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

[TooTicky]

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.

i should also say that, personally, I'd be all in favour of this money to SAHPs being fully taxable.

And tbh, if the family doesn't qualify for tax credits (ie income over about £50k with 1 child) then I am not so bothered about whether the SAHP gets a wage or not (though I understand the cosmetic arguement)

My issue is with low income families being forced to use childcare and go back to work when their kids are little.

I don't think staying at home with your kids when they are young SHOULD be a financial luxury, if its something you want. Bloody hell, we will all be working for long enough. Staying at home with little kids is, for me, one of life's real joys (mostly ) and something every human should get to experience.

but as a higher rate tax payer- i don't get any tax relief/credits anything, so the taxes i pay would be going into a pot from which we would get nothing!
The HMRC are not bloody robin hood!! And personally i would seriously resent it if it ever happened!

and I agree NFK

I think we are all studiously avoiding the "is it best for kids to stay at home" debate, tbh.

I think, for some FAMILIES, it is, clearly, what they want

yes well, thats part of being a HR tax payer nearlythree

you earn more, you are expected to contribute more to society

that seems fair enough to me, really

My taxes go on a lot of things I don't agree with. Raining bombs on Iraqi children, for example, and big pay offs to bosses of privatised industries.

Oh, it is certainly best for those who want to do it. It is not best for those who feel the need to work and would not be happy at home. Happy, fulfilled parents have more to offer than those doing something they don't enjoy.

People with low incomes will always have less than people with large ones. You have to make the case that being looked after a parent is a right not just a piece of good fortune. And if people can't or won't argue that then they're left with effectively saying "people who want it should have it."

actually i don't think you have to prove its best, not at all. You have to show that there is demand, and that it is politically expedient (ie a vote winner) to do it.

the government has to acknowlege that a lot of parents DO want this. Its pretty irrelevant whether its best

They know, for example, that a lot of people like to drive cars. Now a comprehensive public transport system would be "better". But becuase there is public demand for cars, petrol is not taxed in accordance with its environmental impact.

There is a demand for lots of things. We all want stuff we can't afford. If it's not a vote winner why not?

and yes, people with low incomes will tend to have less than people with high incomes

but part of the idea behind a progressive taxation system is to redistribute wealth to minimise the inequalities resulting from this

An important philosophy here is the idea that low income does not equal lack of work ethic. It could be the result of drawing s short straw, say having a disability and being unable to earn as much as you otherwise would. Or it could be that you've chosen a socially useful job but low paid job, say teaching or nursing.

The other issue here of course is that the people who suffer from living in low income households are not the parents, so much, but the children. This is why the governement does, to be fair, make an effort to redistribute wealth to families, especially with young kids. And any tax redistribution measure re SAHP would have this effect also.

how do you figure that its part of being a higher rate tax payer- I work my bloody arse off to make that kind of money, for them to take stupid ammounts of tax off me.

I totally agree with paying more tax for higher earners, but this tax already goes on the nhs and education system which we as a family (and many other HR tax payers) don't even use, so if there was to be a sahp allowance factored in to the system i would be annoyed!

We made the choice for dh to stay at home, but thats exactly what it was - a choice! For some parents it isn't a choice and i understand that, but it all boils down to responsibility for your actions- when you have a child you know that the child is going to need care of some sort and financial support.

eh? because if you are a higher rate taxpayer then you Pay More Tax.

You do use the NHS and the education system, actually. Most times you go into a shop, or even see you private GP or your kids private school teachers-you are benefitting from our state school system, and the NHS which keeps the rest of us who can't afford or don't believe in private health care, alive.

If you don't like it, and honestly feel you are not getting much of a benefit from it, why work your arse off? Your individual tax contribution will be pretty minimal anyway, so you shoudln't feel guilty about it.

because, of course, 90% of the workers in the UK-so the poor saps who wash the toilets in your kids private school and dispose of the sharps in those non-NHS hospitals-ESSENTIAL jobs-are dependent on these services. And so, thusly, are you.

I certainly would be annoyed too if my taxes were used for a SAHP allowance - think of how much it would cost say if you had 3 children 4 years apart between each. Effectively then you would be asking to be "paid" for staying at home for 12 years.

