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.

Excellent points, Madamez

Sorry madamez, but WHO is ignoring tax breaks given to huge companies? I'm not aware that anyone on this thread has justified them. I certainly wouldnt.

I've tried to follow this. What I don't understand is why I or any other carer should have to pay someone else to do what they are often perfectly capable of doing. Isn't childcare a luxury? How many of us hire chauffeurs and cooks and cleaners? The government doesn't stump up for dog-walkers so their owners can go to work. Why does it pay for childcare? It seems mad to have to go to work in order to get money from the government towards nursery school, just to pay for someone else to do the same job.

Please, someone tell me what I've missed!

The article in the Times was bad journalism and as clear as mud.

Agree that the real issue is how hard it is to make a judgement about what the govt subsidises. Some people feel strongly that they want to be at home in the pre school years, but are quite happy to work once their child starts school, while I've known mums who refuse to get a job until their kids are 11 or even older!! There are no rights or wrongs - it's about personal choice (as far as we can make choices - I know all of us have financial restraints). It's just too simplistic to say 'The govt should pay people to stay at home'.

INthegutter: I wasn;t having a pop at any individual posters, but generally there is far more slagging off of 'scroungers' on here (and elsewhere) than there is of exploitative corporations.

IN general, all stable societies so far have depended on having a serf class to do the shitwork, the caring, etc, for little or no money and to accept that they have to do this because that's what they are for (religion being very useful in perpetrating this idea); unstable societies happen when that serf class starts asking for full human rights. THis is what's happening at the moment.

"Custardo - do you disagree with public policy to encourage people to have children?

In France there has been public policy to encourage people to have children for many years - including longer maternity leave and greater tax breaks the more children you have.

France has a higher birth rate than almost all developed countries. "

why would i do that?

"Custardo - do you also really believe that children are indifferent to who washes, feeds and clothes them? Do you think those things can be routinely done by someone other than parents/close family members with no negative impact on family relationships? "

i believe that someone other than a family member - an employee, nanny or childminder for instance can do those things and the child and mother can love each other just as much.

i also believe that just becaseu a parent washes and dresses their child it does not elevate them on the lentil weaver ladder of perfect motherness.

i believe that as many mothers who so these things who do not have cleaners, an ironing company, home help, nanny etc can far from feeling gaia esq can feel a certain monotony and drudgery of life.

therefore i conclude that it is the quality of ones time with ones whildren that counts and therefore is someone works full time and has small chilren i would not judge them a lesser person than somone who stays at home with their children or visa vera.

'also believe that just becaseu a parent washes and dresses their child it does not elevate them on the lentil weaver ladder of perfect motherness.' - hear hear custy. Well said. Parenting is a hell of a lot more than wiping their bums and choosing to what to wear today.

Erm, sorry, Madamez, the societies who've used serf -type classes have included pre-Revolutionary Russia and China.

Not terribly stable, either of them.

And it's good that companies get tax-breaks. I can't see how it would benefit anyone if they could afford to take on fewer people. Or do you think the state should employ everyone, as is pretty well the case in Scotland?

the status of the sahm in our society as being the lowest of the low is currently echoed both in working family tax credits and very clearly on this thread

yes it is a choice to stay at home with my pre schoolers but its bloody hard work and i cant even give my tax allowance to dp

some of the vitriol on this thread Scottishmummy turns my stomach

"Children need to be cared for, and the person caring for them needs an income, simple as that."

I agree that children need to be cared for and I also agree that that care requires money.

It's a bit of a leap though, to saying that the money that is required to care for children should come from the state. Why on earth should it? I pay loads of wonga in taxes. I would object to those taxes going to anyone staying at home in order to care for their children. I believe that children are a gift not a right and that parent(s)should work and ensure that they can afford to care and cherish their gifts.

I cannot believe the French economy - which is let's face it struggling as businesses move out in droves - is being held up as some prototype to be followed. France is nearly bankrupt paying for all this nonsense - haven't you seen the strikes, Anna?

"Children need to be cared for, and the person caring for them needs an income, simple as that."

That is worded almost identically to the justification for making absent parents pay their ex's income support under the old CSA system. Why is it OK in that context and not this one? Just wondering.

Isn't the CSA thing about making people acknowledge their financial responsibility to their children?

I really get cross about parents buggering off and leaving their children and refusing to meet their own financial obligations. It's out of order.

Not getting into it, but under the old CSA system the support was for the ex NOT the child. It said so in black and white.

So all I was saying is that if it's acknowledged in one context that a person caring for a child needs to have financial support to do it, what is wrong with acknowledging it more generally?

I'm a SAHM but if I was a WOHM I would find the article somewhat controversial and judgemental

Agree Quattro. A child is for life, not just till your current relationship is over. I wouldnt expect anyone other than myself and their father to pay for my kids.

Twinkle, I have no knowledge of what the CSA's policies are or how/why they were devised so I am afraid I can't comment on your point.

It seems to be unsound as a matter of public policy to pay people to stay at home to have children when the world is severely overpopulated.

I would also personally resent it. I doubt that I am constitutionally capable of staying at home, but the fact is I am never going to have the option because I can't afford to.

Don't you think it's a little perverse though to pay some (by no means all) people to have someone ELSE bring up their children?

I agree that the article is judgmental

"So while we blame alcohol, drugs and the availability of knives for the perceived escalation in yobbish behaviour, could it be that falling numbers of stay-athome mums might have something to do with it? "

I am a wohm and my children are not yobs. They are little sweeties. I am not going to make any rash promises about alcohol and drugs (having experimented with both myself) but I can say in perfect honesty now that neither of them will ever have a problem with violence, knives or yobbish behaviour. Ever. What a lot of tosh.

The article is ridiculous. The statement

"So while we blame alcohol, drugs and the availability of knives for the perceived escalation in yobbish behaviour, could it be that falling numbers of stay-athome mums might have something to do with it? " just sums it up really. No evidence, no facts, just piss poor journalism.

Here's the thing. I have bills. I need to pay those bills. I can't pay them unless I work, because I am not independently wealthy and my DH does not earn enough to support us all. If I work I need someone to look after the children. So my work has to be lucrative enough to pay for the bills and the childcare.

I don't think this is perverse. It's just a fact of mine and many other womens' lives.

Incidentally my children love me and DH more than anyone, despite having paid for childcare since they were 3 months old.

First of all, I'm a WOHM so judgments here.

All I'm saying is that in SOME instances, the Government will pay a significant proportion of people's childcare costs to enable them to go out to work. Therefore they get the benefit of the additional income without the full cost of the childcare.

However, the Government won't allow free choice by making a similar contribution to allow a parent to care for their own baby or toddler. So that family misses out entirely on the additional income as well as shouldering all the childcare themselves.

Now I know that in many instances, like ours would be for example, couples on a very modest income indeed get absolutely zero help with childcare. That is what swayed our decision to have DH stay at home. But it still reeks of double standards IMO.

Oh God, that should be NO judgments here. I must start previewing my posts again.

"in SOME instances, the Government will pay a significant proportion of people's childcare costs to enable them to go out to work. Therefore they get the benefit of the additional income without the full cost of the childcare."

None of this has ever applied to us so again can't really comment. Don't qualify for any help and never have qualified. But is this not similar to the whole benefits trap scenario? The people just out of benefits are the worst off?