If you've given up work outside the home to be with the kids, are you happy with the decision?

[jeangenie]

Has anyone on here given up work to stay at home with the kids, even though it meant a financial struggle? How do you feel about the decision now?

(am considering this at the moment,trying to make myself hold back until I'm certain, but finding it hard to restrain myself this morning for some reason...)

Message withdrawn

Pitchounette, totally agree about the schools geared to SAHMs - you find nothing out at our school if you don't stand around in the playground. And you can't go to open days and the like - but what else can they do when it's supposed to show the children in situ? At least parents evenings are evenings.

And of course bringing up children is a worthwhile job - but don't WOHPs do that as well? (the P stands for parent)

Message withdrawn

Wordsmith, that too is my interprtation of what she is saying. My argument is that you cannot judge someone's contrubtions by whether they directly pay taxes or do voluntary work. There are many people who pay taxes and are completly negative contributers to society, for example. How can a woman who stays at home to enable her hasband to work not be contibuting in just a worthwhile way as someone who draws a salary?

Pitchounette, I agree with you but I think B&WC would argue that she is doing all that AND drawing a salary , therefore paying taxes and therefore contributing in a way that others who don't are not.

Before woman were able to work so freely should we say then that because men worked and the women mostly stayed at home then for all those centuries and before, they were not contributing as much to society as the men? Of course we wouldn't, I don't see how the argument can be any different now.

Kitty you said, 'I have read your posts and on the surface they seem to be conciliatory but actually they are not particularly nice women who chose to stay at home because you say they are not contributiong to society as a whole.'

When you say you've read my posts did you miss this one?

'If you look after your children and your family (which the majority of mums and indeed dads) do then you are making an enormous contribution to society (as I have said about 100 times) but this is something almost all mums and dads working or not do and as I believe I have proven you don't actually have to stay at home to do it effectively if your kids are at school (though you may chooose to and that is fine) except in some exceptional cases.'

And I have actually made this point many times before. I can't be bothered to look how many times but I reckon about 10.

No, I'm not neutral about taxes. Yes, I think taxes are important. Are you telling me there are people who don't? Are there people who don't value the NHS, free education, universities, lollipop ladies, dinner ladies, the police, the fire service, the men doing up my local park at the moment and so on? I appreciate that we're not all totally in favour of all of the places our taxes go to and I appreciate that depending on your political viewpoint there are people who think certain sections of society are over-taxed but are you saying that there are people who object to the principle of taxation? Do you?

I'm not sure that a stay at home mum or dad does 'contribute indirectly' to her or his spouse's taxes any more than a working mum or dad does or any more than someone who is unemployed and childless contributes to his or her dp's taxes. That's a weird idea.

Yes, Wordsmith, you have re-expressed my arguments perfectly. Thanks. I agree about many schools not being accessible enough or even aware enough of working parents. More importantly is the fact that employers aren't aware or concerned enough about the needs of working parents.

B&WC, you still don't understand what I have been saying. I'm going to leave this now because it's giving me a headache.

I do understand that there may be situations where one partner's job may be so demanding that the other partner feels s/he has to stay at home to maintain the family. However, I would argue that in these cases what the children gain from the presence of one partner they lose in the absence of the other. In many of these cases not all, the family might be better off if both partners could contribute to the family both by helping earn money and helping to look after the children thus maintaining the family. I do understand that this isn't always possible and that's a totally different scenario from that where one partner stays at home while the kids are at school because he or she simply wants to (which by their own admission is the motivation for a lot of SAHMS and which by the way I'm not criticising or judging just stating).

My BIL recently made what I consider to be quite a brave and unusual decision for a man to turn down a £15,000 promotion in order to spend more time with his family. His wife has recently begun paid work again as a teaching assistant after some years at home with 3 kids and this allowed him to turn down the promotion which would have meant more travel and less time at home.

Just to explain this to you again. I contirbute to my dp's taxes BECAUSE without me staying at home to look after the house and children he could not do his job, it's as simple as that. If he had to do school runs, childcare, house work etc. etc. he would not have the time to spend on his work and he would not earn the money. He would have to do a less well paid job and pay fewer taxes.

Luckily for us dp is self employed and around all the time.

I didn't give up until ds1 was 5. It took months to get used to being my own boss. I was soooo bored having worked full time for 17 years. But now I'm sooo busy with other interests that I don't know how I will ever find time to go back to work for someone else. I have gone down the route of becoming a childminder but that hasn't taken off yet so I shall wait and see.

cross posts there B&WC

saadia - no problem. I didn't really think that you meant to be hurtful but it's something I've seen posted so often and I thought it needed challenging. Maybe I've been very lucky with my childcare but I've never felt that I've left my kids with anyone who they weren't happy with.

pitchounette - 'twas me who said that about schools . But whilst I agree with Wordsmith that it's hard to do otherwise, I do sometimes feel that schools find it easier to assume that the world is like it was in the 1950's - ie there's always a mum at home. Reality is different - as they must know when so many teachers are parents - but it's easier to pretend that things haven't changed so that they don't have to iyswim.

Kitty perhaps I am missing something -

Because I stay at home my dp earns alot more than if I drew a salary. His tax bill is extorionate, and this will be the same for alot of women who chose to stay home, they are paying taxes through their husbands..

I contirbute to my dp's taxes BECAUSE without me staying at home to look after the house and children he could not do his job, it's as simple as that. If he had to do school runs, childcare, house work etc. etc. he would not have the time to spend on his work and he would not earn the money. He would have to do a less well paid job and pay fewer taxes.

This is difficult one to prove I think. How can you possibly know how successful your DP would be if you worked? You know what they say if you want something done give it to a busy person. Lots and lots of couples work and many are successful in their careers (Cherie and Tony spring to mind).

Drosophila , Cherie and Tony, not such a good example of hands on parents .

How would I know? Well because we've been there. We've also done calcuations. I would have to work in a high powered job, full time in order to make up the loss in his earnings through having to do some housework, childcare etc.

It's quite easy to work out. Doing caluculations like this is also a strength of his. He's very good at working out how to maximize our income. We call it our income because we both work for it. We contribute equally but in very diverse ways to the earnings we have. But I'm sure we're like many other couples.

Hope that makes sense

Am I right in thinking that by not having childcare costs, a SAHM is not receiving so much tax credit which offsets against her working partner's tax contributions? (Sorry, never did get my head around these and then they cocked up and overpaid us so I probably won't understand it until we've paid them back in about 6yrs time .)

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Yes self employed is bloody marvellous - for example, after a full day of looking after 2 pre-schoolers, doing school runs for older one, I'm sat at the computer working at nearly 9pm and will be for at least another hour. THEN, I'll be wrapping, emptying tumbler drier, putting another load in, ironing clothes for tomorrow.

Oh yes, piece of piss.

Pitchounette, I agree with you. There are a handul of jobs that could allow this, but they are few and far between and would normally involve working somewhere with children. The choice is limted.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I know what Kitty is saying. IF I went out to work, dh would have to share school pick ups for a start. That would mean he would not work as long hours, he would not earn as much money and he would not have got the promotions he's had because he wouldn't be putting in the hours.

Therefore, some of his salary is generated because he's free to do so - because I'm at home (even though I am working).

Pitchounette thanks for asking!
He is self employed and as all self employed people he has to work v. hard. The hours can be flexible though so he is around to help put kids to bed , read stories etc, but is then back over in his office until about 9 each night.
Not having to think about household jobs allows him to concentrate on work. I think we are both full to the brim with our own jobs and could not take on any others. That doesn't explain things too well, sorry.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn