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.

Soapbox I agree, I have stayed home for 12 months and it is exactly as you described.

In theory perhaps so, in reality the hours between the nanny knocking off and the children going to bed still seem to generate chaos, which needs to be tidied up. Dust seems to settle at the same rate though and toilets and kitchens need to be cleaned. Clothes don't get less dirty, bags still need to be packed for school and lunches made etc etc etc.

I don't think WOTH parents have it harder or easier - I think it is all pretty much hard work whatever choice (or forced decision) you make

Well then, I must tell my DH where he's going wrong. Less caring for DS and more drinking coffee.

I should have added that being at work is very easy in comparison.

Ah - I wasn't really thinking of nannies tbh

I would imagine though that in many cases where both parents are woth, it is because they need to do so to make ends meet. So surviving on the one income might just not be possible in any event.

Have to admit I'm with soapbox on this one! If you are a WOHM there are still many chores which are exactly the same as if you're a SAHM - shopping, washing, cooking, hoovering... it's not any less. I was a SAHM for a while (with 3 under 5s) and I'd still say it's easier overall to have one parent at home than both parents working and still having to fit in the chores described. Twinkle obviously feels she's getting a very easy ride at work (not sure what you do twinkle - I think you mentioned playing on computers earlier!) so maybe I'm in the wrong job (teaching!) for an easy ride.
This is a very interesting thread, though I'm still waiting for someone to explain exactly how it would ever be viable for people to be paid to stay at home.

Why do people say it's a 'lifestyle choice' to be a SAHM? It's a lifestyle choice to have children in the first place. Since we have a choice in how many children we produce, or at least to a certain extent, then we must take absolute responsibility for that decision and not expect the State to pick up the bill. Is it the wealthiest families who have most children? Is it the people who can best afford them? If not, who is paying? Why are we paying for people to churn out a new generation who can least afford it?

I agree with you, alfiesbabe, about the housework. Having a paid job gets you out of the house and into the company of adults. It's not necessarily about money.

hellobello - exactly. Many of us might have decided to have more children if we had the means to house/feed/clothe them. It understandably pisses people off when they see that having limited their own family to what they can afford, they are working to pay taxes so that other people can have half a dozen!

FWIW, I am a very committed SAHM, and yes, I do think it's the best thing for children to be with their own parents, particularly when they're younger.

But apart from a simple tax-allowance transfer, I've yet to see a scheme which didn't appear to encourage dependence on the state, which I never think is a good idea (because apart from anything else, what happens if the next government decide to change it?)

I agree with hellobellosback that being a SAHM mother is not a lifestyle choice - makes it sound like some sort of hobby!

Surely some women chose to go back to work even though financially they don't really need to so they are making a lifestyle choice too. Not everybody stays at home because they want to, not everybody works because they need to. To say that one is a lifestyle choice and not the other is a nonsense.

You chose to have children and then you leave yourself with a range of choices based on that decision but the defining choice in lifestyle is chosing to have children in the first place.

You don't get benefit if your partner works madeamez just taxed to high heaven. They should reduce taxes we pay far far too much which removes our freedom and personal choice to spend our own money and have one parent stay at home if they wish. I am a worker btw but would like to work less but cannot as I am pressed to work longer hours as I am taxed so highly.

I read that 3 billion has been wasted on failed computer projects recently, that is just one example of the billions of tax payers money the Gov waste every year.

You may (or may not) be interested to know that in France, second earners in a couple are taxed at the first earner's marginal rate.

Which means that take-home income for second earners is in fact considerably lower (as a percentage of gross income) than for first earners.

This is what happens - unavoidably, to my mind - when you tax families and give families incentives to have children.

This thread took an interesting turn! I can't believe you got away with that soapy .
Noone wants to support me in my belief that childcare should be tax deductable then? if the chauffeur is why not the dcs?

