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.

Yes I agree with you inthegutter. I'm coming from the perspective of having a 17 month old. He goes to nursery for half a day a week to give DH a break, and him some different experiences, but I wouldn't dream of sending him full time. I'd feel I was really letting him down.

Once he's at school, and assuming DH can find any sort of work that accommodates school hours and holidays, well that might be different.

But I really do feel that the Government's current attitude seriously undermines family life.

'And btw, it's got little to do with being fortunate enough to live on one income.'PMSL Sorry, but for many people it has EVERYTHING to do with not being able to afford to live on one income!

If everyone could afford to live on one income then they wouldn't feel the need to ask for Government help then would they?

I am intrigued though. How many people do have to have two incomes - I mean really have to. The average income in this country is £20k ish isn't it? So twice that is £40k. Is it impossible to live on less than that (many many people do), or is it more that most people see certain things as essentials which are really luxuries which could be gone without.

Twinklemegan - yep since you asked you are incorrect about working parents - but you knew that anyway so no further response

your accounnt of working mums is as stereotypical as me saying SAHM......
Watch telly
faff about
lots of coffee and chat to mates
45 min before partner home run round with hoover then go on about how tired you are

thing about stereotypes is they are largely erroneous and unhelpful and divisive

Isn't TM a working mum?

Granted, I omitted to take account of childcare costs in the above post.

Well we live on one below average income because we have:
essential food only
no new clothes until the old ones fall apart
absolutely no holidays
no meals out
etc. etc.

We receive no benefits of any description and we have a mortgage.

When I say it's our choice, it is mostly our choice. Having said that, if DH's work didn't involve him spending long periods away from home (but not to a regular pattern thus making arranging childcare a complete nightmare) then based on our current standard of living we might have made a different decision. But the work available locally, set against the cost of childcare, means we'd hardly be any better off.

Twinklemegan - I can assure you that when my children were young, in the days when interest rates were routinely around 12%, there was absolutely no way we could have kept even a modest roof over our heads and food on the table without both of us earning. I'm not talking luxuries, I'm talking essentials. Interest rates are of course a lot lower now; sadly though, house prices and rentals are so ridiculously high in this country that many families DO need more than one income to make ends meet. This is NOT about greed or consumerism for many people. It's about keeping a roof over their heads.

I am indeed a working mum. I hate it. I love my job but I hate being a working mum. DH is the one with the hard job in our family.

I think it's a chicken and egg thing though inthegutter. I totally agree about house prices/rents, which is why we struggle like hell with our housing costs for a very modest home. But which came first? Did house prices rise astronomically because more families had double incomes and could afford to pay more? Or did they rise for another reason and families had to start having double incomes to pay for it?

TM - I would argue that if you hate being a working mum, then YOU are the one with the hard job in your family. Yes, being a stay at home parent is I'm sure a hard grind at times, with lots of fairly routine dull parts. But going out to work has its pressures too, they're just different. I don't think you can make a simple comparison and say one is harder than the other. However, I do think that for one parent to be unhappy in their role, as you admit you are, is very sad and must make it seem like you have the worst deal.

no. its personal choice. i dont see why my hard earned taxes should fund people to stay at home

I don't feel that though, because I genuinely love my job. I would be happier though if it paid enough for us to enjoy life and not struggle all the time. It's just the way it has to be for us - we'd be a whole lot worse off if I was the one at home.

The main reason I don't like (hate is too strong a word) being a working mum is because I feel I miss out on being a mum. I don't feel I fit in with other mums, I can't meet up with other mums because I'm only free at weekends, etc. That's probably why I'm on MN so much! So it's about me really. I don't feel particularly guilty because I know DS is cared for brilliantly by DH who, if I'm honest, probably does a better job than I would.

Having said that, deep down I still feel like the primary carer, and DH thinks of me as such as well.

Custardo - would you still say that though if it really is true that people are being forced out to work, not choosing (I'm still undecided on that one). Do you really think it's OK for under 3s to be brought by a nursery than by their parents? (I've Googled this now and it is only talking about parents of kids under 3).

id just like to back twinkle up here
i agree that alot of people think they need more money than they do, things like the internet mobiles cable tv holidays cars are luxuries that are not essential
not enough people seriously consider down sizing or think about moving into a council house or doing whatever is needed
although of course there will always be some people that HAVE to work to provide the most basic things, but i think this is the minority of working parents

also i wonder if people really think hard when they take morgages and car loans etc pre children, how are they going to pay for this if they have children
we have also worked on a budjet of lets only go for what we can afford on one income

the only people i really feel for are the ones that really want to stay at home but have no choice

but i agree if the goverment can payout for childcare then i think the sahm/d should be allowed at least tax breaks

just putting this on my list as i don't have time to read the article right now and will never find it again if the thread dies

the choice iam refering to twinklymegan is the choice to have children.

to be pregnat when you dont want children and keep it once - fair enough

twice - very unfortunate

three times and its either precentage wise a fairly rare ocurance that something went wrong medically to allow this

or its stupidity.

