Anyone feel stigmatised about being a SAH single mother?

[hammerhead]

Just wondering if anyone else feels stigmatised about being a SAH mum on income support? DS is preschool and a lot of people seem surprised I don't have a job. I get the impression they think I'm on jobseekers and actively avoiding employent. I'll be quite happy to work when DS is in school but want to stay at home when he is still little. I worked before DS was born and have paid a lot of tax over the years, but some people still make out like I'm a scrounging chancer.

I strongly believe that benefits are there for people who cannot work not who choose not to. I would much rather my taxes go to help carers and people who are physically and/or mentally unable to work. I have young dc and work full time, always have done. I guess I could give up my job, claim benefits etc but I choose to support myself instead as I am able to.

I don't often poston threads but feel compelled to today after all the posters calling the OP a scrounger. Surely the childs father should be supporting his child so that the OP doesn't have to rely on benefits to raise her child?!

For what its worth I am a SAHM althiugh my husband works, but if he did decide to run off surely he would still be responsible for raising his children?

I think rather than stigmatising single mothers we should be considering why the hell the fathers aren't footing the bill instead of tax payers.

It is quite difficult to earn enough money as a single parent to afford to be able to work.

Alouiseg - so SAHP should be the preserve of the rich? I do hope you give back your child benefit

A lot of these types of threads though say that posters dont want to put their dc in childcare and want to do school pick up etc. I do believe that this type of lifestyle is only really possible if you have a well off partner or big inheritance etc.

Those of you who arent supportive - have you looked at childcare costs recently?

Yes, especially as I have to pay it.

No I don't ChristinedePizan however I refused to claim DLA for my son when he was ill.

Being a sahp is not a preserve of the rich it is an agreement between parents over how their children will be brought up. The welfare state is not a mother or a father nor should we rely on it to be. You can't just have children and expect to not contribute financially to their upbringing. My beef is with the absent parent, not. The one who stays.

I agree with you that there is responsibility involved in having kids. Sometimes the father is not traceable so in that case someone needs to support the family. And oftentimes that is the State, because we are a civilised society.

My childcare costs when I was working FT were £1000 for one child. You need to be earning a fair whack to be able to afford that.

Sorry, £1000 a month

Firstly, it would cost the tax payer more if I worked. This is because I am unskilled and would earn the same as, or less than, a childminder. My wage would be so low that the government would have to top it up with tax credits. Secondly, there are no jobs in my area that I could apply for and no child minders for 10 miles. I really have no other option. Thirdly, I believe that women, rich or poor, should be supported to work or SAH, depending on their circumstances.

In the UK, the benefits system is not merely a safety net for those unable to work, the economics of a country are far more complicated than the daily mail would have us believe. I am not screwing the system or breaking any laws. This government and the previous government both recognise that it is very difficult for single parents to actually find work (especially those who would only qualify for very low paid jobs). They give us the right to stay at home until the child is 7 (this will be lowered to age 5, which I agree with). The government also recognises that this is on the understanding that affordable childcare is available, incuding during the school holidays.

Rainbow, I am a carer! I care for a small child. It doesn't totally make sense for the govenment to pay another person 70% of their wages to look after my child and at the same time topping up my pay to a liveable wage. This is the main reason that single parents are allowed to claim income support until their children are in school. I also have the right to work, if I chose to, and that is why the government is also willing to subsidise me if I do get a job.

My childs father does contribute to his upkeep, but he is also on a low wage so my maintenance payments are not very much - he could never afford to support us entirely. Indeed, when we were still married we recieved a lot of tax credits, this was because a family cannot live on a low wage. Many working families are also recieving help from the state in the form of working and child tax credits and childcare costs. This is because not all employers pay a livable wage and also because there is a shortage of jobs (YES, some people cannot actually find a job).

When I first go married I never dreamed that I would end up in this situation. Life is not straightforward.

Does the father of your child contribute?

jilly no, not very glamourous, but that doesn't mean everyone doesn't have the choice. IS wouldn't cover my rent and bills but I could move in to a small flat, leave my job, and be supported on benefits. I wouldn't choose to do that, but I could. All I was saying is I resent the implication that people who complain about single sah mum's are just jelous... because if that were the case - they'd do the same.

hammedhead I wasn't suggesting you were stupid, I'm sorry if it came across like that. I was explaining why I don't agree with the sentiment - "I've paid a lot of tax in the past therefore I deserve to take some out now"

But of course it comes down to where you put mum's in the list of those deserving of support: Carers/ the disabled/ OAPs etc etc.. I wouldn't put mum's in that catagory purely by definition. Mum's of disabled children, Mum's who have been the victims of domestic abuse, Mum's with PND... sure. But healthy, intelligent, able bodied mum's... not so high.

I'm a sahm but I get nothing from the govt except child benefit, it annoys me that people think I an funded by the taxpayer when I'm not! I'm funded by my husband!

