Are childcare subsidies unfair to SAHM?

[MotherWol]

There's a letter in today's Guardian: Give Parents a Real Choice on Childcare arguing that the current system of childcare subsidies discriminate against SAHMs and don't acknowledge that the work they do is economically valuable, and that there should be equal financial support offered to families with a SAHP.

The campaign group behind the letter, Mothers At Home Matter, are focused on the benefits that a SAHM (their wording) is hugely beneficial to families and society, but stigmatised by a society that values economic activity over everything else.

I don't know whether it's their exclusive focus on women staying at home with children that set my feminist alarm ringing, but my gut reaction is that choosing to stay home with your children isn't equally important at a societal level to working, however important it may be to to families at an individual level, and therefore it's fair enough that there's no SAHM subsidy.

We already have maternity rights to enable women to take spend the first year of their child's life with them, although those benefits could arguably be significantly better. Also arguably better support is needed for families of children with disabilities where returning to work isn't possible due to their child's needs, but in the absence of those factors, is it really fair to expect the state to meet the cost of women choosing not to return to work?

I realise this is a thorny issue, and I honestly don't believe all mothers should be in paid work immediately after having children - they should be free to make the choice that's right for their families. But if the consequence of being a SAHM means losing one income, is it fair to expect equal subsidy from the state to compensate for that?

The 30 hours funding is for 3 and 4 year olds. Depending on the timing of birthdays, this can be almost 2 years. The stats are clear: most families with young children have 1 parent working part time (or not at all). The length of time it is claimed for is neither here nor there - for the period it’s being claimed, the parent is ‘draining’ the system. Then you’ve got tax free childcare ‘draining’ the system. Now I don’t have an issue with this, but I’m trying to demonstrate that viewing SAHM/Ps as a drain on society is wrong.
As I’ve said, we don’t want handouts, we want fairness. And most of what we want will benefit the majority of families with young children (where 1 parent earns significantly more/works more hours). Fair child benefit and tax systems are my main hopes. A childcare subsidy that follows the hold isn’t my first priority, but does carry importance.

@updownleftrightstart 15 hours from age 2 is sometimes for children in low income families but also for children with special educational needs who may need extra help.

Hi everyone

I’m a sahm and wanted to provide another perspective- I left a good career after Mat leave, primarily because I had a 90 min commute and childcare didn’t go late enough without employing a nanny. More local jobs required a big pay cut and were a step down. I haven’t regretted it and for us it works, due to our circumstances.

My daughter is now over three so uses some of her 15 hours which has been good for her. Tbh I do wonder the point of this, and whether it should be free, we could afford to pay for a few hours a week. But that’s the policy so we use the hours. My friends who all work full time are stressed and have to make up the shortfall of the 30 free hours, I do wonder if they means test it more and give that portion to people who both work full time or are less well off.

For me, all this “who is most valuable to society” is irrelevant, I’m valuable to my family and I love what I do, our family benefits hugely and I don’t feel bad about it. Society is such that most people need two incomes to survive, this is because the cost of living is so high, to give true choice the cost of living needs to be lower, and childcare better. This has been developing for years and now lots of people don’t have a choice and I think that’s where the debate becomes prickly- if you don’t have a choice obviously you’ll resent it on some level.

People often compare to Europe when arguing for free childcare across the board, but there’s one key point that’s always missed - working hours. I’m from Holland and hours there are so much lower. If I needed free childcare to enable me to do my job, I’d need 40 hours plus commute time, that’s just the hours I worked to do the job. In Holland I worked until 5, parents would leave at 4 and nobody criticised and they were not part time. Society was more equal, the genera standard of living was higher with less super privileged. Until that’s addressed here the childcare system will be a mess. Equally as someone mentioned, in europe there is clear distinction between childcare and education- education starts much later.