multiples comes under very unfortunate IME

we live in a capitalist society - we have no socialist values here

hippies are nice - on the telly - in the real world the amount of people who actually are financially stable enough to be able to raise 5 kids whilst staying at home and baking bread is reserved for the rich

the rest of us work in a paid job

if you want to have a child and stay at home - then good for you - but please tell me who the fuck would go working stacking shelves at morrisons on mimunum wage for 16 hours a week to get teh WFTC top up - if they could fuck it and just stay at home?

and why should i work full time

whilst others are like " well i get the sahm allowance so i dont have to WOTH"

its very nice in a middle class utopia but seriously in the real world back on your inner cuty estates - how the fuck is that an incentive to a better life - when a better life comes through eduation or money - education usually = access to higher wages?

the world is sadly not made of lentil weavers

however the question remains - why should i work having three teenagers and the mothers of pre schoolers not?

i could make a compelling argument as to why the parenting of teenagers is much harder than pre schoolers and how the maintaining of a parental relationship and communication is key - how to ensure their safety one has to mesure their leisur eactivity time and be mobile enough to deliver their safety - ie taking them and picking them up from activities which may prevent them causing nuisance or getting asbo or muggin old ladies therefore helping society - and i am mean to do this and help them get some kind of qualificatio sometime after 6pm when i get home from work, cooked the tea, done some washing, taken them to dancing, drama, guitar whatever and then stuck a fucking brush up mi arse

so when would this SAHMdom finish? at what age exactly is your child more needy of you as a parent?

Just to clarify I'm not a SAHM - I work full time and I'm out of the house for 11 hours a day.

People do need to have children to keep the country going, and we already have an ageing population because the birth rate's dropped. Are you really saying that having children should be reserved for the rich?

Incidentally, I am inclined to agree with you because I still feel that most couples choose to have both parents work. But if it really is true that financial pressures force both parents out to work, well I just don't think that's fair on the child.

BTW, I'd argue that perhaps your 3 teenagers don't need you as much.

...as much as an under 3 year old, that should have read. The proposal is that this is only for parents of under 3s.

Although working parents only get tax credits for childcare up to a certain income. We wouldn't qualify if DH went back to work.

I'm still confused as to why tax credits are an incentive for both parents to work. Like I said, if DH found local work virtually all his earnings would go on paying for childcare. Not a very attractive option.

I thought when tax credits were first introduced, the intention was that they replaced married couple's tax allowance and shifted the benefit to all people with children. For couples, the intention was that a tax allowance was given to the working parent and paid to the parent who cared for the children. I'm not sure when that changed.

hatrick that would then look like favouratism to couples

and we dont have a "this is my pot of taxes" system what we pay in now gets paid out to society now - its not stored. so or taxes that we pay pay old age pensions, benefits etc now.

i am not saying that having children should be reserved for the rich

but i am saying i dont think that i should subsidise a group of people through taxes who dont work - this sounds like an incentive to have children to me.

and although the birth rate is in decline i dont think that there is such a deplition of babies that it is going to affect our economy in the short to medium term

and then indeed what will happen is that the age of retirement will go up for both sexes to 70. the nhs will be sold off bit by bit and we will be increasingly told that not only do we now have to provide our ownpensions for retirement but we have to get a degree of health care cover as well.

but our taxes wont go down

the crux of the argument is why ?

this is about the quality of parenting - just becuase you are a sahm and get the imaginary sahm allowance does now automatically turn you into a good parent

it just gives you an incentive not to get a WOTH

so just as when someone wants a new tv they need to budget for it

if you want a baby you should budget for it.

everyones budgets ans lifestyels are different so this doesnt mean you have to be rich - but it shouldnt mean that you claim benefits too

why does a 3 year old need its mum mor than a teenager? - mum comes into it specifically becuase of nurturing and emotional stuff

the other stuff like taking to toilt washing feeding can be done by anyone

so the dependance physically of a 3 yr old and under to one side - why does a pre schooler need more love and attention than a 6 year old or a 12 year old or a 14 year old?

work outside the home i mean before i get shot

Good post custy
i remember a friend telling me that your children 'need' you so much more as teenagers than they did as LO!

I agree with you that people should take responsibility for their own children and not expect hand outs from the state.

As I said earlier, rather than allowances or benefits, I would like to see maternity/parental leave extended for those with children up to 2 years. I feel that parents should be able to stay at home with their children if they think it is best for them and some women feel pressured to go back earlier than they would like to protect their jobs.

I do think, though, that parenting a 6 or 14 y.o. is different to parenting a pre-schooler. Of course older children should have as much love and attention but they don't need it in the same way as a pre-schooler. An older child should be getting more independent from their parents as they get older and shouldn't need their parent to be available to them at all times. They also have other ways of getting support which a pre-schooler doesn't have. For example, they will have the influence and care of teachers, friends and the wider extended family. They don't want a parent interfering in every aspect of their lives. For a pre-schooler, their world revolves around their parents.

That said if a parent wants to work more flexibly to accommodate their children, whatever age they are, then I believe that this should be catered for wherever possible with flexible hours, part-time working, job sharing etc.

I'm not putting this very well but it is very late.