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.

blimey, where's this thread going now?..

Abuse and domestic violence are prevelent in homes where both parents work too-is that better because they pay tax?
I worked for 13 years full time before becoming a SAHM and will work again in a couple of years when my youngest goes to school.
As a SAHM one recieves NO BENEFITS whatsoever if your husband is in full time employment. I think some help with travel or prescriptions wouldn't go amiss

Yes 1dilemma re Anna888's post, and that's the kind of thing I had in mind.

I've not finished reading all the posts yet, but just wanted to say that this thread has now officially entered an alternative dimension. How can a community of parents, mostly mothers, be sat here arguing over whether their children need to be looked after by their parents or not? ?????!!

Arguments about the economy in these terms are just as spurious as economic arguments against saving the planet. It's a smokescreen. Most of us work to live, we DO NOT live to work and we do not work for the "economic benefit" of society, but to support our own families. Therefore ANY work which contributes towards supporting your family, paid or not, is equally valuable in my book.

Has anyone said that work in the home is not valuable? Because if they have that is a very surprising line of argument

I've only just reached the end of it so I'm not reading it again either. I'm not sure it's been said explicitly but the sentiment has been there in many of the posts.

Of course it is an economic argument when you discuss weather to pay sahms or not! I also see that its a big myth on this thread that working parents get subsidised so much from the government. I know mothers who pay almost their full salary towards childcare costs. They work because of the long-term financial benefits to their family (like pensions, the ability to care for your family if something happens to your partner etc). Whenever people talk about giving up work, they often talk about giving up luxuries. How can having a pension or having savings be a luxury? If we don't have pensions, then ultimately its our children who are going to have to work hard to provide for the increasingly ageing population when we get older. Having had mummy at home when you were 2 won't help them. It really is an economic argument.

I think there are both economic and socio-psychological dimensions to the issue of whether or not people should be SAHPs and whether society as a whole should or should not support that.

And the economic and socio-psychological arguments are largely in conflict, hence the prolonged and heated SAHM/WOHM debates on Mumsnet. Both sides are "right" (ie have good arguments), the two sets of arguments are irreconcilable.

Hence the need to find a personal tradeoff that suits your own family and circumstances.

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread, but fwiw my personal view is this:

I think all parents should be paid a childcare 'credit' which they can use towards their childcare costs or towards their expenses if they are SAHPs.

I find it astonishing that there is so little support for staying at home, and wrote to my MP about it. I was provided with a detailed explanation of the government's policies to support parents including parental leave, extended paid maternity leave etc.

Assisting working parents with their childcare costs is fine and good, it brings in revenue for the economy, but is very short-termist (which I suppose governments can afford to be, by the time children have grown up someone else will be in gov't).

I take exception to the argument that parents aren't trained and haven't undertaken supervision like healthcare professionals therefore can't be 'paid'. Obviously this is a complicated area, and there is poor childcare provided by SAHP as well as excellent childcare provided in daycare settings etc, but as a general rule one-to-one consistent care provided by a primary caregiver is preferable to that provided elsewhere - parents love their children, know them inside out, can provide the kind of support (emotional, physical etc) tailored precisely to their unique needs... and young children benefit from it. As they get older the cognitive benefits associated with daycare start to weigh in.

Obviously every family has to evaluate the short-term and long-term effects of their decisions, and it isn't an ideal world so we can't all have what we want.

A non-judgemental childcare credit paid to every parent could be of benefit to everyone - they could just double the child benefit payment. It could be the difference between paying the bills or not to a sahp.

all parents paid - hmmmm how does that work then?how do you ensure they are undertaking a goood enough job, meet protocols, standards etc. would sahp want vetted monitored and crb like othger childcare professionals - probably not!well actually it is pretty unattainable because parenting is a personal, individual pursuit driven by individual volition, experience beliefs etc. No i dont believe sahp should be paid for essentially undertaking a personal decision. why should some one else go out to work often for minimum wages so that sahp can be paid to undertake parenting when they would already have chosen to do so anyway

But it's not always a decision, is it? Like in my case. I'd like to get another job but childcare costs are prohibitive.

I wasnn't suggesting parents be paid a salary as a childminder - just that they should receive the childcare element of Working Tax Credit like people who work do. If all parents received it, then they could decide whether to pay for childcare or provide it themselves.

But if your DH works, does he not receive working tax credits? Only one person in a couple can receive it. You don't get double if both parents work.