In an idea world I would work part time as would my husband and our daughter would do normal school hours, but to do that we couldn’t afford to live here, so we choose to divide labour in the way that works for us. For us that means him working full time, as he has more head room in his job, and me being home full time. Lots of people have these choices bht I don’t think childcare subsides are unfair to me, nor do I think I should be paid for what I do. I do think taxes should be done on a family level, it seems unfair we get taxed more than if we were each in lower paid jobs. But that’s life and we are privileged to have any choice at all.

All this talk of childcare subsidies "draining the system" but no recognition that those subsidies are going straight back into providing employment for childcare workers.

On one hand, it's no more unfair than many other situations where people are taxed for something that pays or benefits others and like much in the tax system, it comes down to what the government wants to incentivize.

On the other hand, our society relies on unpaid labour in so many ways that I do think needs better recognition, and the main way we recognize labour is through payment.

There is also the issue that in many areas there is already a childcare shortage and as things are, that's going to get worse so there is actually a society need for SAHPs or at least adults working patterns to do so in a way that doesn't further overload the stressed childcare

stay home with your children isn't equally important at a societal level to working,

Surely that depends on what work you're doing? There is a lot of work that doesn't really have much of a societal benefit in itself, only potentially in the tax it generations, let alone more benefit than caring for another.

Also, not all forms of work pay and the cultural concept that pay work is of more value to society than unpaid is much like the idea that people's pay is in line with how hard or socially valuable their work - maybe it's the ideal, but it's not reality.

Why campaign for women to stay home with children, rather than fathers/parents generally?

I'd guess because the group is made up of mothers and have chosen to focus on their own experiences. If fathers or other mothers want to make a similar campaign for SAHP, they can make it themselves and ally together. Their campaign does not stop that.

There are no SAHPs on the governing board of our local school, for example, and haven't been during the many years in which I have served as a governor...those are roles that are aimed at working people because of the professional skills that are required, and so I guess that's mainly who they attract.

While I agree it's a myth that SAHP do most volunteering and don't disbelieve your experience, I know SAHPs who say they're freelancers or name previous work or similar when serving on school boards or other volunteer work with professionals because of concerns of being taken less seriously or that their skills will be dismissed -- some because it's happened to them, others it's just a fear of theirs.

Different governance and other volunteer organizations have put out concerns with all the recruitment and retention issues with growing number of vacancies. It's been widely discuss that there is an issue with there being significantly more governors over 80 than under 30, and the numbers under 40 continuing to drop, and that's without getting into the ethnicity and class divides. Would you be comfortable saying governing boards just mainly attract White people or high rate tax payers - as the stats suggest - without asking why that's the case?

Recent research on governance has shown a strong issue with lack of visibility with much of the general public, and particularly the groups that are underrepresented on boards. I've seen more than once people suggest encouraging SAHP, disabled people who aren't working as many hours as they'd like, and similar groups to the board. In my experience, it's less about attracting, and more increasing awareness, reducing the barrier and image that it's only for professionals and professional retirees, and just in general being proactive to develop a board that represents those we're serving rather than just accepting we only attract a certain type.

Also to add, one thing that struck me is recently on LinkedIn, I saw a spate of men saying they’d given up careers at a high profile US tech firm to care for children and so wives could focus on careers. They were universally lauded with 1000+ comments from people saying how great it is, and how they’re doing what’s right for families. I think if a woman did this she’d have the same comments as on here - if he leaves you you’ll be destitute, you need to contribute to society and you are putting yourself in a vulnerable position. It’s interesting the difference and ultimately is sexist, if a wealthy man does it it’s great if a normal woman does it she’s either being cowed by the man or is lazy.

Many of whom are mums to young children who have to put their win children into childcare in order to work. Fine if that’s what they want to do…but I know plenty who would rather take a career break and look after their own children, instead of other people’s. Our children are not job creators, they are children. We should not feel coerced by the tax and child benefit system to put them into childcare if we want to look after them ourselves. Madness.

