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.

If both parents work and claim help with childcare costs, it means they both pay tax and the childcare provider pays tax as well - thats 3 lots of tax that helps cover the cost of the WTC. Not all parents claim WTC as some use family as childcare. Only where both parents earn under £25k combined do you get help with childcare anyway.

Once the child goes to school childcare costs dramatically decrease so does the WTC yet all 3 parties will still be paying the same tax.

Therefore it is certainly beneficial to the government to have working parents.

Not all jobs are of benefit to the country

if you are so desperate to stay at home with your dd then do it, but just don't expect the government to subsidise the lifestyle you used to have. Thats your choice- stay at home and take a cut in income of go out to work and pay for childcare etc.

I know the choices. I'm just bemoaning the lack of real choice.

Tickytoo - there may well be a way for you to be able to stay at home until your daughter starts school. I think I saw another of your posts in which you asked for hours. I hope you find something that works out.

"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! "

here are the problems with this statement

1. IMO a lot of paid jobs are NOT of benefit to the country. Campaigning for the tories would be one obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

2. This implies that being a SAHP is NOT of benefit to the country. And, tbh, I think this is where we fundementally disagree.

In a roundabout way you are being paid for staying at home with your children because you're not paying out £X00 per month for someone else to do it.

"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" What a silly argument. By the same reasoning, because my DH is a higher rate tax payer and pays one hell of a lot more tax than someone who earns less we're entitled to more? Nope, we are actually entitled to absolutely nothing. Not that this bothers me one bit, I hasten to add.

Snort!! Being a SAHM is of SO much more benefit to the country than my past existance as a number cruncher for an insurance company!! ROFL!

i am talking about the economic sense- sahp do perform a service for the country and i relate to that and admire it- but those who are economically contributing via their employment (teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers etc) are what hold the uk together. Without that workforce (who lets face it would love to be paid to stay at home with the kids) there would be no services, no one on the tax credit helpline to go through your claim for sahp allowance etc! no medical or educational system to speak of

What service do parents perform for the country?

i don't know anything about tax credits. we get bugger all where i live.

i can remember feeling like you, tooticky, when my first two dcs were little. i earned some money doing dreadful party sales stuff.

And without parents and someone to care for the children (including sahp) there would be no teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers etc to economically contribute.

soupy- i was trying to make a point about the tax credit thing- i also get no tax credits etc but those low income families where both are earning and paying tax should surely be entitled to more help because of childcare etc.

But according to another post if one stayed at home they would be saving the cost of childcare and so wouldn't need the extra help.

this arguement has gone full circle and no- longer makes any sense!

you've gone from feeling undervalued to being underpayed and overworked back to being undervalued! So what is it that you want- more recognition, more time off, more money from the government?

I think the principle of the welfare state is that the most 'help' should go to those who have the least, nearlythere. I see no reason to deviate from that principle. Getting bogged down in spurious blunt-instrument value judgements about who deserves help is counterproductive and unnecessary IMO.

i do agree- but sah and therefore taking a drop in income is a lifestyle choice not something that the welfare state should subsidise.

"those who are economically contributing via their employment (teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers etc) are what hold the uk together."

In economic terms this simply isn't true

a vast amount of ecnomically essential activity is performed by those who are not paid for it

Voluntary work-from CABx to PTAs-is an obvious example, though not a s straightforward a one as people normally assume (volunteers do tend to require more input in terms of training and supervision than paid workers)

Its actually family/community based care for dependants (from elderly to babies) which is actually the big contributor, IIRC.

Unpaid work is utterly, utterly essential to the exchequer. I am reluctant to quote figures because its a few years since i last saw them (it being a few years since I worked) but the sum contribution of all types of voluntary work was something like 1/3 of the total economy.

so your saying that the uk would be fine if we lost half the workforce (mainly female, as they would want to become sahm) who then claimed a subsidy for staying at home.

Remember that the most female dominated roles in the uk are nursing and teaching.

Get real- you'd be the first to complain when the school had a terrible ofsted report and there were 45 in a class or your kids had to wait an extra 5 years for a desperatly needed operation because of staff shortages!!

Anyway if everyone took the opportunity to stay at home and look afetr children with the financial backing of the uk what would the next bunfight on mumsnet be?

nearlythere, you can't agree with the principle of help going to the neediest without value judgements, and also say "SAHMhood is a lifestyle choice, so single-income families don't deserve help". The two statements contradict one another.

Poverty very frequently IS the result of what you might term "lifestyle choices". Being addicted to drugs is a lifestyle choice, originally. Having children is a lifestyle choice (or at least having sex is). Being disabled can be the product of lifestyle choices in some cases too. You are making judgemental pronouncements about other people's lives which you are not qualified to make. Who are you to decide how useful somebody else's life is?

I agree that alot of the capitalist system is built on the back of unpaid workers. Volunteers, SAHP's, carers etc. Many SAHP enable their DP to work long or unsocial hours. This could benefit the economy too. For people set against paying SAHP, as 'they made the choice to have kids', couldn't you say that those that cannot afford childcare or need help towards nursery fees also 'made the choice to have kids,' so why should single people without kids pay for their kids to be looked after? Also, alot of the time for lone parents getting low pay, tax credits etc is more or the same as paying them income support if they SAH.

To be honest, I don't agree that most people would choose to be SAHM's. A study showed that there were small numbers of people whose career came first and wanted to work f/t, small numbers who wanted to be SAHM's, and 60% that thought p/t work was the ideal.

If all mothers with preschoolers stayed at home with them I do not think the workforce would be halved
Staying at home when one's children are at school is a different matter - although many women have a great deal of housework to contend with so I would still be wary of classing this as a luxury. Depends so much on the situation.

Just a few essential services run in the main by unpaid volunteers:

Breastfeeding support groups and counsellors
Hospital friends
Mother and toddler groups
Parenting courses, homestart etc.
Relationship and anger management counselling and courses
Brownies, guides, beavers, cubs, youth groups etc.
Walking buses, PTA's, school fundraising
Youth mentors
Prison visitors
Depression counselling
Various illness counselling (MS, cancer etc.)
Elderly visiting and befriending schemes
Meals on Wheels
Bereavement counselling

Etc. etc. They're just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many many more.

Lucky for us there's so many thousands of people ready to do unvalued unpaid work, eh?

Oh, I do voluntary work