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, and don't we know it.

Twinkle the difference is that in the woth parent scenario the tax credit is effectively a rebate against the tax paid by the woth parent. So e.g. parent pays £100 tax and gets a credit of £50 towards childcare - so overall the woth parent is still a tax contributor (by £50 in the very simple example above). So in overall terms the woth is paying taxes.

In the case of the sahp there is no increased tax paid to offset the credit against - if money was given to these parents then there is nothing to offset it against so it is effectively a new benefit. So it actually costs money to do this wheras the woth parent is increasing the taxes paid to The Revenue (which is why the govt were so keen to go down this route anyway).

On that basis who is going to fund the SAHPs? Is it morally right that those who are working (often at no choice of their own) have to pay more taxes to fund those that would prefer not to work?

I think there is adequate provision in the system as currently stands for those that cannot work for whatever reason, and I do not begrudge a penny being paid to that group of people. For those that choose not to work, that is a lifestyle choice which should be self-funded like any other life-style choice is.

We quite happily self fund my decision to be a SAHM with no tax credits (or whatever they are called), we also help finance quite a few families where both parents work.

In fact we pay for almost everything and everyone

(ignore me, I am pissed)

HMC, you missed the Quattro household out. I am sure the ommission was accidental. If you could just set up a standing order for around £10k a month, that would do nicely.

Okay, what's your sort code?

Yes I can see what you're saying Soapbox - that makes sense of course. The effect though is the strong implication that staying at home to look after your own pre-school children is not a worthwhile or valuable activity, whereas going to work in order to line the pockets of a large corporation IS. I think that is a very sad reflection on our greedy and money-grabbing society.

I'm going to bed. Am proving less and less coherent and sensible as the night progresses

I'll CAT you with it HMC. This is a public forum, y'know. Don't want any strangers trying to siphon some of this stuff off.

By the way, we don't expect the handout indefinitely. My youngest DC is 7. We'll call it a day when he's finished being in full-time education, shall we?

Sounds more than fair....

I fail to see how you leap to that conclusion. The child is your child and your responsibility. Always has been in this country.

The govt put in a scheme to attract people back to work after having children which involved them getting back a bit of the extra taxes they were generating for the economy.

How on earth does that say anything at all about lining the pockets of corporate or money grabbing? It is just saying that if the govt want parents to work then they are prepared to pay a bit towards their child care arrangements to enable them to do so. SAHPs don't need help towards these costs (which are far in excess of the tax credits in any case).

I think you are reading way too much into what is in effect a scheme put in place to alleviate the benefit trap for parents who want to (or are forced to) return to work.

When have parents ever in the history of this country been paid to stay at home and look after their children? Why would that rank above a myriad of other societal needs - would you scrap the NHS to pay for it, start charging for education to pay for it, reduce pensions etc etc etc.

The article was interesting. I am a SAHM. I use to work f/t but gave up as felt uncomfortable leaving DD in nursery all day every day. I agree that the state should offer a tax credit or other to give a choice to either use towards nursery or to ofset SAH cost. just doing one is not fair.

I am very cynical of the government and capitalism in general and would not toe the line just becuase it was what everyone else did or the trend or because Ruth kelly or whoever encouraged it. Often, ministers don't do what they propose anyway and they waste money, far more money than people know about.

You only get ONE life, if you want to be with your kids rather than making money for the people at the top, then make the sacrifices. Your boss can replace you straight away, your kids cannot. I know some people have no choice but to both work and many manage well, but materialism is also rife. It doesn't bring happiness, look at the rich and famous.

When dual income becomes the norm, we are not really better off anyway as prices adjust accordingly. Depending on two incomes is actually the worst situation to be in. You loose half an income if it goes pear shaped. Unless you can support yourself on your wage and yours only you are as dependent on your other half as SAHP.

So Jellybeans relying on one income only is better is it, because if you lose that income then you've lost all your income rather than half of it

I'm not saying that parents should be paid to stay at home though (well perhaps I'm playing devil's advocate a little). I'm just puzzled as to why parents should be "encouraged" back into work when their children need them most.

I think I'm a little confused about my own feelings on this one. Of course, if a payment was on offer we'd welcome it with open arms. But on the other hand I'm aware that we have made the choice and have tried to budget accordingly, although we still really struggle. I would prefer though that we were eligible for some assistance with childcare costs if DH did go back to work so that the choice was a realistic one.

I dunno. I'm just raising questions - no answers to be found here.

If you budget for one income, then one, or the other, or both of you can work.

If you budget for two incomes, then only both of you can work.

I think that's what Jellybean is saying.

er no the point is that if you rely on both you only have half your income as you depend on both. If a one income familys main earner becomes out of work, the other person can work if need be. There are many financial articles about it. In reality few of us are really financially independent.

twinklemegan, thanks, thats exactly what i was (trying!) to say !

Well let's put it simply Twinkle. Would you be happy paying more taxes and working longer hours etc to pay for this?

Because that is what you are asking everyone else to do.

Yes, I thought that's what I was saying. Wasn't it?

x posts

Well it used to be the case that men were always paid more than women because the idea was that men married women and kept them (like pets) to clean the house and look after the children. This was called the 'family wage'. Women who worked were paid less because they were supposed to be fed and housed either by their fathers or by some man who would marry them at which point they would stop work and become breeding stock and childcare appliances.
So should there be a 'family wage' again? And how should it be administered? WOuld you have to prove and demonstrate heterosexual matrimony to get it? And what about the people who are working to support another family member who is caring for an elderly or severely ill/disabled family member? And should a single person with no dependents really accept being paid less for doing the same work as someone else because that other person has dependents?
It comes down to the same problem yet again: if you can;t assign all the unpaid shitwork to women because they don't have penises, how does it get done and who is going to do it?

I'm not asking anyone to do anything necessarily.

OK, no I personally wouldn't because I'm already out of the house for 11 hours a day and we're already living on the breadline. If, however, I earned enough to support my own family properly then yes I probably would. Perhaps they could start by taking the correct amount of tax from people and companies who can afford to pay it .

That's no help at all, but it's the honest answer.

Madamez - in today's society that would equate to the primary earner in a family being paid more proportionately than the secondary earner. I wonder if that's so wrong actually?

Even before that 'work' used to be defined as any activity of benefit to the family, whether carried out by men, women or children. It is only really since the industrial revolution that people became wage labourers and men began to earn the 'family wage' and only work outside the home was classed as 'work'. In my opinion, capitalism is built on the back of unpaid labour. People that do not 'earn a wage' are devalued (elderly, mentally handicapped etc)why is something only 'work' if one is being paid for it? Many people are just as important and should be rewarded as such.

PMSL - I can only imagine the joy of being told that I am only being paid a proportion of my earnings because I am a secondary earner. That would go down well wouldn't it!

Like I've said before, my DH does a hell of a lot more real work than I do. I just go to work, play around with a computer all day (albeit intensively) and come home again. I bet the same applies in many households.