Living off a man!!!

[iabr]

If you are among the posters on here who always sneer at SAHMs for 'living off the husband,' do you also -

• sneer at women who work PT and therefore earn less than their husbands - so are, by definition, also 'living off the husband" to a greater or lesser extent?

• sneer at women who work full-time, but still earn significantly less than the husband, so the house and other expenses are largely funded by his higher income anyway?

• sneer at any woman who has a dual income lifestyle that she couldn't maintain on her own salary / wealth?

I really don't want to get into endless personal anecdotes of - "Well I earn £x and DH earns £x..." This is about the issue of 'financial independence' within families per se. - ie . recognising that it's accrued family wealth that determines financial independence and it's not necessarily always as simple as who earns what. A SAHM may well have greater financial independence than a woman on a high salary, depending on that family's underlying financial circumstances.

So AIBU to say to MN - Stop telling SAHMs they are 'financially vulnerable' - unless you know the details of their unique financial family circumstances!

That was me!

It's such a cyclical issue though isn't it. Women need men to step up domestically to change how women are viewed in the workpace/ enable women to work but men seemingly won't do so while women are enabling them to take a back seat at home. But I do think men won't do it because they've got a great deal, generally. It's not just the childcare, you only have to come on here any day of the week to see a poster moaning her husband does - literally - nothing at all at home. Nothing. So the man gets (1) free childcare and (2) to be treated like he lives in a hotel with his clothes laundered and ironed, his food served to him, and never has to lift a finger. If his wife is lucky he might pat the children on the head and read them a book before bedtime [disclaimer: I know in reality most relationships aren't this extreme but (1) they exist and (2) the balance is very much leaning this way in most of the SAHM/ WOH dad dynamics I see]

Government policy would help too. In sweden for example a couple are giving x days parental leave following a baby. A portion is shared, so either parent can take it, and then each parent has an allocation (months, not a measily 2 weeks). If the dad doesn't take his it's lost which incentivises dads to take it and mums to relinquish it as they've nothing to loose by it. It's also supported by a high proportion of pay of course.

I am not really supportive of tax breaks for SAHPs. I don't think it's something that should be prioritised/ incentivised for all the reasons I've already mentioned, and the money would be much better spent on policies that enabled women to get back to work in a sensible way (e.g. better subsidized childcare). It's also unfair on single parents as PP has raised. and while neither choice has more "moral" value, societally WOH as a role [not a person] definitely has more value.

Im not sure I follow that bit. Everyone who isn't a net contributor is taking out more than they put in. These people may be single and childless, maybe not.

the point I was trying to make, perhaps badly, was that in your example a person with a stay at home partner and two or three children pays less tax than a single person on the same salary.

the ‘family man’ and let’s be honest it is mainly men, takes a lot more out for medical care for four or five people, school, pension contributions for his stay at home partner. But in your proposal he would have to pay less tax.

it just made me cross to think of my colleagues getting a boost in the pay packet for no extra work but because of their home set up. The tax free allowance is for people who earn surely? I do not believe it should be transferable from non earners.

What about if wohp could get the same value via free childcare?
I do get why people would think it's unfair, especially if there was no equivalent benefit for single people - I was just mulling over that I could get a job where I could earn that allowance and not pay any tax (which has no wider societal benefit anymore than sah), or I could transfer that allowance to dh and it amounts to the same thing. The country would still get that money going into the economy via spending.

That policy in Sweden is great. Ultimately we can't (and shouldn't) force individuals into one specific family set-up, of course couples can choose how to carve out earning/ caring responsibilities, but society can certainly do a lot to provide structures which promote equality.

It's clear for some women, their experience is of partnering a man who just won't step up after having kids and leaves all the childcare and domestic chores to his wife. But it comes from the other side too... I've experienced mums who are so territorial about the children and home, like someone said earlier, husband doesn't bath the baby/so the laundry/load the dishwasher the 'right' way. Once patterns become established, it's hard to break them and that's when resentment can set in.

I'm not so sure it's always the DH getting the great deal either, though I can understand it feels that way if you've married someone who won't step up. No doubt there are plenty of dads out there who do resent being expected to be the main breadwinner. There are many examples on MN and in RL where women are SAHM for years and years. Or they only ever return to a PT job. How often do we hear women posting about needing their days off (long after the kids are small) for their mental health, or to potter around. There never seems much regard for their DH's mental health or desire to potter. I can imagine that even if it takes years to come to the surface, resentment from the husband could well be bubbling away.
Or of course there's that classic scenario of the woman working PT so they can use their day off to do the housework (ie: 'women's work'!)

So yes it's a cyclical issue and it can take an effort to break the cycle, and think longer term rather than just the present moment.

No doubt there will be women reading this who have the set up I've just described who feel perfectly happy with their DH being sole or main breadwinner long term. But it's important to recognise that the more people who just accept that model, the longer it takes for society to progress. That fact alone won't change individuals' behaviour - because ultimately people will do what feels best for them at the time - which is why Govt policy is essential. When the structures are there to promote a particular behaviour - as in the Swedish example - it's far more likely to change things. Since it's introduction in the U.K., the take up of shared parental leave has been woeful, barely any mums transfer any of their ML to the child's father. I know some women say it's for financial reasons but I've known loads of women (and seen it on MN) saying they won't do it purely because they want the full year off. There doesn't seem to be a recognition that if the father takes even just a couple of months being the main carer, it's a huge positive for the father/child relationship and will probably have benefits for years to come. It's harder for a dad to abdicate responsibility if he's had a period of being the one at home. The Swedish policy sounds so much better because it gives leave specifically for the father - use it or lose it.

I do think shared leave is a good idea. Employers would be more tolerant of dads taking it if the alternative was that it was lost and not transferable to the mum.
DH is half Danish - his family really don't get the decision to be a sahm. But they come from a country where childcare is heavily subsidised and where the employment culture has a balance of work and family life.

It doesn't amount to the same thing. You doing the job and not paying tax generates value for the economy. As you are doing soemthing in your employment. You DH getting an extra tax break just means he does the same but pays less tax. Ultimately it's then the tax payer subsidising you for staying at home, soemthing which I think even you have acknolwedged basically just benefits you and your family.

I am not really supportive of tax breaks for SAHPs. I don't think it's something that should be prioritised/ incentivised for all the reasons I've already mentioned, and the money would be much better spent on policies that enabled women to get back to work in a sensible way (e.g. better subsidized childcare). It's also unfair on single parents as PP has raised. and while neither choice has more "moral" value, societally WOH as a role [not a person] definitely has more value.

Totally agree with this. Regardless of what sort of "value" you perceive there to be in any style of parenting, how can it be fair to provide a financial reward for a partner in a couple who is already being subsidised. It's an incentive not to work.

If people choose to organise their partnerships along lines where one partner is a breadwinner and the other a carer, fair enough, but why should the state provide further subsidy to a partner who is already being supported?

I can't see any reason for tax breaks for not working.