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.

Based on what?

hellobellosback - i have 5 kids - no benefits nada - where you i fit into your delusional model?

quattrocento - what you seem to be missing is the point that I find it slightly grating that couples earning a fairly decent whack get help from the state

can claim tax back on nursery fees etc - i read the threads on here

I feel that the government/state/big brother is by this reinforcing the ideal that 'working mother=good mother'

stay at home mum is a vile term that conjures up imagery very far removed from what i aspire to be

Quattrocento I am bloody proud of what i have done for my kids - the right thing i am certain.They may even love me less for being a 24/7 disciplinarian but i feel i have done right by them. I look at friends with different choices and agree strongly with what they have done too.

i would not however be so bold as to bandy about comments about my children never being involved in knife or violent crime ....sounds glib and naive

Paula - I am agreeing with you, you know, essentially and in a roundabout way.

The point I was making is that the original article suggests that working mothers are resposible for violent crime. Now that's frankly absurd, isn't it?

And yes I am confident about certain aspects of my dc's behaviour. Only certain aspects of course.

Soapbox - i see you fan base find your comments titter-fodder but tbh as an educated woman i find them little more than offensive

I know i have more children than you - but if you really want to stay credible you need to open your eyes to reality
maybe as you have your nose stuck in the pages of 'take a break' on the tube home i am serving up dinner whilst overseeing homework and finding the last grain of patience to endure Biff and Chip for the fourth mind - numbing time.
No i dont get a peeny benefit - no i dont begudge that per se

Your ill-conceived attitude - i do begrudge.
The shame of it

A point I've made before (sorry for banging on) is that schools like the one my daughter goes to would find it hard to cope without SAHMs, who tend to run the PTA and help out in class. WOrking mothers help, too, but the SAHMs are a real mainstay.

Every parent is entitled to child tax credit, which is paid per child, and the working tax credits are based on how many children you have. You have to earn a fair whack before you are ineligible for working tax credits if you have children. The working tax credits increase with every child.

Paula - and the WOTH parents don't bother with homework or preparing an evening meal

golly yes, hellobellosback, it's like printing your own money, this having kids lark.

Perhaps I should have more children and cash in

OTOH perhaps having children is not a real moneyspinner

Unless we sell them before they get too costly

I'm sorry. I have been digging holes. I agree with a lot of what you've said, Quattrocento and a lot of what you say, Paula. I too find it incredibly frustrating that SAHMs are very very undervalued.

What I do NOT understand is why governments appear to have policies that encourage large families if they cannot afford them.

On the issue as to whether the state should support policies which increase the fertility rate, my understanding is that the fertility rate in UK is below replacement level (1.84 in 2006).

I personally do not believe there needs to be such policies as a priority as UK has no problem making up the difference with immigrants, skilled and unskilled, with overcrowding in housing and overstretched public services as it is.

However, for argument sake, should the UK govt wish to encourage births, it should not be by paying SAHPs to stay at home. It should not be a condition of the payment and continued payment of the cash benefit that the parent not be in paid employment. This is because it would be a powerful incentive AGAINST working. Unless there is clear research to show that babies are irreparably damaged by being raised by persons other than their parent, there is no way our taxes should be used to finance one method of child raising (which encourages people to stay out of work) over another. The evidence will never be there because as we know, some parents are better than others and some are downright feckless.

At its most generous, the UK govt should just increase the current child benefit (which is not means tested nor comes with conditions) so that anyone who has a baby will be given a financial incentive just for having children, thus promoting fertility. This is however a blunt tool.

Maybe the UK govt will consider indulging in a little social engineering by ensuring that the RIGHT people are encouraged to breed. Singapore has a long standing policy that pays a significant tax rebate to women who are university graduates who have 3 or more children. But I don't think that would go down a storm in the UK!

Eugenics now ...

How did we get here?

Can you imagine!!!!

Soapbox wouldn't you 'sit down with a mag for an hour or so. What is hard work about that? '

sorry that was the sahms you were talking about

surely you will be too tired?

sprogger I think you talk a lot of sense. Of course parents who work outside the home are the ones who wash,dress and care for their children. We play with them, cook with them, take them to the park etc etc. I find it very weird this idea that somehow having a life outside the home means you don't have a life inside the home too.

It's a failure of imagination They just don't know how we do it

I've just quickly scanned this thread, but would like to agree with the poster about schools needing SAHMs to help - I have 3, and seem to spend so many mornings at the school helping, which I don't really enjoy, but see there is a need to. Also, France and Germany have much much better incentives for mothers to take career breaks for the early years. Also, from a thirnd point of virew, one of the reasons I gave up work was because I had always hated in my pre child days being asked by other colleagues to cover for them at the drop of a hat for illnesses of children/school plays/parents meetings etc etc and when I wanted a favour in return always being told I had it easy because I was childless - I have always promised myslef never to forget that everyone has their own juggling problems regardless.

Aaah Quattro I think you're on to something there

I agree too about schools needing SAHMs help. It is they who help with swimming and trips along with in class reading etc. I also don't get why people are valued so much by their paid work status. Work is over rated most the time.

Paula - I can assure you that travelling on the Northern Line in rush hour (or any time really) is not conducive to sitting down - more like sardine packing!

No, I don't get time to read a magazine during the working week - unless I give up my late night rambling on MN

From 6.30am until around 9.30/10pm I am constantly on the go - it just doesn't stop! In fact the only way I can fit in some MNing, is to stay up later than is probably good for me!

And just to remind you - I didn't say that WOTH parents had it harder than SAHPs, I just said that it wasn't IME any easier either!

starlightmckenzie: "SAHMs do contribute wealth to the economy if they do their job well, including the prevention of their children becoming a drain later on. They invest an incredible amount of time and money in the job of which society later benefits."

WOHMs, would you believe it, are also parents who are deeply involved in their childrens' upbringing (which includes arranging quality childcare for the times they are physically apart from their young children), and if they do their job well, their children will also contribute greatly to society. In fact, WOHMs will contribute directly in the form of their job input AND indirectly in the lovely children they can and do raise.

As for "Perhaps some teenagers need more parental time because they were in childcare pre-school", well that is wishful thinking on the part of any parent to think that just because they were not in paid employment in the pre-school years, that their child is somehow immune or less prone to needing their parents as teenagers. There are good and bad parents, whether SAHM or WOHM.

excellent post blueshoes, totally agree. What a load of bollocks that teenagers might need more parental time because they were in paid child care in their pre-school years. Totally subjective opinion, not based on any evidence at all, and clearly just an attempt by parents who havent worked to try to discredit those who do.

I would contend that most children who want to spend time with their parents as teenagers are most likely to be the ones with the strongest parental bonds. I would be highly surprised if there was any significant corellation between disaffected teenagers and whether a parent woth or sah. I rather think it is a whole load more complex than that.

From Custy's posts over many years, I would say if any parent, woth or sah was to be as good a parent to teens as Custy appears to be, then they are doing well, very well indeed!

My teenaged brother and sister are complete delinquents, and their parents didn't look after them when they were small.

However, I did, so I'm not going to pursue that line of argument any further...