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 yeah and we pay for both my parents and DH's parents to have care, what does the UK gov provide EXACTLY, my dc's have gone from being 'average' to being 4 yrs ahead of their peer groups due to home ed, the UK gives sod all, unless you are froma minority group

But everyone doesnt MrsC2010. Because if we all did there wouldnt be enough tax credits to go around.

Foureleven, you said you pay your taxes, so I pointed out that my husband pays his. I also used to pay mine, if it comes to that. We received CTC for 3.5 years before we became entitled to the disabled child premium for our eldest, so for that period of time, I came into the category of SAHM in your OP. Moreso, in fact, since DH earns a lot more than £1000 per month.

What is the problem with ASLD stating that a parent (pref mum) should stay at home to 'bring up' the DCs?? Think feminism has gone way too far .

It is probably the most important 'job' on the planet and yes, parents on low incomes should bloody well get financial help to raise their families subsidised by 'richer' people's taxes. As already said we can't all be highly paid doctors, lawyers or hedge fund managers. Should lorry drivers, bin men and nurses not have DCs or both be forced to 'dump' their DCs in (quite often) substandard childcare at enormous cost without the 1:1 care and genuine parental affection that a young child needs except for a few hours before they go to bed . I did this with my DD from the age of 3 months as DH and I both needed to work to pay the mortgage and paid two thirds of my salary for the privilege. Thank god when I had twins, the option was taken out of my hands as the childcare would have been a lot more than my salary and we survived with a small amount of extra income in tax credits (not enough to cover the nappy bill btw). Parents should have a choice how they bring their children up and if high earners want to get up in arms about 'their' taxes paying for it, they should first consider how lucky they are to be high earners . Low income does not equal 'stupid' or 'scrounging'. It generally means they work harder and are contributing more to society!

foureleven, this is off topic but most libraries have a box you can post books into if they are not open so that you can return them, you can also renew online etc, so you shouldnt have to end up with charges etc, tho i still do, but mainly cos with 4 kids getting books/games out etc i can never find them all to return them on time

I'd say that this is a choice that everyone should have the right to also.

yeah whatever. Richer than 95% of the world, in a country where you'll never go hungry or die from lack of basic sanitation, and you whinge about what you don't get.

Compare your children to those in Malawi, or Haiti, or in many countries around the world. You are some of the luckiest and least grateful people on the planet.

runnybottom i live in one of the poorest countries in the world in the poorest district of that country so fuck off

and to quote another mn poster when you get there, fuck off some more

Haven't read the whole thread but feel compelled to put in my twopennorth

If both parents work then they have to pay for childcare, which costs money, so the govt gives WTC to fund it. Or one SAH and they don't get WTC, only CTC.

Where is the problem here?

£1000 a month to support a family? My teenage daughter takes home a little more than that!

That wouldn't even cover our mortgage..........

Think they are entitled to help and probably need it.

Sahm have a right to be SAHM, Working Mums have a right to work, neither choice is bad for the child or children, as long as they are loved and well looked after.

I don't think OP was against the idea of SAHM, she was against them getting paid for staying at home.

We don't get paid, as its been said a million times (slight exaggeration) that everyone is eligible for these credits if they earn under a certain amount. Before DS i worked and paid taxes too.

If we get credits/benefits surely we're entitled to them (unless defrauding the system) regardless of working situation. there are reasons and guidelines for all this, its not just random.

The average UK salary is £25,000 so if you are both working that is £50,000... nearly there..

baring in mindt hat men earn more than women, and many women work part time....

the average household income is 40k. if you earn 40 k you'll get circa £80 a month ctc, not much, but nice.

Not quite EricNorthmansmistress, the working partner can earn WTC as they are unrelated to childcare costs. (Yes, you might get more if you have childcare costs)> So provided that the working partner doesn't earn a fortune they can claim. They can also claim children's tax credit too if they have children. I hadn't realised this until today (unrelated to this thread!) when investigating for us!

some people have some weird misconceptions about what CTC does and does not do, and what the tax system does and does not reward.

1. if your income of, say, 20k, is made up from two incomes, you are better off than one person earning 20k together with SAHP. For one thing, two earners = two tax allowances being used.

2. Who earns is not important to the taper of CTC/WTC. if it was DH that earned, not me, the amount paid would be the same. The household income is the basis of the 33% taper decrease on whatever elements you are eligible for. You are more likely to qualify for more elements with two earners (eg, with ft and PT er - you can get 31 + hour element, with just one PT-er, you can't)

3. not working is not necessarily a 'lifestyle choice' - currently there are more workers than there are jobs. Women with children are known to be the most discriminated-against group in the workplace.

