re all the discussion about being at home or working, just found this comment on another website - what do you think?

[ssd]

"Just thought I'd point out that parents who spend more time at work than they do with their kids - whether through choice or compulsion is irrelevant really - are going to be relatively inexperienced at childcare. How is a parent who puts their first baby in nursery - or with a nanny - or other paid servant - from 8.30-6.30 five days a week - going to be able judge how that care has or has not affected their child? They can barely manage the little tyke themselves at the weekend. Plenty of high-achievers have had miserable childhoods at the hands of paid carers. Peter Ustinov, raised largely by nannies, noted in his autobiography how vulnerable children are to being the brunt of a servant's frustrations, and how unlikely this is to come to either the parent or the child's attention as being abnormal or even wrong. Read the first chapter of Mary Poppins and laugh (or cry!) Like all things, if you want to ensure that the job is well done, do it yourself or entrust it to someone you know really well and trust; otherwise it is really the blind leading the blind."

actually makes a lot of sense to me, what do others think?

Well said, KKS! Perhaps those who argue most vociferously (on both sides) are those who are made to feel most guilty by others about their situation? I don't know. No-one would DARE judge me to my face!

Preggerspoppet - I think you have rather missed the point with the tax rebates that working parent's receive.

The tax credit is effectively a repayment of some of the tax that the working parent has paid on their own earnings.

It isn't at all the same as paying someone for sah, as the woth parent is a net contributor to tax, whereas all of the payment ot sah would have to be met out of other people's tax payments.

The deal is quite simple - if you go back to work then we will give you a bit of the tax you have paid back, to cover your childcare costs.

The deal for sah would be far more radical - stay at home and look after your children and here is some money which other taxpayers have paid to fund you to do so.

Whilst in policy terms it would increase choices available to parents - and I am all in favour of that - it would be so patently unaffordable that no govt would ever consider it. Where is the money coming from? Well it will come from higher taxation of working people, so less families will be able to exist on one income and so the circle continues!

Most children who are brought up in loving homes turn out ok whether put in childcare or looked after entirely by their mum or dad - it seems that people are very worried about their own choices and need, in order to feel secure, to damn the different choices of others but there are many ways to parent, many ways to skin a cat. I was brought up by a single mother who worked 18 hour days in order to pay the rent - we had all w/end together and I have a very close relationship with my mother - she had a SAHM who left all her 4 children (for various reasons mostly not her fault) to feel very neglected - the relationship you have with your parents or with your children is dependent on what you bring to the table not necessarily the time spent with them. I am a SAHM mum but I don't particularly believe that is a better option for my son than childcare, its just what he gets at the moment...

I think I posted a pic of my dog once, is that not enough! you want more!!

ok ds1 is home from school any minute, I'll get him to show me how!

I have a vague memory reading that there used to be a lower taxation rate for men with wives and children. And that it was gradually reduced. Does this ring a bell with anyone.

Fair dos, Bobsmum! I deleted my profile recently 'cos it just wasn't interesting enough!

Gamegirly - it's still there but very empty

Soapy is right. Plus, those who really need to be at home- such as carers- have access to support (pathetic though it is- CA is about £40 a week ), I'm not entitled to CA (although I chose Uni so i'm only in 10 hrs a week its still classed as FT and therefore I do not in their terms care for the boys- Okaaaay- who does then?), but we still get DLA which amkes up for it a bit. Plus extra on the WTC.

SAHM payments would be wonderful, but as Soapy said unaffordable. maternity leave is now so much more useful than only a few years ago when ds1 / 2 was born that women already do ahve more choice, at least for the first few months- its unusual for women to be back at their desks at 9 weeks as I had to be then (and ds2 only 6, so not ages).

Thats what i was trying to say soapbox. I wasn't sure of the facts, the government aint gonna pay people to stay home. I don't think you can claim anything back if you haven't paid any tax in.

Oh, can I have some cake, please, Norks? What are you making? I'm starving!

