To question this...?

[foureleven]

I saw this on another thread and kind of hope the mum in question doesnt see this because I dont want to cause offense... just genuinely interested in peoples views..

(..treads carefully...)

I spotted this person say that she is a SAHM and her husband brings home £1000 a month. Plus they get child tax credits. Now I assume this is not 'working tax credits' as thats for childcare right? And they wont need it if she doesnt work.

It may be that its not a lot of money anyway and not worth getting one's knickers in a twist for but AIBU to wonder why a SAHM can claim benefits (other than initial maternity benefits of course)?

If you are a SAHM because your partner earns enough to cover everything thats one thing (and a debate for another thread, this is not ANOTHER SAHM Vs WOHM debate!)but why can women receive top up money to be able to stay at home with the children they cant really afford to?

Shouldnt we be responsible for bringing enough money in to the home for our children?

Genuinely ponders....

oh and the CTC calculator on their website is crap - entitledto much more reliable.

jurisfictionoperative.... slight flaw in your 'theory'. There is no evidence of any causal link between mothers working and the loss of family values/breakdown of society/moral chaos which you describe.

In fact, you might even find that children who have mothers in employment tend to do well in life, achieve well at school, go on to have successful careers.

So sure, you stay at home if that's what makes you feel happy, but don't make the massive leap from your situation to thinking that it's the 'right' way.

jurisfictionoperative - that works for you and thats great,I made the choice that was best for my family and myself and so did you. But when this was actually the way all families worked lots of women were miserable because it was not what they wanted and so thats when the revolution happened and they no longer HAD to stay at home while their husband worked if they didnt want to or if it didnt work for them and their children.
It gave women frredom to make choices and gave men the freedom to be chose a women who wanted to be at home with the kids or one that wanted a career.
It doesnt suit every man just as it doesnt suit every women.
There is no way im even stepping near to the - letting strngers look after your children thing.
My hildminder LOVES doing childrens games, crafts etc etc and could do it all day long. It just doesnt stimulate me and if I was at home wwith my children all day theyd be pretty bored and id be rocking and shaking in the corner!
The family values I have intalled in my children are just as good as yours. Just different.
I appreciate your view point, but I dont think you can say thats how all families should work.
And we dont have CTC top ups etc, we earn everything that comes in. Also, I set up a business that helps others get in to work so I am not 'taking a man's job' from him.

oops typos typos everywhere!

Actually, I don't stay at home with my children. I have four small jobs on the go and I don't claim anything. I just feel, that there is no other way, and why did I have kids if I don't get to look after them! No one does this as well as I could! Maybe those women who choose to have a career shouldn't have kids! [put flak jacket on in case of assassination emoticon]

Will they provide the chain to keep us at the kitchen sink as well? Oh lucky little women we would be!

Do one, theres a dear.

No need for the jacket, I know lots of people hold this view close to their heart.
What you have to appreciate is that 'career women' bring a lot to the work place and a lot to their children so to say hat they can only give to one of these areas is a little strange to me..
I wont go on and on about how happy and well turned out my daughter is etc etc because I dont need to prove anything.
My step daughter on the otherhand, when she came in to my life 3 years ago, didnt say please or thank you (actually had very little manners) couldnt make a bed (at nearly 9) was over weight, bored and rude... her mum stayed at home to 'raise' the family.

Now, that is just one women and one situation but it proves that your model of the perfect way to do things isnt really the best way.

You get good mums, you get bad. I think a happy mum usually makes a good mum myself. If I hadnt have been able to have kids because I wanted a career I would be miserable.If I couldnt have a career because I wanted children I would be miserable... and in turn so would the kids!

4 small jobs on the go would be my idea of hell on earth.

But there you go!

wtc is for families with income under 50k, it doesn't matter who earns it, it was introduced when there was some tax hike as a way of addressing the balance, which it never does. We get 38.00 a month, so probably close to the minimum, a friend of mine was getting about 300.00 but she was on her own working full time on not too great a salary.

Runnybottom.. I am sorry to have offended, believe me, I am the first to stamp down any man who makes a comment on women being in the kitchen! Like I said in my post, there is nothing a man can do I can't do just as well! I have no desire to be chained to the kitchen sink. However, I would like the option! The government promotes getting mothers back into work. What if I'd like to just be a mother! Maybe for a change I don't want to have to multitask my entire life. I have four jobs, including one looking after 3 of someone elses kids. I don't get home till 8 o'clock, and we still have no money! My house is a tip, and my kids are pissed off. It is my belief that women did stitch themselves up in the sixties. But as it says at the top of the post, these are opinions, this is mine. Your reply did make me lol! maybe we'd better agree to disagree on this one. X

Edgyallenpo - that is a really interesting point. Although if you earn more, dont you spend more..? and therefore pay more tax as a whole anyway..?

not as a percentage of income.

sctratches head....

I dont get it.