Its fine to be a SAHM (whether single or not) as long as its not at the cost of the state.

Benefits that help parents pay childcare I can see the logic of as they allow the person to keep earning and once childcare is no longer needed they already have employment and have possibly had pay rises, been promoted etc.

Benefits that allow people the choice of not working are simply wrong and I doubt that 99% of people have paid anywhere near enough tax to cover them plus the extras they will have already taken and will take in future. Not to mention that most employers dont want somebody who had not worked for x years which means most simply convert from IS to JSA anyway.

Add to the mix that children bought up on benefits mainly go on to claim themselves and society simply cant afford for that to happen.

It's a HUGE thing with me...I'm a SAHM and have a DH but I feel so angry when people act as though single parents shouldn't have the same rights....I think society needs to contribute towards family life.

Yes, I've said above that he contributes as much as he can, unfortunately - for all of us, not very much. In the past, child maintenance was deducted from benefits but the labour party changed that system. Now only the first ten pounds (I think) is deducted. I think this system is highly debatable and I believe it was introduced to ensure that children with better off fathers got more money and also to encourage lone parents to contact CSA. Previously, many mothers did not see the point in claiming from CSA as the money would be deducted anyway from their benefits. As I say, this is debatable and I do not understand all the issues involved.

Income support for single parents is very similar to the system for carers allowance. The government pays mothers to look after their children so others don't have to. They accept the reality that families break up and that living on a single wage is now nearly impossible for many people. The UK is far from a socialist country and politicians are not dishing out benefits because they are naively charitable.

There are real financial reasons for the system being the way it is today i.e. some people are benefiting from it far more highly than I am. It is all very well to say that there should be full employment, it's a very nice idea. But, for some reason, politicians do not want this to happen or cannot make it happen. I doubt an economist would come on here and state that unemployment is entirely avoidable and purely down to laziness. This is a common tactic used by those in power to turn the poor against the even poorer. I think british people are very blinkered and easily misled by propaganda from the government bribed press. I know I am being misled but I am not educated enough to understand why. The world is very complicated and I would like to hear a balanced argument about what is going on and why everyone is so short of money for essentials like food and heating.

Working people are not poor because I am even poorer. I think the real stigma should be attached to those in power who control the UK job market, economy, wage rates, tax and immigration etc. I am powerless and skint. I am not the real cause of the problem and telling me to go and get a non-existent job might make people feel above me, but it is ultimately a flawed argument.

What rights are those? The right not to work? I certainly wont bring up my dc with that sort of attitude. Great if you can afford not to work but I cant. What about my family rights? Yes, I could give up my job and claim IS but what a ridiculous idea when I am able to work and support my family.

Horses for courses Rainbow Some people thik their DC are best off at home with them....they are willing to live on less money than others...each to their own.

You may think it's a ridiculous idea. Others don't.

Plus...remember that unskilled parents cannot AFFORD childcare.

'I'm a SAHM and have a DH but I feel so angry when people act as though single parents shouldn't have the same rights'
I highly agree with this MumblingRagDoll.

I appreciate they are willing to live off less money but they are actually willing to live off someone elses money. Horses for courses as you said but I would happily pay more takes to give more money to those people who are unable to work for reasons other than not wanting their dc in childcare like my own.

"remember that unskilled parents cannot AFFORD childcare" - given that tax credits pay the bulk of it childcare costs are not a reason to choose to stay home but they are used as an excuse by many. If they are not working at all the skills will never improve, at least with an entry level job they can work their way up if they choose and gain new skills.

There are two camps, those that see it as their right to stay home whilst other tax payers pay for them and those who believe you should support yourself and your family regardless of circumstances.

All parents should get equal rights, not some getting to choose years at home with thousands given to them each year whilst others get nine months on SMP. It simply encourages people to have children with absolutely no intention of supporting them or installing a work ethic in them.

'A lot of these types of threads though say that posters dont want to put their dc in childcare and want to do school pick up etc. I do believe that this type of lifestyle'

I don't see it as a lifestyle. I see it as someone NEEDS to take the child to school and if the parent wants to do that then one of them should be able to. Why should the government pay someone else to look after a child when the lone parent is willing to? As pointed out above, it costs the governent as much in tax credits and childcare than paying IS.

'All parents should get equal rights, not some getting to choose years at home with thousands given to them each year whilst others get nine months on SMP.'
So isn't it better then if everyone can have one parent at home for the early years. If you yourself/others had that choice would you feel better about it? I think it doesn't bother me them doing it as I am doing the same as them, only difference being my husband is supporting us. But as has been said that isn't their fault if he has cleared off.
That is why I think instead of increasing childcare or subsidising it there should just be an increase in CB so that people have a real choice in either offsetting childcare or a small contribution to give them a choice to SAH.