Breadwinner ~ State V Husband

[CatharsisItIs]

Why is it that living from a husband (or partners) earnings, appears to be deemed more acceptable than living off of the 'state'? Generally

OOOOOHHH- this is really opening a can of worms! Are you asking for a personal reason, or just a heated debate!

First of all- IS it more acceptable? Are you talking of couples where someone is a SAHM- or just a non-working wife/partner? I think there is a big difference.

IMO it's because the person who is earning and supporting the non-earner has agreed to do so, and it is a personal arrangement. It is usually a more convenient way of looking after kids if childcare costs are unaffordable. Some people also feel very strongly that they want to be around to look after their own kids and not farm them out to nanny or child minder etc ...given the choice. They can leave the relationship or stop working if they don't like it.

With benefits, it's a case of drawing on money from hard working people whose taxes support you- and they have NO CHOICE in whether they want to support your non-working lifestyle.

I wont get drawn in to this, but can I please say now, living off the state is not a choice some of us make. It is essential to us at the moment, and its not as if we have been doing it all our lives.

Hoping after DH's operations we will be able to start to be a working family again.

If you have kids, men or women, and you can afford to raise them without financial support, you should, because they are your responsibility. If you need financial support, it should be readily available because sometimes life isn't like that. The welfare state is vital as a safety net to prevent poverty and hardship, but should not be an alternative to self sufficiency if that's possible. I don't judge people for being on benefits, but I do feel that couples should have one working parent to contribute to raising the kids, and people should never take benefits if they are working cash in hand. Single parents should do whst is best for their kids and low income working parents should absolutely have their income subsidised by the state.

becuase i pay taxes

those taxes pay for benefits.

i dont pay for anyone's husbands wage

apart from politicans

and arms dealers

I don't think this is an argument about whether or not the state should provide- i THINK Catharsis is questioning why one partner should "get away" with not working, and why it SEEMS acceptable- but we really need more info from the OP as to when/how.why etc. Too vague.

Are you there Catharsis? Please clarify!

To answer the OPs question I think it is because people resent 'giving' their hard earned money to people they perceive as lazy, work shy scroungers. Unfortunately there are a proportion of people who do abuse the welfare system and their actions fuel these perceptions and mask the true value of this system in supporting honest individuals and families in the short or longer term who would otherwise be unable to support themselves.

Personally I deeply resent the 'benefit scroungers' but feel it is a price I'm prepared to pay to contribute to my community and ensure those in real need get the support they need as I am lucky enough to be in work and able to support my family. I do expect the government to do all it can to prevent benefit fraud but do not want that to be at the cost of stigmatising those in genuine need.

When you live off state benefits, society as a whole is paying for your upkeep. You are perceived as receiving money for nothing ie scrounging.

When a woman does not WOH, she is perceived as contributing in kind to her family's upkeep - through childcare, housework, house maintenance, gardening, chauffeuring, nursing the sick etc etc etc - all services which the family would have otherwise to purchase in order to live.

Because it's 'family' money. When I worked all the money went into a joint pot and we spent it as we needed, irrespective of the fact that my dh has always earned about 3 times as much as I ever have.

When I had to give up work to move abroad to be with him, I felt guilty I wasn't earning, but he said it was saving money as we have cut costs by me not working. The food bill has dropped, I don't need work clothes, the petrol bill has halved and we are all happier as I am less stressed than when I was teaching.

I don't see why there is an issue about women being SAHMs, as it's a choice. I think it's appalling that there is now a culture where women are encouraged/driven back into the workplace, when they may prefer if they can afford it, to stay at home with their kids. The knock on effect of this policy can be seen in any classroom in term time, with kids turning up tired, hungry, no breakfast, hung over, with no social skills, and the reason is frequently, 'both my parents work, and I just put a ready meal in the microwave Miss and eat it in my room'.

If I was in the UK I would be working, but as I am abroad, I have stopped feeling bad about not working, as I gave up my career to move here; so the flip side is that my dh has to support me if this is where he wants me to be.

As was said earlier, how an individual spends their wages is down to them, so if they want to support their husband/wife/partner, what's it to anyone else? They've earned the money. However, it's when the benefits system is abused that people get annoyed. What really irritates me about it is that the Government lose billions per year in benefit fraud, yet if they had a joined up computer system, they could have sorted this years ago.

Because the 'state' is supposed to be a stop gap to ensure that those who are most needy don't starve to death.
Being on the dole shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, but a temporary measure.
Also, your child is you and your partners responsibility, so it is only right that one of you provide for the child

Agree 100% scary teacher.

I cannot see any similarity between what a couple does withtheir joint moeny ( and inlaw it IS joint income even if one persononly is earning) and what the state provides for people who cannot work or who choose not to work.

I don't think anyone would deny that some families need a helping hand at times- but all too often we hear about scroungers who play the system, who could work but won't because they earn more on benefit, and who have managed to register as long-term sick, when in fact they are long-term work-shy.

I still want the OP to explain - is this a hypothetical question or has someone got up her nose ?

I don't want to depend on my partner financially. I'd feel vulnerable and don't want to have to justify spending £ 200,- on a visit to the hair dresser's or Harvey Nic's or whatever.

If I were the main bread winner I'd be unhappy to support a partner that could add to the family's income yet prefers to lie back without a purpose and let me battle 12h in the office all day. Different thing if my partner would give 100% with our kids, but I've got a bad example here:

My DP's ex was happy to loll in bed till 8.30am, sometimes too late for the school run, so the neighbour helped her, she had a full time cleaner and ironing help yet the house always looked like a tip. Food was in the fridge rather than cooked on the plate and kids were allowed to gorge on crisps and sweets while watching TV till bedtime, having a bath only twice a week.

