hours per week. By the time our housing benefit and tax credits are adjusted, my 17 hours brings into the household £23.45 per week. So in effect, working for £1.38 per hour.

I KNOW there will be outcries of "yes but you scrounge off the state normally...", but tell me why it is OK for a parent with a well earning partner to be a SAHM, but not for one that doesn't earn so well?

And I agree with Twinklemegan, that there is an anomoly, where DH and I could both take 16 hour contracts, share the childcare between us, and get 80% of childcare fees that we didn't NEED to use paid as well. It is all a bit odd.

Children are only children for a very short time. I will do what is best for my children, which in my opinion is having a mother available at home. Especially as one of my DDs has developmental delays.

Why is it assumed that for children to learn a sense of 'worth' they have to see both parents working? Why is Dad going out to work not enough of a role model?

I think children will get a huge notion of worth by knowing that their Mum chose that they were the most important job. Although, I know that for some that is not a choice they can choose.

lou - your post just highlights the issue that the welfare system is crap. Anyone going out and working should be significantly better off than if they were to live on benefits.

Just wanted to make clear, my DH works full-time, 42 hours per week.