On the governor point - I am a SAHM and a school governor. I also volunteer for a charity that provides support to families on social services pathways and provide ad hoc regular care to smother family member. I am only able to do these things because my own mum provides free childcare for me. The 15 hours does not cover the time I need to fulfil these commitments (the blocks of time are not long enough and in my child’s school, as with many others, can only be used in the mornings).
I know many SAHMs who would love to volunteer, but do not have childcare in order to do it. Most employers release employees to be school governors, a great many on a paid basis. Many employers release and pay for other voluntary roles too.

There are no SAHPs on the governing board of our local school, for example, and haven't been during the many years in which I have served as a governor...those are roles that are aimed at working people because of the professional skills that are required, and so I guess that's mainly who they attract.
Ummm, many of us SAHMs have professional skills, thanks. I’m a qualified commercial property solicitor, SAHM and a school governor. My chair of governors is a part time childminder and excellent in her role, despite not being the type of professional you are likely referring to.

The reason you will see a lot of working professionals on governing bodies is because they get paid time off from their jobs to volunteer for the role. I on the other have to rely on childcare, as I don’t have a job that pays me to go :) Many SAHMs do not have access to such childcare (an expense they cannot afford or reliance on family members not being an option).

When my dc were younger and I was a sahm I volunteered to regularly help out in my dc school, just as an extra pair of hands when taking the kids out and about.
The school was very big on doing outside activities, walks and trips etc and needed enough parent volunteers for these to go ahead. Now, no one would know that I was doing this because it wasn't a formalised role, like being a governor or being on the PTA, but it was still necessary. Obviously wohp volunteered too, but couldn't always help out regularly because of their work. It was hard for them and used up valuable holiday time (if they could spare it from what they needed to save for school holidays).But sahp could generally be relied upon for availability. I think sahm and retired grandparents are quietly just mucking in with this stuff and without them, the school would not always be able to offer the rich variety of experiences that children benefit from.
But these things aren't measurable or seen as having any value - only activities which directly generate money are seen as valid.

15 hours of free childcare is available to anyone regardless of income for 3 year olds.

Gawd the world must be a real shitty place when every female who chooses to stay at home with the kids is in terrible danger for giving up her financial independence. I get comments all the time about how I’m not really contributing properly to society because I don’t work and it’s not good for the economy. Well fuck the economy. Liz Truss just has. Why the hell should I give two hoots about the greater good of the economy when it’s majorly fucked up by those at the top and I’ve no control over that. I will not be a robot on the treadmill just to be able to say I’ve ‘personally bettered’ myself. Really!!! In whose opinion? The only opinion that matters to me is that of my kids and they loved me being at home. I’m no less of a woman because I don’t have a glittering career. I do not wish to identify through work alone, I’m more multi faceted than that. For those who want to work, those who have to great, do so. Whatever works for you! I don’t want or need childcare payments because we cut our cloth to suit but a bit of recognition would be nice rather than seem as some sponger who contributes nothing to society. Capitalism, doesn’t it just bring out the worst in people.

“Choosing to stay at home with your children isn’t equally important to a societal level as working”

The irony that this thread appears under the feminist topic!!!

I did not know this. How does it work?

No-one should be subbed to be a SAHP, all parents should have affordable child care available, and if a SAHP wants to take advantage of that too then they can.
No-one is going to thank you for raising your own child, outside of your partner no-one really cares...

@FlyingWithRyan it's done via child benefit. Any parent not working but receives child benefit will get National Insurance Credits up until their child turns 12.
Why 12 I don't know as child benefit is paid until 16/18 or 19. My daughter is 14 so my credits have stopped but I am still a sahm because she has a disability. I receive carers allowance but that doesn't give me credits. Which is kinda annoying.

I completely agree with the op.

Being a sahm shouldn't be state funded or encouraged any more than any other lifestyle choice should

Want a gap year? To quit the rat race and find yourself in Tibet? Great. Go ahead but the state shouldn't pay you to do it.

There's no wider societal benefits to being or having a sahm. Only negatives.

Sahms aren't doing or achieving anything working mums aren't

Wouldn't more affordable childcare be better for men and women, last time I checked it was a man and a woman having a child, what's all this focus on women? Then they can both work and contribute to society.