If I bring home, after tax (for arguements sake) £2000 and I spend it all on goods and services I will have spent 17.5% of it on tax

If someone else brings home £750 and spends it all on goods and services they will have spent 17.5% on tax too... no?

I know some stuff i.e. petrol is taxed at, like 40% or something daft so if you spent all of your brought home income on petrol ok, you are right.

Am I being thick and missing it somehow?

17.% of £2000 is a lot higher than 17.5% of £750

The higher your income, the less likely you are to be spending it all on goods and services. You are more likley to have some leftover for savings and investments.

On a low income you are likely to be spending it all on the goods and services you need to survive on a day to day basis.

This is what makes VAT a regressive tax. It has a bigger impact on lower income families because they will be paying 17.5% VAT on everything they earn (and therefore spend). The rich won't be paying 17.5% VAT on any of the money they can afford to squirrel away.

CTC is not a benefit - it's a bit of her dp's tax back paid, I assume, into her account. Would make no difference if she were working or not - they could still apply to see if they were entitled to anything.

I thought the govt were thinking of ditching it?

toccata and fudge, we were discussing it as a percentage.

It is higher as an amount yes.

piprabbit, I take your point. And i hadnt thought of it like that before. We dont have enough to save though so i dont personally feel that benefit although we do pay the higher tax band on some of our salary.

I find it very worrying that anyone earning enough to pay higher rate income tax is choosing to live a lifestyle where they cannot afford to save. I thought it made good financial sense to have a savings buffer to protect you in the event of things going tits up (usually 3 months wages is recommended).

If you are barely able to maintain your lifestyle on your earnings, how would you manage on 12K a year? Would you not claim all the tax credits you were eligible for?

Perhaps you should reconsider your own financial lifestyle choices before criticisng those of others.

But again, that's a generalisation isn't it? Because without knowing the details of everyone's circumstances, how can you possibly know whether someone 'should' be able to afford to save?

FWIW I know at least one colleague paying higher rate income tax who doesn't have any money to spare at the end of the month - and it's not due to extravagance, simply sky high housing costs, council tax, childcare costs, utilities.....

It's a total myth that everyone on 50 k or over is rolling in it. Depends entirely on where you live and what your outgoings are. Where I live, anyone with two pre-schoolers in childcare is looking at nearly £2000 a month for starters - that's about £24000 per year out of taxed income. And that's before any housing or living costs are met.

Seeing as I dont know any of you I will explain.

Its not as easy as it seems.

DP and myself bring home just under £3000 each.

Our rent is £2000.
Cars about £300 each.
House Bills £400.
His child support (because DSD mum doesnt want to work yet DP wants a certain standard of living for his daughter when she stays with her)£800
Food £400
Savings for summer holiday (not the same as savings as they will be spent on something that is tax deductable £200
Girls dance school £100
Cleaner £75
Nan's home £200
Childcare £760

......

So you see, although I am not hard up by any means and god knows I do have lots of things that many dont have and I am 100% greatful for this... After we have spent the above (which I dont think is extravagant for the hours we work, responsibility of the jobs we do) there isnt any left to 'squirell away' It all goes on taxable things.. Exept the child maintenance which DSD mum spends on things so it just means she spends that bit for us.

our rent isnt £2000 that is a bare faced lie! It is £1600. Used to be more.

Working tax credits is for people who work irrespective of whether they have children, the idea behind them is to encourage people to work, reward the workers tho not that you get much, to stop people from giving up on low paid jobs on the basis they would be better off on benefits. Child tax credits are obviously for people who have children. Then there is other money you can get towards childcare costs if you work. So 3 different elements. Im a sahm and dh brings home about £1100 after deductions each month. DH gets about £5 a week working tax credits and I get about £50 a week child tax credits which is a bit more than i got when i was working and my income was taken into consideration but i still would be financially better off if i worked tho tbh if i did work my child tax credits would be lower but i would still get paid more out of the system because they would pay a fair bit towards childcare costs, its all swings and roundabouts.

I am a STAHM my dh brings in under 50000, I am entitled to it so why cant I, they take enough taxes off my dh fgs. Its all legitimate so what! Its not all that much to shout about really and goes on nappies anyway, cant wait till dd potty trains soon

''Now I assume this is not 'working tax credits' as thats for childcare right? And they wont need it if she doesnt work.''

Working Tax is available to parents who have one or both parent working 16 hours or more a week, if you earn under £55k i think then you are entitled to WTC. The child care element is ONLY available if BOTH parents are in work 16 hours or more and the children attend nursery, then WTC pays 80% child care fees on top of the monthly payment of CTC & entitled WTC.

but you can get get wtc when you dont have children, i know people who do get it without dependants and dh works in tax credits so he knows tho thank god for that coz those forms...!

Yes, you can get WTC without children as they are unrelated. We're entitled to it, I found out the other day! Haven't applied though.