Incentives for SAHMs - anyone read Fiona Phillips today?

[bohemianbint]

Link here

I think if you can get past the slightly guilt-inducing title, what she is basically saying is quite interesting. It's the first thing I've read in a while that doesn't write SAHMs off as useless bovine idiots.

Obviously don't want to start the old fight of working vs sahm, but what do we think about some kind of incentive for mums to stay at home?

FWIW I have recently become a SAHM by accident after stupid sexist boss forced me out of my job - I am taking him to a tribunal. I am looking for work but am pregnant so not sure how that'll go down with potential employers! I'd like to work PT ideally but I feel really under pressure from everyone around me to get a job and stop being a "boring" SAHM.

Yeah but the government waste so much money on stupid things. People just believe what they say so readily. They often spout out what we should do then do the opposite such as so many labour MP's sending their own kids to private schools. I bet much more goes on too that people don't know about. People should just live how they want to and not go along like sheep. I believe that the best thing is for all parents to get a moderate tax credit or other to use either for childcare or to SAH. If people say why should we pay for people to SAH, then you could say why pay for childcare for WP's if having kids is a lifestyle choice.

speaks slowly. because the economy as a whole benefits in quantifiable financial terms when individuals engage in paid work.

Hi jellybean, "If people say why should we pay for people to SAH, then you could say why pay for childcare for WP's if having kids is a lifestyle choice."

I do sense your frustration. But as bossykate says, what the govt is encouraging in working tax credits and childcare vouchers is not for working parents to have children, but for working parents to continue working despite having children.

The state is supporting people to be at work (because it directly benefits the economy), not having children as a lifestyle choice.

I do understand that but many times they (the government) end up paying more in tax credits and childcare than if the person was on benefit (especially with single parents). Also, capitalism was built on the backs of unpaid workers (and the exploited) so they are important here too. I also see the point about uni fees but on the whole studies show most women want to return to work after several years out. (many also want to work part time) Very few wanted to SAH till retirement! So they would still be using their degrees; even if they had 10 years out, they would still have 20, 30 years left.

Jellybeans: "I do understand that but many times they (the government) end up paying more in tax credits and childcare than if the person was on benefit (especially with single parents)."

The way the tax credits and childcare system works, there is nothing being paid to the person. It is just that the person who pays tax out of their paid employment pays less tax than they otherwise would have to. Net, taxpayers still win because they get the benefit of that person's tax (albeit a lesser amount) because without the WTC/voucher, that person who pay NO tax because they are priced out of work by childcare. I am not sure how WTC/vouchers can be compared with the benefit system because benefits are just a cash payment - it is like comparing apples and oranges.

"Also, capitalism was built on the backs of unpaid workers (and the exploited) so they are important here too." If you are referring to SAHMs as the exploited, I don't see how looking after the children you have decided to have, amounts to exploitation.

"I also see the point about uni fees but on the whole studies show most women want to return to work after several years out. (many also want to work part time) Very few wanted to SAH till retirement! So they would still be using their degrees; even if they had 10 years out, they would still have 20, 30 years left."

The hard truth, especially for the executive/managerial type jobs that come with a degree, is that a few years out of the job market greatly reduces the chance that this person will be able to go back to a job of the same pay and status as the time they left. Their skills would be eroded and often rendered obsolete. They would need a lot of re-training, something not a lot of employers have the appetite for, particularly for an older worker. It is unfair, but it is life.

blueshoes - while I understand and agree with all your economic arguments, it is not the sole business of governments to increase their populations material prosperity (even if ministers of economics or finance or chancellors of the exchequer, depending on the country, judge themselves pretty much according to size and growth of GNP).

It is also the business of governments to account for a population's mental health and psychological well-being. What if that includes some mothers of young children being at home? Does the government not need to take account of that and not put pressure on those mothers to take up paid employment?

