Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

A small rant about a stupid situation, re: SAHMs and childcare...

249 replies

TooTicky · 15/06/2007 14:13

WHY is it that SAHMs are looked down on so often but people who look after children for a living are not?
I don't want to go out to work until my dd2 is at school because I want to look after her myself. But if somebody else looked after her, I would have to pay them.
There is something very wrong in this situation but I can't put my finger on the solution - unless SAHMs received an allowance for staying at home with their young children.
And there is so much legislation these days that it is very hard to find a job you can do with your child present.

OP posts:
hatrick · 15/06/2007 18:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

fillyjonk · 15/06/2007 18:53

oh i agree with tooticky

why not pay sahms to stay at home? I mean, why NOT? Why not give the childcare part of tax credits to families who qualify on means tested grounds, and let THEM decide what to do with it. Why not allow couples to transfer the non-working partner's tax allowance to the working parter? Why are we trying to get kids started in education at 3?

juuule · 15/06/2007 18:57

And I agree with Filly

fillyjonk · 15/06/2007 18:58

and i agree with juule

kimi · 15/06/2007 18:59

I have only ever worked on and off part time since having my children, my choice. If we needed money for a holiday I would go to work a few days a week till I had enough money then stop. I am very lucky that DH backed me in this choice.
I saw no point in having children then going out to work to get money to pay someone else to raise my children.
I am very lucky to be in a position to stay home with them and know some people have to go out to work.
Children grow so fast, I will have time to work when they are older if I want to.
I sometimes feel so sorry for DH as he works full time and misses out on so much with our children.

OrmIrian · 15/06/2007 20:16

"I look down on her because she's a WOHM/SAHM*" (delete as appropriate)
"I look down on her because she's a WOHM/SAHM and I look up to her because she's a SAHM/WOHM"
"And we both look down on her because she's part-time WOHM"
Part-time WOHM "I know my place".

To paraphrase Python (I think??)

jellybeans · 15/06/2007 21:47

Getting a flexible job when children are in full time school is still hard! I want to be able to pick them up etc and attend school plays etc. I don't know why people suddenly assume you should/can get a job just as they are doing 3 hours extra a day than nursery. I thought I would have loads of time but don't. (I do volunteer alot and am studying an OU course too!) I like having time to self and do things in the day so I can keep the energy for the chaotic time between 3 and 8pm Also, why work if you don't need to, if you are fullfilled at home, time is precious!

WestCountryLass · 15/06/2007 21:57

I haven't read all the replies but I don't find SAHMs are looked down upon. Lot's of people I come across going about my daily business make comments about bringing up children being hard work, what a good job I am doing, and most of the WOH fathers I meet say themselves they could not do it.

MarshaBrady · 15/06/2007 22:03

I dont really understand sahm being looked down upon, really. Around these parts it is considered a luxury, and akin to a status symbol (and yes i know this isnt the case everywhere, just this part of London where i live). So agree with Gamegirly. But then thats all tied up with having a dh who earns enough to allow you to stay at home, in what is an extremely expensive city.
I dont have any problems with how anyone choses to spend their time though, at all. (i have been a sahm then gradually increased my days in work which i love, so isnt really work - just so you know where im coming from).
But OrmIrian didnt realise both wohm and sahm looked down on part timers??

HappyMummyOfOne · 16/06/2007 08:49

"why not pay sahms to stay at home? I mean, why NOT? Why not give the childcare part of tax credits to families who qualify on means tested grounds, and let THEM decide what to do with it."

I'm sorry but I totally disagree with SAHM's being paid to stay at home. Being a mum is not a job, its something you choose to do and if you then choose not to work why should you be paid to look after your own child? If people got paid to have babies and stay at home the country would be over-run, not to mention the lack of women in the workplace.

Its a sad world where we believe we should be paid "childcare" to look after our own children.

TaylorsMummy · 16/06/2007 09:15

i agree with you.

why would women bother to go out to work and do anything other than have constant babies if they was paid for being at home? i know some women would still want to work but those that don't, would literally just be popping out one a year and getting paid for it sorry but i think that's wrong.

when would this money stop then? when the youngest child starts school? when the youngest child finishes school? it would be never ending

i find it amusing really that any woman thinks it should be her right to be paid for doing something that she chose to do.we don't have any population problems here, the government don't need to pay us to increase it!!

fillyjonk · 16/06/2007 09:27

so we shouldn't pay people to stay at home because we'd have a population explosion? Well thats easily solved, pay for say 2 kids and then no more.

But actually I believe that people DO generally want to work. And most of us WILL be working pretty much til we drop, there will be plenty of time to pay it back.

We should pay a parent to stay at home if they so wish in order to give parents the CHOICE. The choice of going back to work or staying at home for a few years

otherwise, whether or not you can stay at home with your kid is down to how much your dp earns, bascially. Why on EARTH should that be the case? So if you happen to marry a dp with a good income, who hasn't had any disabling accidents, who does not face systemic discrimination for whatever reason, they oh yes you can stay at home and bake apple pie, but everyone else can just use childcare 8-6. Thats not fair at all, IMO.