“No wider societal benefit to bring a SAHM…only negatives.” Erm…have you got any evidence to back either of those claims up?
There’s a wealth of evidence on the benefits to both the individual child and society as a whole (these individual children grow up to become society) of having a mother/parent at home. There are some studies referenced in this article. I’d be happy to post more if you want to open your mind. www.mothersathomematter.com/articles/lightingupyoungbrains

What are the negatives of mothers raising their own children rather than using childcare from a young age? I’m fascinated to know….?

You’re missing the point - many of us don’t want to work outside of the home whilst our kids are young. We don’t want to pay someone else to look after and raise them - amazingly, we want to do it ourselves. Be it mum or Dad staying home. The ficus is on mothers because this is a campaign group for mothers.
We are still contributing towards society in many ways. Not everything can be measured in GDP.

@PurplGirl

Which of the studies in your linked opinion piece prove a benefit of a sahm ?

Working mums raise their children BTW.

All of them evidence the benefits of having a parent at home. I’m my family’s case it’s me, the Mum.
Sll parents raise their children to some degree, yes. As a SAHM, I am the main person raising mine. A working parent will share that with others - childcare providers, family members perhaps. But being a SAHM/P is about more than that - I want to be the ordinary carer for my young children. I don’t want to pay someone else to do that. Nor am I asking for handouts to do it. I want a fair tax system where, for example, child benefit is awarded on household (not 1 parent’s) income. This is something that would benefit single and working parents also btw.

You said there were only negatives to being/having a SAHM - what are those negatives?

Oh, sorry

And if you want negatives let's look at the gender pay gap, glass ceiling. Mum penalties. The sexism inherent in believing dads are an irrelevance. The mental load /domestic work falling almost entirely on women.

That's before we get on to the known facts about women and poverty being linked to the more children they have, less likely to be educated etc etc

But yeah. Its all worth some yummy mummy wanting to play house.

@PurplGirl

them evidence the benefits of having a parent at home.

Where? Thats not what they say.

childcare providers, family members perhaps.

Are you a single parent with no family who intends to homeschool and not let your child attend extra curricular activities?

If so, thats not at all healthy and not an ideal and is unachievable because you're relying on the state to fund your choice.

But seem to think you have a moral high ground in raising kids yourself with no support. Except their entire financial support of course.

Ahh, we’ve got to the crux of it - you’re threatened by my choice to stay at home and be the primary carer for my young children. You see it (incorrectly) as a criticism of your choice. So you lash out, name call, call my choices unhealthy and make wildly incorrect assumptions about my level of education, relationship status and children’s life chances.

For the record, I’m a qualified commercial property lawyer, looking forward to returning to the workplace once my children are older. Sadly, due to political and societal choices, I will have incurred financial and career prospect penalties - that is entirely the point of campaign groups like MAHM - to challenge and change this. I’m married, don’t claim a penny in benefits and am not even eligible for child benefit because my husband earns over the threshold. Though our household income is less than many of our friends’, who can still claim CB, because individually they earn under the threshold (because that’s a fair and logical fiscal policy right??). My eldest attends school and is doing brilliantly. My youngest child attends groups with me and after school we all spend the afternoons together.

I don’t occupy any moral high ground. Most of my friends work (though many of them wished they could work less or not at all whilst their children are little). I love and respect them and we share all the experiences and trials that come with motherhood. But I want to be at home with my children and be the one looking after them day to day. I unashamedly believe that is the best thing for my children and my family. I believe in having that choice and living in a society that respects it and has a fair tax system and structures that support that choice. Not handouts, not living off the state, but fairness.

As I’ve pointed out otherwise on this thread, assuming SAHM/Ps are a burden on taxpayers is in many instances incorrect. In fact, anyone claiming 30 hours childcare is taking more out of the system then I am (and in many cases not repaying it in tax due to low pay/part time hours). I don’t have a problem with that, just pointing out the hypocrisy.