This debate will still be argued in many years from now. My opinion is, I have done both working mum and now a SAHM. Whilst working people made me feel guilty for neglecting my DD1 and putting her in childcare. Now home with DD2 I am (and was only last week in fact) accused of "not bothering" to go back to work, thus making me feel guilty again. Finances are the deciding factor for my choices. With DD1 I returned to work and after childcare fees had £50 of my basic admin wage. Once petrol and parking paid it left nil! Now with 2 DDs the fees would take ALL my wages and some more so I am unable to return even if I wanted too. All I can say is what ever happens to your work life once you have kids poeple will always try to make you feel guilty. Do whats right for you as a family. Kids dont become yobs because their mum sent them to nursery. Its about making sure the time you spend with them (however little or large) is quality time. Both my DDs are beautiful, happy girls. One had a working mum for the first few years the other a SAHM, neither girls are different for it.

YES peopole should individually suit themselves, whatever childcare arrangements work for them(SAHP/CM/nursery etc) i am happy with my individual choice. quality time is so so important i agree

happynappies - was going to post exactly the same thing - double child benefit across the board. I didn't get round to it as this thread keeps moving on so much when I'm not looking.

Couple that with my suggestion of extending maternity leave to at least 2 years and you are on your way to giving more women the option to stay home or employ a childminder in the formative first 3 years, when children do best with one-to-one care.

It is all about maximising everybody's choice so that those who want to work can and those that don't want paid employment don't have to.

The problem with paid maternity leave for 2 years is for some careers that's really difficult neurosurgery/pilot/? some IT stuff. Despite gov guidelines you only have to look on here to see that there are many people whose request for part time working is turned down, they can't all sue their employers!(I have to go and work.....)

mrsruffallo would have to give travel /prescription help to working Mothers too though. S'not fair otherwise!

I think child benefit should be means tested. By that I mean there should be a cut off, not that it should be taken away from working parents struggling to pay stupidly expensive childcare.

I'm fortunate enough in that I never need to touch it. It goes straight out of our account into the DCs accounts. I know lots of other mums who do exactly the same.

So instead of funding savings accounts for children from families who are financially secure without them, I believe the government could redistribute that money where it is better needed. Perhaps funding full weeks for 3&4yr olds (rather than just 15hours)to enable parents to work would be a good start. Alternatively, SAHM could claim extra for 3yrs.

1dilemma - yes some careers are difficult to keep up with whilst on maternity leave but I don't think that is a good reason for not extending maternity leave if it can help some people. As now, you don't have to take it all - the minimum you are signed off for is 2 weeks post natal so if it bothers anybody that much they can effectively go back any time they like. Scandanavian countries already do this

I should have said parental leave rather than maternal so that the father can stay at home if the family chooses.

It is all about providing the maximum choice for as many people as possible.

Cushioncover - means testing is a recipe for inequalities and injustices and is difficult to administer and it would be something that would have to be applied for. It is better off left as it is imo or you get into the same messy situation that a lot of people find themselves in with the tax credits

Allowing the leave to be taken by either parent will level the playing field though, surely?

Well done Madamez. It should be fairly easy for my to elevate myself from part time evening shop assistant back to full time professional (kids in private nursery) if people with your mental capacity can pull it off. You give me hope. Cheers!

OOpps ignore me - my PC didnt refresh properley. I think I jumped int the conversation sometime last night! Apologies, am off for a lie down.

agree sprogger. There is a world of difference between simply extending maternity leave and simply reinforcing the idea that it's the mother's role to always be the primary caregiver, and extending PARENTAL rights. I think anything which narrows down the options for our daughters can't be a good thing. I may as well give up trying to impress on my daughters the importance of gaining good qualifications, higher education etc if I'm never going to expect them to have interesting and worthwhile careers!!

Surely, if your daughters chose to take maternity leave or have a career break it has nothing to do with their qualifications or education. I don't understand this business about not being a good role model just because you chose to spend a small proportion of your life at home with your children. It is hardly wasting your education is it?

I would argue that most SAHM take no more than 4 or 5 years off to have their children. Out of a working life of 50 years it doesn't amount to much.

I would be careful of reinforcing the view that being a SAHM is somehow less worthy than working. I don't think that does the next generation of parents many favours either. How can you expect your daughters to have real choices if you don't respect their rights to chose to stay at home.

And if we as women deem time off with our children to be less useful than working, what hope do we have that more men might one day do their share of the parental leave? They are hardly going to be keen on the loss of status either.