And why on earth NOT give the child care creidit to those who qualify to spend as they wish? Why not?

Its not about whether parenting is a job or not really. Thats a bit of a philosophical question. If you don't like the idea of people being paid to look after their own kids, fine, call it "SAHM benefit" or something. But it would make a lot of women a lot happier and I don't think it'd cost that much really- tax credits are, after all, the taxpayer subsidising business paying crappy wages.

fillyjonk · 16/06/2007 09:29

oh and

"i find it amusing really that any woman thinks it should be her right to be paid for doing something that she chose to do.we don't have any population problems here, the government don't need to pay us to increase it!! "

take it you don't agree with women getting any of the following then:

child benefit
child tax credit
working tax credit (well they CHOOSE to work)

And actually we DO have a declining birth rate, and are facing a pensions crisis as a result.

lulumama · 16/06/2007 09:48

of course looking after children and running a home isn;t work, or a job, after all, all it involves is drinking tea, shoving the kids in front of the telly and hoovering once a week....

why on earth should mothers who stay at home want any value, financial or otherwise placed on what they are doing???

shall i parp myself now, or read the thread first?

Original poster
TooTicky · 16/06/2007 09:56

Oh thank goodness somebody understands me
I didn't expect my thread to incite so much venom!!

OP posts:
HappyMummyOfOne · 16/06/2007 09:57

If the government gave every mother the "childcare" element regardless of whether they worked or not the pot would soon run dry. Hospitals and schools are crying out for money, I doubt they would agree with your proposal to take even more from the pot for your "wage" that you expect to earn from being a SAHM. Surely you take finances into account when you choose to bring a child into the world?

I have no objections to child benefit,tax credits or WTC, what I objected to was the idea of tax payers paying SAHM mums a "wage" to look after their own child/children. Children should be brought into the world because they are wanted by their parents, not as a financial incentive.

Original poster
TooTicky · 16/06/2007 10:06

Oh fgs, it's not about being paid to do what you do, it's about affording to be able to do it.
In an ideal situation, everybody should have the choice about whether they look after their own children or get somebody else to do it.
Now, please read my next statement carefully because if skimmed it may be misunderstood and I am not out to offend:
Staying at home with your own children is the best option For Those Who Wish To Do This. It is the better for the children and the parent.

OP posts:
Original poster
TooTicky · 16/06/2007 10:07

And implying that people have children purely so that they receive money shows how little you know. Really it does.

OP posts:
lulumama · 16/06/2007 10:10

mothers and families deserve a choice

and a lot of women struggle to get back into the work place because they can barely earn enough after tax & childcare to actually make it worthwhile

so if they are better off being at home, then why should they not expect some value being attached to parenting

nearlythere · 16/06/2007 10:12

umm- tax credits are paid to those of us who pay TAX!!!!! Those families where both parents work pay two lots of tax and therefore are entitled to more in tax credits, sah parent families only have one lot of tax paid in- so lower ammount of tax credit!

God its always something for nothing in the sahm v wohm debate!

lulumama · 16/06/2007 10:16

staying at home, bringing up children is not nothing

and not every family is entitled to tax credits

nearlythere · 16/06/2007 10:21

i know lulu- i don't get any tax credits, i am a wohm and dh is a sahd, but i get really annoyed about this- we don't ask for any money because dh stays at home, if we couldn't afford it then he would go to work.

I would love to stay at home with the kids and be paid for it but i just don't think its ever going to happen, and if it did happen the uk as a whole would crumble!

fillyjonk · 16/06/2007 10:23
  1. we all pay tax. Part of the issue is over whether there should be a transfer of tax allowance between couples with children. but anyway, we all pay VAT etc.
  1. There is a circular argument here. We are saying that SAHMs should recieve some sort of financial recompense for being at home. Whether or not that is "wages" is really a philosophical issue. In practical terms, it would allow parents to stay at home when their kids are small.

Economically, it is nowhere as simple as "the pot running dry". During the years when their kids are little, women do typically work in fairly low paid, part time work. Statistically, most women don't substantially advance their careers during this time. They tend, thusly, to get quite a lot of in-work benefits in the form usually of tax credits. So I wouldn't get excited about the financial contribution of women with young kids to the exchequer.

Not paying a wage or a benefit or WHATEVER you want to call it to parents to stay at home, say with under 5s, is not about finance, any more than this "crack down on benefit cheats" malarky is. Its about politics.

NKF · 16/06/2007 10:25

Not everybody pays income tax. People who don't work don't pay it.

NKF · 16/06/2007 10:27

To make the case that women should receive money for not working when they have young children, you'd first have to prove that it's of benefit that they do that. Not just something that some would like to do. If you want to win that sort of argument that is. Otherwise you are asking for the state to finance a personal preference.