"Bohemianbint to answer your earlier question what you need to do is mximise your income and minimise your childcare costs (wow rocket science!!) but can you do shifts, weekends, compressed hours or can dp? Can you find a community/charitable trust nursery place? depending on where you are childminders or other forms of care can be cheaper then nurseries.
If the answer to those is no then I'm stumped!"

1dilemma - thanks for your post!

I could do evenings/weekends. But whilst pregnant, working a 12 hour day looking after DS1 and then going straight out to work when DP gets home would be hellish. Don't think DP would want to do it after working all day either! The only childcare option available to me is my childminder who charges £26 per day.

It's totally bloody rubbish.

The only answer I can see is to work freelance from home. The barriers to this are that I need to spend a fortune on a website and then actually get work in what is a very competitive market place. But I am working on it.

Thing is though, if I didn't/dont have that option, I would have nothing, and one of us would have to work 18 hour days and never see my DP.

It seems hugely unfair that I have been landed in this position by stupid ex-boss and I'm going to really struggle to get out of it.

Anna: "It is also the business of governments to account for a population's mental health and psychological well-being. What if that includes some mothers of young children being at home? Does the government not need to take account of that and not put pressure on those mothers to take up paid employment?"

There is the national health service and related services for mental health. It would be great for my psycological wellbeing to be able to have a bath in peace and watch the odd movie in the last 4 years. Can't see the government providing me respite care just because I happen to have 2 young children.

There is also no pressure for mothers to take up paid employment. People take up employment to pay for their living expenses, which includes the cost of bringing up a child, if they have decide to have one. The choice is clear - if SAHM is important for psycological health, don't have or have fewer children if you cannot afford to raise a family without working. There is always the benefits system safety net.

Otherwise work - lots of us do it even if we did not have children and lots of us give up early retirement as an option because we have children.

blueshoes - you are not understanding my point .

I am not talking about mending ill health (which is what the NHS is about) but preventing it in the first place by creating environments in which people lead less burdened and stressful lives.

blueshoes - why can't you have a bath in peace and watch a movie?

Genuinely interested, we have three children around much of the time but I still have plenty of baths in peace. Am not personally bothered about the films as I watched too many films before children, but I have plenty of time to read.

I do think Anna has a point. I think it is the governments responsibility to help families and children. Afterall, we want people to have children and for these children to grow up in a healthy society, don't we ? Personally I think the way forward is more family-friendly policies in the workplace such as flexible and part-time working and shorter working hours for both mum and dad, extended mat and pat leave and also making it easier for parents to take a few years off work if needed without completely ruining your cv (which you do in many professions). I don't,however, believe in the career-sahm as a good way forward for family-policies in this country and I think all this talk about children suffering in nursery unfortunately is used as an argument by many who don't particularly want family-friendly policies in the workplace or better and more affordable childcare. In fact I rarely see very much progressive from that side of the argument at all. What is it that sahms actually want? A salary? Because sometimes it just feels that they are against nurseries and incentive for parents to go to work because it goes against their own belief that mothers should stay at home. Surely, if you want to stay at home, then other women going out to work don't actually affect you?

Let's forget what the cost is to support SAMPs (assuming children have two parents), why would we want them? There are loads of studies out there to prove both arguments. So one can not really conclude that society would be better off if we had more parents staying home.

So, someone enlighten me, what is the advantage to a society with a higher proprtion of parents who not work outside the home?

Ah anna, you have children who are either happy to play by themselves or are older. Very different from mine. I explained on another thread why it is a personality-driven thing but one which could drastically curtails the lifestyle and possibly adversely affect the mental health , of their parents.

Sure, there are areas where the NHS expends resources on preventative care, rather than remedial. Giving SAHPs a cosy feeling is not a priority, especially when compared with the expense of implementation - where is the money coming from? It is as much a priority as giving me respite care for caring for my dcs.