Dp got up at 4.20am every work day, in car by 5.10 am, in the City by 6.20am, on the desk till 6pm, then back often stuck in traffic 2h+.

IMO her idea of 'child care' and the stress he had in the job were not equal in any way, shape or form. Good that the judge who oversaw their divorce also thought that way and split everything 50/50 despite her squealing attempts to 'deserve' an appropriate lifestyle to what she had before. She's back at her 9k job where she rightfully belongs.

I have to say that the majority of mothers are working very hard for their children's benefit and who could look better after children than their own kin, so I wouldn't say anything bad about SAHMs in general. It's just the above example of negligence which makes my blood boil.

In regards to benefits: they are always going to be exploited by some people. Just because there's 30% of abuse doesn't mean the rest of the 70% doesn't go into the right hands. I think girlnextdoor is right, they have their place in society and should be used by those who are in need.

Scaryteacher: what about Danish or Swedish kids, for example? Mothers return to work after max a year on maternity leave. Are they all socially inept in your eyes? Or badly mannered?

I don't think that staying with a good nanny or pre-school breeds psychos and troublemakers.

If it's a knowledgeable and caring mother it's great if the kids can be educated by her if she can stay at home, but I don't think they will be less rounded just because a mum might have to go back to work again.

Or are all kids by working single mums the ones you speak about??

GND, I know, I know, can 'o' worms. takes one to know one

A serious question based on observation, nonetheless. Hypothetical though not without bearings on my current situation.
I'm interested in other people's perceptions

i.e. When I married I was working. We bought a house and when we started our family it was with the intention of one of us being a SAH parent. I felt/feel extremely strongly about this. Circumstance has led to me now relying on benefits rather than xH's financial support (because although he pays maintenance for the children, I also have to live!). A far more complicated situation is involved, relating to xP and our child... ditto.

I don't see this as a long term situation, I intend to return to work at least part time when all of my children are school age.

I am aware of judgmentalism aimed at single parents on benefits. I am personally reassessing my hopes to be a SAHM for many reasons. Should my children have me at home less because their fathers behaviour led to our break up? etc, etc.

dh and i have always worked and our children are degenerates.

CatharsisI don't think you should be judged for making the best of the situation you're in.

Surely, after the kids both go back to school, you'd want to do something. Maybe you can find an occupation that will allow you flex times.

Whatever the reason for the break up, imagine if you hadn't broken up, but he'd be unemployed and you'd become the main breadwinner. Same result, different reason. In an ideal world it shouldn't be so, but for you it is, so looking back at what could have been isn't going to make the present tense any sweeter. I don't mean to be harsh, I just think you should continue on the path you have chosen and not look back but rather make the road ahead of you as good as it can be.

Custardo

I've always worked and I'm a degenerate.

Mog, if xH/xP had not worked, and I had, one of us still would have been at home with the children. I appreciate your input, I am having a backward glance and I suppose I'm just pondering whether I could be more flexible to my current sitiation and the ways it effects my initial choices in how to bring my children up.

Oy, degenerates! Are you contaigious?!

If I did a paid job I would work as a nanny. How does it make sense that I would go out to work look after someone elses children, pay someone else to look after mine and then have no money left after assuming the childcare costs are the same all the way through. Added on top of that there would be driving lessons, a car and petrol. Financially it doesn't make sense. Also there is the fact that I prefer to look after my own children while they are small but for some reason that doesnt come across as a logical argument to some people. When they are all at school fulltime I will look at going back to work. Til then my husband does the eqivelent of paying me to look after our children.

Um, because my husband is the father of my children and he decided that he wanted them? Unlike the taxpayer.

(realise that most people on benefits are not doing it as a lifestyle choice, by the way - my comment is directed at the people I know who think that working is a "mug's game")

Living off of the state should not be a choice it should only be done out of necessity - I do not pay taxes so people can chose to live off of the state - it is a safety net for those who have to use it - it is not and was never meant to be a lifestyle choice - that is the main problem with this bloody country today!

Does judgmentalism occur prior to understanding someones reasons for being on benefits?

Should every single parent on benefits have to justify their position?

FWIW, I find benefits provide more money than I actually need, to live on and certainly more than I'd earn part time (though I understand TC's would create a balance). This doesn't deter me from seeking work in the future (or doing a part time course ATM, to heighten my job prospects). In fact, it makes me more than a little uncomfortable!

the problem i think is with the expectation that the state will support all lone parents and their children rather than the ex partner.

i understand often the ex skips out, doesn't work, etc.

but IMO the state should focus more on finding ways to chase these people who abandon their families and expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill every time and/or punish them.

I was talking about this with my friend the other day, because I realised there was a discrepancy about the way I felt about my MIL (lazy cow who stopped working when married and expected to be looked after financially by FIL forever even though they divorced after 7 years) and myself (Clever woman who gave up career for families benefit and therefore would deserve to be supported financially by dh if we ever divorced )
I think one big difference is that whilst I am with dh, I not only look after our children, but I also provide an awful lot of support to him and his career - entertaining his clients, being a sounding board for ideas, making his life very easy so he can concentrate on his job - and so we see his wages as joint money because he wouldn't be as good at his job without my input. So I'm more than a SAHMother. If we were to split up, I would still be looking after our children most of the time, but would lose a lot of my other responsibilities, so would be able to use that time to go back to work myself.

Having said that- I do feel a need to reascertain my position that in an ideal world all parents of pre-school age children should be given enough child benefit to be able to SAH (or pay for childcare) because full time childcare is a full time job and should be paid for as such by the state.