I hate the expression full time parent!

[Jbr]

It is always the term given to parents who don't have a job. Well, lets be honest, MOTHERS who don't work. (Men don't get these labels do they? In fact the very idea that a man wouldn't work because he has children rarely seems to crop up anyway!).

But my point is, I saw Carole Smillie on the front on a magazine saying "Why I could never be a full-time mum" which I inferred as "Why I could never give up work" or something similar. I would hope even if she worked on the Moon 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, she would still be a "full time mum". In fact I wish she would go to the Moon and take Carol Vorderman (another woman who wishes she didn't work - believe it or not - and once said she wishes she could stay home and be a "proper" mother!!) with her. You are still someone's mother whever you are. Why do people think being a mother means one thing and being a dad means doing something else?

Sorry I just had to rant!

Enid, demented, what subsidising are you talking about??? Wouldn't it be lovely if I found out I was missing out on extra cash All I seem to get is nursery fees and bills going up but no extra money at work.

I don't know! Sorry! But it seems to have been mentioned on this thread more than once.

Call me thick but how is the government subsidising women who work? I find it difficult to believe that the net contribution of women who work isn't positive given the tax they pay and their contribution to the broader economy by creating jobs for child carers not to mention the extra money spent on commuting, lunches, clothes etc. Surely even those who get WFTC pay more in tax than they receive from this?

Also I would be very interested to hear of countries that pay women to stay at home.

Enid, I've only just picked up this thread, sorry if I'm going over old ground, I hate to think I was missing out on money though!

Just done a really quick calculation - someone on 14000 per year would receive considerably more in WFTC than they pay in tax and NI contributions. And that's before I've factored in childcare costs.

Tinker - if only 1 parent was working & earning 14000 fair enough they'd get WFTC, but it goes on combined salary. Because DH & I both work we get no WFTC at all.

In any case Tinker that doesn't take into account the tax revenue generated through the creation of another job i.e. that of the child carer.

Yes, you're right elwar. Because I'm a single parent, I always forget that bit.

Croppy - that quick calculation was before any childcare - there may not be any to pay. Plenty of people only earn 14000 per year. Not having a go - just doing (maybe badly) the maths.

The financial contribution of women who work IS positive Croppy, in fact SAHMs generate little or no tax revenue. But I don't think anyone was disputing this, just that life ISNT all about money and that some things, as Eulalia points out, are valueless.

Enid I agree totally with Eulalia's view but this discussion here was started with the suggestion that somehow women who worked were being "subsidised" and so the same should be done for women who stay at home. I am just disputing the first statement.

Tinker, I meant that if a woman works, then another job is created i.e. that of a child carer. I would have thought that the tax paid by that person would compensate for the WFTC paid to the parent.

The problem with paying women to stay at home is simply that if the government gave them say £200 a week, by the time you take off tax, NI and childcare costs that would mean that for anyone who earns less than around £550 a week, it would not be worth it to do so. Like it or not, that would be a sizeable loss to the economy in terms of tax revenue, job creation and general economic activity.

You won't find me accusing SAHM's of not making any contribution. I do however think that women deserve some financial incentive to work.

Croppy - I meant that a child carer may not be employed in the scenario I described. Sorry, getting really picky now, I know!

Aha, I didn't realise that. Apologies.

sister and Croppy I am going on a telephone call to the Benefits Agency recently as it was suggested to me that I may be eligible for some sort of benefit during the last few weeks of my pregnancy even although I am not working. The person at the end of the phone asked if we received WFTC and I said no, she then asked if I intended to return to work in the near future and I said no. She said to me that if I intended to return to work I would be more than likely eligible for help towards my childcare costs.

re the country I am talking about I think it is actually France (although if there is anyone out there in France can confirm this please let us know). I believe SAHMs are given a small amount per week when they have their first child and stay at home and then when they have their second the amount is increased to a level where many mums (I assume they do not mean particularly high earners here) feel that it is not worth returning to work when they have to pay childcare and all the other items that Croppy mentioned earlier - clothes, lunches etc.

Just a quick question mind you and I know what you are getting at Croppy but it did strike me as funny at the time - do SAHMs not wear clothes, eat lunch or ever have to commute.

Croppy you mention giving SAHMs £200 a week, yes that would be pure luxury but I think a little on the high side. I am not suggesting for a minute that SAHMs are paid this sort of amount (although it would be nice).

