Shoud SAHMs be paid?

Spendless

Janepig wrote:

Not eligible for childcare tax credits (but are by no means rolling in it), gave up on the childcare voucher scheme when it changed (long story) but that doesn't really give you money, just means you don't pay NI on your childcare, and DD was in full-time school at 3 and a half. Roll on 2009 when DS will be there too and I'll be £324 better off per month and I'll be switching to working school hours so will be with them all the time when they're not in school!!!!!

Jxx

No were not eligible for childcare help via tax credits either. Vouchers do give you money in the way that you have more money in your wages than if you were paying the childcare bill not using them, ahhh just thought they only used to be NI free, you do know they are tax and NI free now upto £55 a week?

Full-time school at 3.5 :eek: how come?? I know your in Wales, does the school ages/terms run differently. The earliest you'd be in school here is a few days after your 4th birthday if you were born end of August cos the new term starts in Septembr,

rainbowrisin

Churchmouse wrote:

I don't understand this response SAHM do not "clock off" at 5. They have "childcare" for every minute the child is awake!!! I am not criticising working mums, just feel that not enough recognition is given to SAHMs.
SAHMs are the ones volunteering for classroom duties etc. I did not say SAHMs should be paid, we all do our best with our individual circumstances. Let's show each other some respect!!

My DH has a cousin who I absolutely adored when after meeting after some years out of touch enquired " Churchmouse, do you do any PAID work?":rotfl: :T Yay Peter!!!!!

Completely agree. I remember when I used to do paid work outside the house I used to be able to go to the toilet on my own, generally uninterrupted. I used to be able to eat a meal in one go, without interruption. I used to be able to make a telephone call without punctuating it with "Mummy's on the phone / Just a moment darling" and so on. It really is 24/7 being a SAHM. At paid outside work, in theory at least, you get breaks!

That doesn't mean I think it's a soft option to be a mum who works outside the home and uses childcare - it's tough whatever option you take.

I do think SAHMs are undervalued though. I've been told I'm "wasting my talents" because I don't go back to outside work at least p/t. I've been told my children won't have the work ethic because when they're awake it's rare that I visibly "work" doing paid work. (Never mind I put in 18/20 hour days every day, and don't have "hobbies" - just some work tasks (paid / unpaid) I enjoy more than others). I've even been told my children are missing out because I could earn more but choose not to

Being a SAHM is anything but SAH IMHO. The SAHMs I know (me included)are all out every day with their children - groups / museums / art galleries / the park / nature walks / sports / craft activities - anything free where you can take a picnic we're all doing it. Even when I'm at home it's rare I can get much cleaning / admin / DIY and so on done during the day, as the littlies need pretty much constant attention. Anyone that thinks a SAHM sits about and drinks coffee and gets all their chores done during the day so the evenings are free must have experience of a different breed of children to mine:D

Mics_chick

Yep! I think they definitely should!!

But this government says women have to make up shortfall in numbers of workers required so they push women into work and then that person has to use a nanny/child-minder so they've got 2 people at work instead of none!!!! :mad:

liney

I have a toddler and work for 2 and a half days per week. I do not think i should be paid for the time i spend at home with my child.

Firstly if people have to earn huge amounts of money to be better off working, would this not suggest that benefits is more than generous?

Secondly, Tax credits do in effect pay the non working mother as they increase when she ceases working. Of course the Married persons tax allowence would be more benficial, instead of tax credits.

And lastly, we know there are 'Breeders' out there who have no consideration about the number of children they can afford, and expect the goverment to throw money at them and bigger houses. I think paying SAHM would most definately encourage these people.

Some one mentioned that in other countries women are paid to be at home with longer maternity leave etc. In these countries they also cut benefits for the unemployed after given them reasonable time to find a job, instead of allowing them to sign on indefinatley. The money has to come from somewhere; The country cannot subsidise everyone.

Spendless

liney wrote:

Secondly, Tax credits do in effect pay the non working mother as they increase when she ceases working. Of course the Married persons tax allowence would be more benficial, instead of tax credits.

Tax credits do not always increase if a 2nd income is given up. That's because what is called the family element (£545p.a) covers a broad range of salary roughly from £25k-£50K. It doesn't always increase on the birth of an additional child either, apart from the first year when a baby element is paid which is an additional £545 p.a.

I remember the married mans allowance.When I was single and used to think it grossly unfair that my dad and BIL got it, when both of them had 2 full-time incomes and no children in their households, but I was on my own with a house and a worse tax code.

liney

Ok, tax credits wont alway increase. Still £25k isn't a bad cut off point, and it is afterall free money.

Janepig

Spendless wrote:

Full-time school at 3.5 :eek: how come?? I know your in Wales, does the school ages/terms run differently. The earliest you'd be in school here is a few days after your 4th birthday if you were born end of August cos the new term starts in Septembr,

It depends on the school, but DD's school and the school my neighbour's great granddaughter goes to (just for example) both have nursery units that do full time rather than half days. DD was 3 last April 30th and started school (8.40am-2.40pm) on September 6th. There's 60 kids in her year spread over two classes, she's in the youngest split with some kids who were full time afew days after their third birthday!!! Boxing day boy will have to wait a little longer as the school only have an intake in September - I'd be laughing if they had a January intake as he'd be starting just after his third birthday (in 2009!!!), as it is he'll be 3 and 9 months.

It's by no means the rule though, some schools round here have half days for under 4's.

Jxx

liney

My son is a June birthday and i have been told he wont begin school until the following January, ie 4 and 6 months. I thought that was early! Blimey.

3KIDSNOMONEY

Difficult question if should SAHM's be paid. I have been a SAHM for 11 years and have three children.

I think that maybe more help should be given to SAHM's, not necessarily a wage. Perhaps things such as prescriptions, vouchers for things, money of tickets for days out etc. I think that if some SAHM's were paid it wouldn't necessarily benefit the children.

I find that a SAHM i can't always afford to take my children out as we only have one wage coming in and more people to look after. A day out is so expensive, (although we do free things too). Maybe a discount card or something.

Spendless

Janepig wrote:

It depends on the school, but DD's school and the school my neighbour's great granddaughter goes to (just for example) both have nursery units that do full time rather than half days. DD was 3 last April 30th and started school (8.40am-2.40pm) on September 6th. There's 60 kids in her year spread over two classes, she's in the youngest split with some kids who were full time afew days after their third birthday!!! Boxing day boy will have to wait a little longer as the school only have an intake in September - I'd be laughing if they had a January intake as he'd be starting just after his third birthday (in 2009!!!), as it is he'll be 3 and 9 months.

It's by no means the rule though, some schools round here have half days for under 4's.

Jxx

and that is free or do you have to pay cos it's a nursery unit

liney-it depends on your LA, if you lived near me your child would begin in the Sept following his 4th birthday as we only have one intake, so he'd be 4 and 2 months. My DD will be 4 at end of March and in full-time school in Sept, though from what Janepigs just said I might be moving near to her and sending DD all day now