To become a sahm?

MissMoneypenny

princessdon wrote: »

You do not understand how upsetting your comment could be to someone who has no choice to work.

I've always found that those who make derogatory comments about working mothers, are the ones who are using the welfare payment Tax Credits long term, to pay for their own family.

Showing children a good work ethic, is the best gift a parent can give a child.
You are showing your children a good work ethic princessdon; you are a good parent. Your children will grow up to be happy adults as that good work ethic that you taught them, will allow them to be able to work hard and earn a good wage; which will give them choices in life.

zagfles

NYM wrote: »

It's contemptible that a poster demands others solely use this forum to provide advice for benefit entitlement

Err, it is about benefit entitlement.

whilst actually advising deceitful and possible illegal methods to circumvent tax laws......

Why don't you try understanding before commenting? It has nothing whatsoever to do with tax, as I've said several times, there are no tax savings.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I've always found that those who make derogatory comments about working mothers, are the ones who want to make themselves feel better about using the welfare payment Tax Credits, to pay for their own family, long term.

Showing children a good work ethic, is the best gift a parent can give a child.
You are showing your children a good work ethic princessdon; you are a good parent. Your children will grow up to be happy adults as that good work ethic that you taught them, will allow them to be able to earn a good wage; which will give them choices.

So derogatory comments about working mothers are bad (your first paragraph) but then it's ok to imply SAHP are bad in your second?

There's been far more slating of SAHPs in this thread. Including the implications in your second paragraph. I hope they all shove two fingers up at the pathetic moralising in this thread and just do what's best for them. Even if it means they claim lots in benefits.

nodiscount

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I've always found that those who make derogatory comments about working mothers, are the ones who are using the welfare payment Tax Credits, to pay for their own family, long term.

Showing children a good work ethic, is the best gift a parent can give a child.
You are showing your children a good work ethic princessdon; you are a good parent. Your children will grow up to be happy adults as that good work ethic that you taught them, will allow them to be able to work hard and earn a good wage; which will give them choices in life.

^^^^^ :T:T:T:T:T
I agree a thousand time over.

NYM

zagfles wrote: »

:rotfl:You think there has to be a law specifically allowing things? What's the law that allows someone to use a username NYM on an internet forum :rotfl:

Anyway...

1) It's perfectly legal to employ your spouse. Self employed people do it all the time, even MPs as mentioned above.

2) It's perfectly legal to employ a maid/housekeeper, pay them as an employee, and for them to get the usual Class 1 NI benefits of employment.

So, if the "maid/housekeeper" can't be your spouse, there must be a specific law/rule disallowing it. Unless you can quote that, we can only assume you haven't got a clue.

Obviously they do actually have to do the job you're paying them for, and employment legislation needs following. Also there's no tax benefit, in fact the assessed household income would increase so it would be counter-productive if the couple are claiming tax credits or benefits, or if the SAHP has other income which takes them above the tax allowance.

Assume what you like...it still won't change Employment law.

I don't want to 'play games' so I'll just direct you to the relevant info.....

ESM4155 - Particular occupations: family employment - by spouse
SS (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978 (SI 1978 No.1689) paragraph 3 in Part I of Schedule 1

SS (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978 (SI 1978 No.1689) paragraph 8 in Part III of Schedule 1


A man who employs his wife, or a woman who employs her husband, in his or her employment is regarded as the spouse’s employer. The term ‘employment’ means trade, business, profession, office or vocation.

If a person is employed by their spouse other than for the purposes of the spouse’s employment, the person’s employment is disregarded whether or not it is under a contract of service. For example, if a husband employed his wife to care for him, this employment would be disregarded.

zagfles

NYM wrote: »

Assume what you like...it still won't change Employment law.

I don't want to 'play games' so I'll just direct you to the relevant info.....

ESM4155 - Particular occupations: family employment - by spouse
SS (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978 (SI 1978 No.1689) paragraph 3 in Part I of Schedule 1

SS (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978 (SI 1978 No.1689) paragraph 8 in Part III of Schedule 1


A man who employs his wife, or a woman who employs her husband, in his or her employment is regarded as the spouse’s employer. The term ‘employment’ means trade, business, profession, office or vocation.

If a person is employed by their spouse other than for the purposes of the spouse’s employment, the person’s employment is disregarded whether or not it is under a contract of service. For example, if a husband employed his wife to care for him, this employment would be disregarded.

Excellent - thank you! Though you were playing games by asking which law specifically allows it

I'd better delete my post in the other thread

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

So derogatory comments about working mothers are bad (your first paragraph) but then it's ok to imply SAHP are bad in your second?

SAHM? Don't you mean SAHP (P = parent). Plenty of women earn more than their partner and are the ones who work, while the father stays at home.

I didn't say "SAHM are bad": read it again. I said that a good work etheic was the best gift that parents could give a child and that good work ethic could come from a father too. Why are you always blaming females?

However, as like tends to marry like, you will either get both parents wanting to do something to keep their own family (even if that means the parent who sayed at home with pre school children, working part time in the evenings when the other parent comes home): or both parents looking at ways to maximise their benefits so that they can keep asking the welfare state to keep their family, long term. The former think long.

The welfare state was never intended to keep healthy adults and their children, long term and this is why the welfare reforms have come in and Tax Credits are being replaced with the one income based welfare payment, Universal Credit.

FBaby

zagfles wrote: »

Excellent - thank you! Though you were playing games by asking which law specifically allows it

I'd better delete my post in the other thread

Pity, was planning on asking my hubby to employ me to clean the house and then claim maternity leave when I fall pregnant, and the sickness days before when I'm too sick to clean! I knew it was too good to be true

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

SAHM? Don't you mean SAHP (P = parent). Plenty of women earn more than their partner and are the ones who work, while the father stays at home.

Erm, re-read the post you quoted

I didn't say "SAHM are bad": read it again. I said that a good work etheic was the best gift that parents could give a child and that good work ethic could come from a father too.

However, as like tends to marry like, you will either get both parents wanting to do something to keep their own family (even if that means the parent who sayed at home with pre school children, working part time in the evenings when the other parent comes home)L or both parents looking at ways to maximise their benefits so that they can live on Tax Credits, long term. The former think long.

There are plenty of single earner families, particularly with pre-school children, which sort of disproves your point. It's quite common to take a career break for a few years until your children are in school, and it usually has nothing to do with maximising benefits, in fact for some it will lower benefits.

Basically there are swings and roundabouts to whatever you do - and you are right to point these out, just as I'm right to point out things like attachment disorder, as it's something anyone putting pre-school children into childcare should be aware of so they can take steps to avoid.

Marisco

zagfles wrote: »

So derogatory comments about working mothers are bad (your first paragraph) but then it's ok to imply SAHP are bad in your second?

There's been far more slating of SAHPs in this thread. Including the implications in your second paragraph. I hope they all shove two fingers up at the pathetic moralising in this thread and just do what's best for them. Even if it means they claim lots in benefits.

I don't think anyone has said SAHP are bad, what they are saying is, if you want to be a SAHP, you shouldn't expect the state to fund your choices.