Worked for 20 years now staying home to bring up children - help

wornoutmumoftwo

It was Before tax credits and after Family allowance. It worked on the same principle but instead of the SAHP getting the benefit it was done via a wage packet.

krisskross

wornoutmumoftwo wrote: »

It was Before tax credits and after Family allowance. It worked on the same principle but instead of the SAHP getting the benefit it was done via a wage packet.

You had to work to benefit from higher tax allowances though. Usually it went on the husband's wages and then if you cou;d afford to Mum stayed at home. Very Janet and John. I worked out that the extra tax allowance was worth £15 a year when we had a child in 1970. That is equivalent to £167 a year now, about 3 quid a week. Certainly child related benefits are much more generous nowadays. Not even any child benefit for the first child until well into the 1970s. We had 4 children and never got child benefit for our eldest one.

I also know women with 17 year olds who still only work 16 hours a week so they can get WTC. It's all wrong.

cw18

wornoutmumoftwo wrote: »

Does anyone remember the pre-child tax credits days?

I had my first son in 2002 and when I returned to work my tax code changed so I could earn more before paying tax (can't remember what the figure was), I think it was shortly after that when the tax credits came in to effect.

I had that as well.....

Single parents got a 'dependants' allowance, that equated to the same as the 'married mans' allowance. This meant all 'family units' had the same tax free allowance if only one adult worked.

viktory

I despair at this idea that if you want to stay at home and rear your children the tax payer should pay, pay, pay and pay some more to allow this to happen.

Not that long ago the idea was that if your husband (or wife) earned enough money then the other half could stay at home to care for the children. Since when did it become a right that I have to pay for?

Oh and by the way, I have been paying into the 'pot' for ages. Now I want a new Radley handbag. Can I please take the money out of the pot for it? Where do I apply? In fact, I need to know exactly how much I have paid in as I might want the matching wallet. I think it is my right.

bellrooster

Children and handbags is a bonkers comparison :rolleyes:

elektra-2007

I would say stay at home with your kids....My mum worked whilst we were growing up and yeah we had nice clothes toys bedrooms holidays ect...but we never saw her( well thats what it felt like'), I made the same mistake with my lad and now he is 7 ive decided not to work until he is a older and its made a huge difference to him...im here for him al the time theres no pressure like rushing in the mornings going to work praying school dosent ring me up...hoping he dosent get ill...worrying if the holiday club will be open on inset days ect...all the stress just eventually shows on your children. If your debt free and can afford it then do it...ignore what anyone else thinks your living your life not them.
Its ok having nannies and nurserys....but no one can love your child like you do and they grow up so fast why miss out if you dont have too.

Oldernotwiser

bellrooster wrote: »

Children and handbags is a bonkers comparison :rolleyes:

Not necessarily, social commentators have often said that children can be a fashionable accessory.

bellrooster

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Not necessarily, social commentators have often said that children can be a fashionable accessory.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

krisskross

bellrooster wrote: »

Children and handbags is a bonkers comparison :rolleyes:

I do think that was the point.

bellrooster

Well when I return to work in roughly 18 months when my daughter starts school I'll start paying tax again - and I'm quite happy for my tax to help support sahm.