4)Although CTC/WTC are not administered in the same way as benefits, at the rate some people receive them at, it is very obvious they function as more than a tax rebate. The amount of CTC I receive vastly exceeeds the amount of tax we pay. I think of it as being on benefits as effectively it is a government hand out that we would be very screwed without.

5. higher earners pay a lower percentage of their income in tax. so don't whinge if the government balances that out a bit in favour of people with children, and people on lower incomes!

"I totally lost respect for your views once you started to claim that 'it's best for the mother to be at home'"

If they want to. I don't object to working mums. I object to mums having to work, or at least both parents having to work. I couldn't have breastfed and worked. My DS only slept through at 15 months and fed alot. For me it would have meant total exhaustion and denying DS feeds when I was at work. It would also mean someone else bringing up my child from an age that I personally and alot of other mums feel uncomfortable with. Mums should work if they want, but should never ever have to because to afford a basic living you either have to be married to someone way above an average wage, not have kids, or work after your mat. leave. Some people want to - that's fine. As I said, they shouldn't have to.

"Shouldn't the way out of that trap be to raise minimum wage?

no. minimum wage is earned by many people with relatively high disposable incomes (thinks back to being 18-25 year old living with parents..) incraesing minimum wage also drives jobs abroad (except in industries where they have to be done here.

upping the minimum wage = the scattergun approach. "

But why should the fat cats get richer (millions of pounds richer) off the back of being able to get cheap labour? THe government is paying out needlessly IMO. Min. wage seems to need to be around £25k on 38 hours a week. Maybe that very simplistic and naive, but company bosses have more money than they know what to do with and the blue collar workers struggle to cope. Seems a no brainer.

Witchywoowoo, sorry I misunderstood at first, but still.......... eh?

I'm a single parent and get £40 a month CHILD TAX CREDITS for two dcs. You get tax credits when you work. You and your family are entitled to them just as half the population is.

Was a bit miffed at someone else talking about someone else's business that's all.

Take care. Enjoy your time with your dcs.

"Who will pay for that? I love all these ideas they come up with before an election."

Frank Field was tasked with thinking the unthinkable re the welfare and benefits system some years back by the Labour Party has some pretty blunt views on matters politicians don't like talking about as it gets them into hot water (abortion, immigration) - so nothing to do with electioneering - but has come up with such radical ideas, Labour have shied away!

Re his idea for front loading the child-benefit and CTC in the first few years of childhood, just means families wouldn't get the money later on, but at the time it's most crucial and when they a most likely to want to be at home. Most women, once their youngest child is at school (whether that be primary or later secondary), are back in work and therefore in less need of financial support.

Fuck off yourself titch, you may live in the poorest country, but you have a computer and internet, making you bloody rich there. And according to your earlier comments, shit loads of money, your own business, and CHOSE to move there from the UK.
So what the fucking shite are you complaining about?

Edgyallenpoo, i wasnt aware that high earners paid a lower percentage of earnings in tax... They have a higher tax band...

Runnybum, you have to be kidding! If I compared myself to scabby horse with one leg I would be better off than he! Just because im not a starving third world child doesnt mean that I dont have the right to feel disgruntled every now and then. Theres always someone better/ worse off.

And woe there, not only runnybum but potty mouth!

Sorry my thread caused such rudeness between mummies!

ASLD - I am thinking I hav come around to your way of thinking about minimum wage in your last post. But would that mean that everyones wage would go up?

Having just watched 'how the other half live' it is pretty clear that there is no cut and dry with any of this but I do object to the running down of the 'fat cats' and all the commens about how 'the rich' should pay for the poor. A lot of us would be poor had we stayed at home when the kids were babies but got on with it (often with difficulty but not for me, I wanted to work)in order to build up the riches.

And never, ever, have I encountered a any mum who has 'dumped' her child in 'often substandard childcare'

You have a family income of over 50k and you think you're not well off? Get a grip.

God I dream of a family income over 50k!

[tries hard not to rise to it emoticon]

I am realitively well off. I have worked and sacrificed for every penny and I have never ever thought that any thing at all in my life has been my 'right' thats how I am.

You and others will probably say that makes me sound bitter or whatever. Yes maybe I am a little for somethings and thats why I try to see other peoples point of view and appreciate it, because just getting wound up creates negative energy.

Although I am so much more well off than many, I think considering we both work almost 50 hours a week each, we actually dont have bundles once everythings gone out. But that doent make me hate 'fat cats' etc because many of them will have taken risks that I wouldnt have had the guts too and have worked for way longer hours... for most people wealth hasnt fallen on to their laps.