Should parents stay at home with their children?

It would be lovely if the taxation/benefits system did this, but I don't think it will be on the priority list of any government (right, left or centre) any time soon!

My thinking exactly, dramatictessa!

I have been asking for a long time why the government gives handouts to pay for nursery care, rather than handouts to stay at home and parent your own children.

Ok, it's a thought BUT how would it be funded? It seems that there are a lot of calls from various groups who think that they deserve extra benefits etc, but at the risk of causing a major row on here, having children is a choice, so why should anyone's choice in this matter be publicly funded?

Tin helmet time behind the sofa, methinks!

No phoenix no need to hide, I agree with you.

'Back in the day' families could service on the husbands salary while mom stayed at home.
That isn't the case now, house prices have gone up, bills have gone up, food has gone up..parents would LOVE to stay at home with their children, but if both parents didn't work then they couldn't afford to live.

Survive. Auto correct

I do think that families now expect a better life style than when my children were small, I stayed home but found work in the playgroup where my children attended, but it took a lot of hard work just to keep a roof over our head pay the bills and feed the kids never mind holidays or luxury items. It wasn't till my children were quite grown that we had holidays and could relax a little.
Maybe in some cases and I do mean 'some' cases if people lowered their expectations a little they could manage on less. Its just my opinion and on my own families experiences.

Perhaps also there is an element of "wanting to have it all" with regard to cars, holidays etc, with no concept of compromise?

Or even EXPECTING to have it all, as your entitlement?

(Adds flack jacket to tin helmet)

The government want the taxes working mums bring in. The taxes obviously outweigh the cost of the childcare.

So long as the children are happy, and not in a nursery for too many hours a day, I think that's fine. Probably good for mum, and for children.

It's a shame if mothers really have to leave their children in nurseries and go to work, if they would rather be a SAHM.

Cost of living might be higher todlay then 'back in the day', but wages have gone up too. It could well be possible to cut the coat to match the cloth with a few sacrifices. If that is what a mother wants. Her prerogative to decide.

Tanith sort of crossed posts!

Luckygirl the government only gives 'handouts' to fund nursery care for children of 3 and above, for 15 hours a week, and for 2 year-olds if the parents receive benefits (not sure which ones).
Personally I feel that children of 3 and above, need and benefit from the stimulation that a good nursery will provide, and the opportunities to socialise with other children.

phoenix

We also have to face up to the fact that many marriages break-up and key to the children's well being will be the mother's ability to earn a decent wage, whether she is receiving child maintenance or not. She will also have to look ahead to her retirement and if nothing else have an as complete as possible NI record.

I am not talking about the rights or wrongs of the issue, just the facts of what happens.

Daddima you are fortunate that your children and their spouses are well paid enough for the extra salary to go on luxuries. DS and wife are both in careers they love and trained long and hard to qualify in, but the rewards are personal not monetary and their two salaries certainly do not run to two cars, expensive holidays, or an expensive house. They are certainly not cash strapped but neither does their joint income run to luxuries.

I agree MOnica my DD is divorced and has one child - the child maintenance is minimal and so she has to work to provide a basic living. She is a teacher. There is no money left for luxuries - we support where we can and try to provide a 'family' holiday each year where both DD and DGD and also DS and other DGD can all get together.
I cannot commend my DC enough for working hard to provide for their DC - but luxury holidays, any holidays in fact and other desired/essential material things are not an option. I might add that both DC are well qualified, have degrees and decent salaries - we live in a different world from the one we were used to I think.....?

I have to say that most of the young working mums I know work because they want to. There might be a degree of peer pressure and expectation but most seem to love the stimulus of working,meeting people each day and they don't seem to mind having jobs to do in the evening as partners help which was virtually unknown when I was a young mum. I was a SAHM.

tanith Fri 10-Jun-16 18:42:06

Very well put, that was our situation.
I did occasional part-time work (to pay for Christmas presents) but, with a DH who worked away, it was very difficult, so I was a SAHM for stability and we did without much of what is considered to be the norm these days.

I was a Sahm too, with a very part time job. I was probably lucky in the benefit of hindsight as I'd already established a reasonably well-paid career. However, I didn't expect, or get, help. It was a choice, pure and simple. I bore the cost, and was happy to.

I think nowadays there IS a sense of entitlement to "having it all". The Govt is keen to get taxes rolling in. And women's employment is protected (supposedly) and paternal leave is available too (supposedly). I can understand why women return to work. Especially if supported by the secret army of grandparents, beavering away in the background, unappreciated.

Personally, I don't think you should have children if you cannot afford them comfortably dons flak jacket and joins phoenix behind the sofa.

'We also have to face up to the fact that many marriages break-up and key to the children's well being will be the mother's ability to earn a decent wage, whether she is receiving child maintenance or not. She will also have to look ahead to her retirement and if nothing else have an as complete as possible NI record.

I am not talking about the rights or wrongs of the issue, just the facts of what happens.'
totally agree with that...

That's just not fair - lumping it all on the mother if the marriage breaks up!

I don't think you can expect people to not have children just because they are hard up. But I think couples should think long and hard about whether they are going to stay together, come what may, at least until the children have flown the nest. And I think getting married, rather just living together as a couple, makes for a better grounding for a family.

Wise words here! Think carefully about making a commitment, having children and sorting out priorities. Not the benefits system 's job to prop up the sense of entitlement to holidays and cars.

Yes they should stay at home with their children!

Ok rascal no problem with that, but do you agree with the OP that the sahm should receive some sort of benefits for doing it?