Nearlythere is correct in saying when you choose to have a child you know that it will need supporting - it should be financially supported by the parents and not the government.

ok then

no child benefit or tax credits, would you agree with that?

what warped views of life and the economy!

I work hard, i pay tax, i do not ask for subsidy from the government as they have better things to spend my taxes on, but if they start paying sahp then whats the incentive to work? None!

What would happen then- millions of childcare workers out of a job, thousands of companies going bust. Therefore less money into the pot- and a cut in the sahp allowance/child benefit/tax credits meaning that you can no longer live on what you've got coming in- sahp would then have to become wohm parent- no childcare avaliable as they've all gone bust, catch 22 situation!

Its an ecomonic thing not about whether sahp are looked down upon- it is your family who shold make you feel valued, not society- who cares what they think?

"what warped views of life and the economy!"

what a lovely comment there. am a bit really.

Tax credits and child benefit are not the issue here, most people claiming tax credits are paying into the system anyway - tax credits are there to help low income families pay for todays cost of living. What we are objecting to is a paying a parent to stay at home - if you can afford to then great, if you cant you either decide to have children and work or downsize/make sacrifices.

I'm not a HR tax payer and work 3 days a week to help out with finances. If i choose to stay at home i wouldnt expect the government to pay me to do it - that would be my choice.

having children is a huge privilege. being a sahm is a huge privilege. most people who choose to be sahm do so becaue they can afford to, so of course they shouldn't be paid to do so. Perhaps what tooticky et al are looking for is recognition. in our society we see money as the be all and end all.

i don't claim the child benefit i am entitled to! Would get laughed at if i tried to claim tax credits, but for some families they make all the difference. If a family contributes to the economy and the future of the uk then they deserve a bit of extra help- at the end of the day sahp often get child tax credit, because they are contributing to the future of the country- but its not essential that parents stay at home- i would not like to pay for sahp from my taxes, i have to look after my own sah dh (which is possible because of my earnings) he would NEVER expect the government to pay him to stay at home.

people who stay at home to raise their kids are also paying into the system

the fact that this is not recognised is the crux of the arguement really

I also object to the idea that those poor saps who do really worthwhile work, like teaching or nursing or childcare, should be further penalised for this by being unable to be SAHP.

Its living in cloud cuckoo land to equate "working ones arse off" to being paid well. Most of us work hard, all the time, whether paid or not.

Incidentally, I am married to a higher rate taxpayer. I am not arguing that I should be paid to stay at home. I am saying that its crap that I have the choice and other women don't, purely because the man I met as a student nearly 10 years ago turned out to be rather good at his job.

good posts fillyjonk.

tooticky - i think your op is about where to place the divide between the private/public.

what work is considered to be in the private domain, ie unpaid, like care of one's own chgildren, and what work is in the public domain, ie paid? i think the division rests on society's values. for instance a lot of work traditionally done by women is either unpaid or low pay.

it would be simplistic to say that some work is paid because it is part of the workforce. the structures in society have made it that way.

it is through questions like tooticky's and debates that the wider issues are reconsidered.

From Time for parenting website
"Families using registered daycare can receive up to £7,000 pa towards the cost of that care (the childcare element of the new Working Tax Credit). Families where one parent looks after the children cannot claim, despite the fact that they have sacrificed earnings in order to provide that care."
Seems a bit unfair to me.
It also appears that someone who returns to paid employment after having a child might not be contributing tax-wise as much as might first be thought.

It is crap that some women can choose to do what they want and some can't. The issue is whether the government should intervene to make it possible for the ones that can't. And if they should, is a benefit the way to do it.

but employment is not just about money- it is the fact that someone is going out and performing a job which is of benefit to the country!

I have to say that in my group of friends the sahm's are better off than the wohm on the whole, and they apreciate that they are lucky.

No, I am not looking for recognition - that would imply that WOHMs do not deserve recognition. All parents who do the best for their children - however they do it - deserve the same recognition.
I desperately want to be able to stay home with my dd2 until she starts school - seems ludicrous that I should pay somebody else to do what, IMO, I do better. Because she is mine. Because I love her. Because I don't want to miss out on this precious time.