I read a newspaper article prior to the Budget it was entitled something like Government to Pay Mums to Stay at Home and when I read it it was saying that there were plans in the Budget to compensate families where someone stays at home to look after the children for the loss of that person's Tax Allowance. I am not sure if this is what was put in place but there certainly have been some changes made to the WFTC to come into effect from April next year and I believe this covers families like my own where there is only one wage earner. I unfortunately don't know all the details and whether myself and DH will fall into the appropriate bracket to receive it and if we do will it be worth all the bother.

Don't know how relevant this is but i would love to go back to work part time, but can't afford to as the childcare would wipe out my salary and I'd lose my carers allowance! Crazy isn't it. And I'm a clinical psychologist ... so goodness knows how the system helps those whose work is even less wellpaid. I'm trying to do odd things from home but its not the same. I adore my kids but I do think my brain needs something more soon. Just need to get that off my chest ( and feel a bit guilty as it took us SOOO long to have out children I can't quite square it that occasionally I'd love a bit of me back.)

You know what makes my blood boil? The fact that fat businessmen can go to Gordon Ramsay's restaurant, spend thousands on a bloody bottle of wine and claim it against tax as a business 'expense', yet I can't claim my childcare even though it would be completely impossible to work without it. Expenses are supposed to be money spend 'wholly and exclusively' for my business and I can't think of anything that meets that description more than childcare yet I'm not allowed to claim. Grr. Also, even though I don't have a nanny, am v cross that people have to pay nannies out of their after-tax income and yet pay the nanny's tax. Business employers don't have to pay their employees out of their own salary, so why should working mums? It makes me SO cross.
BTW, SAHMs and freelancers working from home DO save on commuting, clothes, lunches etc. I now work from home and have saved a fortune as I can eat a sandwich in my own kitchen, wear my jeans (or erm, my dressing gown) every day without it jeopardising my chances of promotion or getting me bollocked by my boss and going to the shops and to visit people is not the same as commuting every day - and I've done it so I do know. I totally support women's right to choose to stay at home (if they can afford it) and recognise it is hard financially (I think the tax system in France is much more positive) but it IS cheaper in those respects.

aloha - satisfyingly, I think most of those involved in that famously obscene wine spending spree in Gordon Ramsay's restaurant have been quietly, er, let go!

BTW the comment about SAHMs needing to wear clothes, eat and commute was just meant to lighten things!

Aloha I really agree with you. It seems to me that neither those women who choose to stay at home not those who work outside the home are adequately rewarded at the moment.

Good words, aloha. The business expenses situation makes my blood boil too. At my last place of work, the higher management (mostly male), as a matter of couse, used to put evening babysitting bills on expenses - not that they were using the time to attend business functions or work late.

I'm probably going to get shot for saying this, but I've been getting really wound up by the situation at my dd's creche. My dh works as a nurse and so was entitled to apply for a place at the hospital creche, which is subsidised. We put the baby's name down when I was 4 m preg and we were after 3 days a week. We finally got 1 day a week in Feb when she was 5 m and relatives are helping us out the other 2 days now until the other 2 days become available at creche. I've gone back to work p/t. If we didn't have the subsidised place, there's no way we'd be able to afford for me t work p/t so it's a godsend. However, many of the places are taken up by consultants' and surgeons' children and I know of 3 people who work as lowly nurses who have been told there are no places available at all now. It doesn't seem quite right that the places are taken up by people earning £60K and upwards a year when nurses on £15K can't have those places now. One friend of dh whose dd is only 3m has had to go back f/t because she can't afford to go p/t and I feel so sorry for her. Am I being unfair?

Rara, no I don't think you are not being unfair at all. When salaries vary so hugely, I think it's perfectly reasonable for work creche allocation to be means tested. Not the only criteria for the offer of a place, but an important one.

What I meant to say was ' no I don't think you are being unfair' (must remember to preview my messages).

No rara, I think that sounds a pretty reasonable grievance. Slightly different but, where I work some offices had subsidised creches and some didn't. Huge stink about that with the pathetic argument that those in the subsidised places wouldn't be happy about losing some of their subsidy if it was shared equally!

Now, at least, some effort has been made to find subsidised holiday schemes for ALL staff.

No, Rara, I think that is a completely reasonable viewpoint. My son attends a university nursery locally and I am quite happy to pay the higher rate - university staff and students get various, quite large, discounts. I work in HE but not at that university, and the nursery has a policy of offering some places to local residents. I am glad however that once in, my son is considered a priority for re-admission next year, because I think that is a child wellbeing issue.