"I think it is the governments responsibility to help families and children. "

I don't think it is. I thinkit is the governments responsibility to help the people where they can not help themselves. For example, provide a state education system and a military. The people can not do this themselves. It is the government's responsibility. But, people who can go to work should. Lots of us do it every day. Now, of course, people who are genuinely unable to work should get some help. But unable and unwilling are very different things.

You're still not understanding my point blueshoes - though FairyMum has.

The point I am making about mental / psychological health has absolutely nothing to do with the NHS. It is about creating a structure for society that does not overburden/stress its members such that they get ill/underperform/fail to reach their potential. FairyMum lists some, possible, ways in which the pressure on families with young children might be relieved.

eleusis - that's a very dubious position .

"It is about creating a structure for society that does not overburden/stress its members such that they get ill/underperform/fail to reach their potential. "

Oh come on, Anna. That is not the function of government. It's a dream. The government does not promise us stress free lives. That's crazy.

Of course it's a function of government Eleusis. Not a stress-free life, but not a life in which large swathes of the population are going crazy from the pressures upon them, which is what is happening in much of the Western world.

If we want people to maximise their potential, we shouldn't thrash them and make life difficult, but rather ease the pressures (and what is the point of taxation to pay for public services unless they ease pressures on the population) so that they can work better and lead more productive lives?

I think that is a very idealist approach. One that the UK economy can not support.

And I don't think swathes of the western world are going crazy.

I can see that it is perhaps the funtion of government to provide basic necessities -- food, clean water, shelter.

I think any economy has children as part of the remit, eleusis. Even if it's as bare-bones as 'future-workers'. A government that didn't have an eye to demographics couldn't sensibly make any plans for services and the use of taxes at all.

no anna, I AM addressing your point. The only difference is I didn't say you had a point.

Giving me a break from time to time looking after non-self-entertaining dcs will (to paraphrase your words) "create a structure for society that does not overburden/stress [me] such that I get ill/underperform/fail to reach my potential". However, I don't believe that the govt should fund respite care in my situation or pay me a sum of money to have a break whilst my children go to childcare, just because I happened to have the bad luck of giving birth to demanding children. Similarly, if a mother is upset at having to work because she would rather be with her children, I don't agree that the public purse should stretch so far as to accommodate paying her a salary to remain at home just because she happened to choose to have children and got stressed in this situation.

I am totally with fairymum that her family friendly solutions should be linked to facilitating women to work and stay in work despite having children and career breaks, not paying women to stay at home. It is called "family friendly", but actually it means "work friendly to people with children".

I don't think the rationale behind those policies are to create "environments in which people lead less burdened and stressful lives", but more to support people being at work.

Eleusis - I think that you are seriously out of touch with policy/debate in the country you are living in .

Water and other utilities were privatised a long time ago in the UK. Council houses have largely been sold. No Western government provides food for its population.

Governments in the Western world have moved onto other, higher things.

Anna, I think you are seriously out of touch with the debate you are in the middle of right now. WEstern governments certainly do give food to the poor. It's in the form of food stamps in the states and benfits here in the UK. Free school lunches for some.

Blueshoes has addressed your point. Just because she doesn't agree with you doesn't mean she has failed to comrehend your message.

Sue, yes, children get some help, as they should. And some others I haven't mentioned. But we are not promised a stress free fluffy world in which to grow to our maximum potetial. That is not realistic.

Eleusis is not out of touch - nice of you to say so . If she was, we would all be happily nodding on this thread and there would be no debate at all.

"Governments in the Western world have moved onto other, higher things" - socialist governments? I only want to know how these higher things are going to be funded. Western governments still have to prioritise their limited tax funds.

UK does support families in the form of (non-means-tested) child benefit, education, family services. But to pay parents to stay at home means there is convincing evidence that having a SAHP is beneficial to children above all other forms of childcare to the point the children are irreparably harmed in other forms of childcare. The answer is there is no such evidence. In fact, there are parents out there who should not even be having children.