1dilemma - in France, a domestic employee of a household is tax deductible - depending on number of children the threshold varies, but as rough guideline the first 12,000 euros of gross expenditure for domestic service (be that child care, care for an old person, the window cleaner or the cleaning lady) can be set against tax and you can reclaim 6,000 euros of it (providing you pay at least that much in income tax).

Right. I've just done some maths.

Let me tell you about my situation. I had a job, which would have paid me more than enough to go back to work part time. Until my boss decided to demote me and take away all my freelance earnings potential. The trial is pending, but in the meantime I am claiming JSA, which is £59pw. Given the option, I would much prefer to be still working and earning, but that option was taken out of my hands.

So, at the moment I have £60pw in my pocket. I am also pregnant with child #2. To return to work FT after DC2 is born, I need to earn enough to cover childcare @ £250pw. Then, to come out at the end of the week with £60 in my pocket, I need to be earning £19,267.46 pa. Although that is without travel and other work-related costs, so even if I did walk straight into a job paying £19,267.46 pa I would still be worse off than I am now. And let's face it, £60pw isn't a staggering contribution to the household, especially when it means that I won't see my kids 5 days a week.

Thing is - in my line of work, there is no way I'm going to get a job paying that much - nothing to do with lack of education either as I've been to uni twice and have a BSc and a PG Dip.I'm just not going to get paid that much. My last job paid more than that, but that was a lucky break, and it's gone now.

So you see the problem? Due to circumstances beyond my control, (I certainly didn't plan to have kids and let the state pay!) I am going to really struggle to find work until the day I only have 1 child in day care.

I don't know what the answer is. It just doesn't seem fair that even though I would like to work, it isn't possible, and I'll never have anything like a pension to speak of, and will probably have to rely on my children to look after me in my old age.

will post an answer later I must do some work

bohemianbint, you are the perfect example of someone who should be better supported by the state to allow you to go back to work.

That means more tax breaks (to offset your childcare costs), flexible working regulations, longer/swappable maternity/paternity leave, more tax deductibility for childcare (currently limited to £243 a month childcare vouchers) and domestic help, cheaper, state-subsidised and higher quality nurseries.

But the support provided by the state should be linked to getting you back into work, not to paying mothers to stay at home.

Society directly benefits from working parents - in the form of services they provide in their area of work, in the taxes they pay. The tax breaks are there to allow working parents to CONTINUE to work after having children by taking some of the financial sting out of having to pay for childcare, a cost they would not incur if they did not have children. The tax breaks generally only subsidise childcare to a small percentage of the total taxes, but to a lower income earner, it is the financial boost they need to continue to work (if that is what they want to do, even if it is to keep one's toe in the job market until the children are older).

Paying parents to stay at home to look after their children is a completely different kettle of fish, and one which I don't support. As other posters have mentioned before, having children is a lifestyle choice. The operative lifestyle choice here is the choice to have children, not the SAHM choice. You choose to have children, you finance their upkeep in any which way you think best and if you cannot, then have fewer like a lot of us do. The state is not there to subsidise people to become parents - this applies for SAHPs AND WOHPs.

The tax breaks to WOHPs may look like the state is supporting WOHPs to have children, and not SAHMs. IT is not. The tax breaks are there to support WOHPs to CONTINUE working - a direct benefit to society, as opposed to the indirect long term effect of increasing the birth rate.

bohemianbint, just to clarify, the latter part of my post (esp about having fewer children if you cannot finance their upkeep) is a general comment, not directed at you!

If tax breaks are indirectly designed to increase the birth rate we need to stop that right now. The UK population is already growing too fast.

I think it's an interesting debate. Personally, I do not think that the state should adopt a neutral approach to children. I think the state needs to have a demographic policy, which includes a policy towards fertility rate. Demography is destiny.

Nice soundbite Anna - "Demography is destiny".

The message seems loud and clear - the more children you have, the more benefits you can recieve. Working out the benefits system is a job in itself,and it can pay very well if you know how it works.