Exactly, Soapy. I wish I was as eloquent as some of you lot.

I know what you are saying soapbox, but I think that if the attitude of the gov toward sah-ing were to change -then it wouldnt be as simple as higher taxes being the only way to fund it.

it is a relitively short period of time that parents would be at home until kids are at school and then if parents are offered flexible working once the kids are at school, more parents could work.
or if everyone had flexible work then mums and dads could share childcare more.

there has to be more ways round it than that, I'm no economist so can't decide how it is could/would be paid fro but I do know that this gov wastes vast amounts of money. but that aside i would gladly pay more taxes when working in order to provide this choice to everyone, not just some.

Also I think need to make my position clear again -I'm not judging anyone on their decision. I just think if you have a choice then you are one of the lucky ones.

Yes, but if people had the choice whether or not to work part time (and presumably that choice would have to be open to men too, to avoid sex descrimination)then so many more people would choose to do so, and business just doesn't work that way. If all the staff in Sainsburys decided they wanted to leave at 3pm every day to pick their little angels up from school, well Sainsbos would be shut and we'd all whinge.
(Very simplistic again, really sorry).

FWIW i'm a SAHM and would probably consider part time work if I thought there was adequate childcare available. I wouldn't consider going to work at all with an under 2, but once they're walking and talking and able to share their likes and dislikes then I think childcare choices are made easier.

Ds could have told me just before he turned 2 if he liked or disliked a situation and I would have been able to take that into consideration.

I couldn't consider returning to full time work because I do feel responsible and called (for want of a better word) to look after my own children.

As someone else has said, seeing my children at the two most evilly stressful times of day would be draining for me. Most people who know me know not to phone between 8am-9am or 5pm-7pm because it's the "arsenic hour" in our house. If that was the only time I saw my children I would be very unhappy indeed.

Weekends on our house would then need to be housework catch up and possibly trying to at least pass the time of day with dh.

Over 2.5 yr , a preschool type situation is very different from straight forward childcare. But then I'm very uncomfortable with institutionalised childcare and education for under 5s anyway.

As it happens, it's looking increasingly like ds is going to need a lot of additional support, possibly a statement, when he starts school which will demand my direct involvement daily. Personally, I would be very unhappy to delegate that responsibilty onto anyone let alone a non relative.

And you can look at my photos too

PP - all those things are part of government policy. Maternity leave has got longer and longer. You talk to any woman who worked and had a baby in the 70s. It's an eye opener. There are all sorts of legislation regarding flexi working if you have young children. And - wait for it - the demand for such initiatives has come from working mothers.

and also, god knows how it would be worked out but I'm sure that for most people, the difference of being able to stay at home equates to not actually that much money in real terms. perhaps compared to the hundreds of pounds per week/month that some working parents receive in tax credits in order to go and ork when what they really want to do is sah.

WE need to all live in Sweden - they pay men and women to look after their own children. I'm too short to live in Sweden though.

The decision isn't always made on the basis of cash though. Some women aren't much better off by working and still choose to do it. There's something else underlying their choice.

I've gotta go now. babies awake, kids back from school. as addictive as this thread is!

will log on tonight to see if any of you brainier types have found a solution to end all suffering!!!

oh bobs, how tall do you have to be? I'm there!!! (but I am quite a shortarse )

"Plenty of high-achievers have had miserable childhoods at the hands of paid carers." Very perceptive. Just missed out the low achievers with paid carers and the high and low achieveres with miserable childhoods at the hand of their own stay-at-home parents. I'll try and back this up with statistics. Failing that, I'll just speculate widely as to the reasons. Then I'll post a few and piss off some mothers on MN.

And Christina, you mustn't forget the not particularly high or low but somewhere in the middle achievers. Whose childhoods weren't particularly miserable but neither were they ecstatic. And the carers who were paid but were paid less than the going rate.

You are so right, NFKxxxx. There's one scare story for every scenario.