Women who can't work because their partners earn 'too much'

[AnnieLobeseder]

This is a spin-off from the 'lucky not to have to work' thread.

There are endless discussions on childcare costs on MN, and this is a point I've argued endlessly, but I'd like to post it again here and see if I get any different responses from a more feminist viewpoint.

When I had 2 DDs under school age, I couldn't afford to work because childcare would have costed more than I earned, and because of DH's salary, our household income was too high to qualify for any sort of working tax credits or childcare help.

I am of the opinion that childcare benefits should NOT be linked to household income, but to individual income. Why should I be forced to not work simply because my partner, in theory, is able to support me? I found that very humiliating, debilitating and frustrating. I HATED being a SAHM.

Every time I ranted about this, I got two main responses:

1. Childcare costs are not just your responsibility, they're your DH's too so he should be paying, that means you can afford to work.

Um, no, if childcare outgoings due to me working are more than I bring in, we, as a family, are making a net loss, so that logic just doesn't fly. If you can afford to suck up that loss to keep your skills and work experience intact, great. We couldn't afford it.

2. You shouldn't have had children if you didn't want to pay for them. Why should we taxpayers shell out so you can work. You should be home looking after your children anyway.

Surely it would have made more financial sense for the government help with my childcare costs, even if it was just to the point of me breaking even, to enable me to be in the workplace, paying tax and contributing to the economy, rather than losing my employability at home?

Please discuss!

Welfare and tax credits are for people that need them, not some weird entitlement that you appear to have. Childcare costs should be a household responsibility not yours. When you have children you should consider childcare costs, what's so bad about staying at home for two years anyway...they are your children.

I do wonder why you have such an issue with short term being at home parent, you either want to further your career and are willing to take the drop in income or you're not.

We have a similar but different problem.

My DH and I would love to have another child, I am the major wage earner in our family so I could only afford to take maternity leave for the time when I am full pay and then 90%.

I would not get help with childcare which although difficult is fair enough, I earn a good wage. However because I am the major wage earner my DH would have to be the stay at home parent. He gets no paternity leave beyong the 2 weeks - which would be frowned upon. So if we have a second child my DH would have to give up work - he is very good at what he does but because of where we live he may struggle to get another job. He would also not be allowed to reduce his hours any further to spend time at home with a child.

Posie, if we'd taken the short-term drop in income, we'd have lost the roof over our heads.

And as I said, as I see it, it would be to mutual benefit to the woman and to the State if she was helped to continue to work, not a complete drain on resources and taking away benefits from those who need it.

Though I will hold my hands up and admit I'm no economist and may be completely wrong on that score.

It's not about a sense of entitlement, it's about how I find it completely bizarre that anyone should find themselves in a situation where they can't afford to work. This also applies to people who don't work because they're better off on benefits. It's insane!

vespasian - luckily things are changing so that men are getting more paternity leave rights, but probably not fast enough in your case. Parental leave should be exchangeable between parents, with the same rights given to the family, so you can choose who stays home with SMP (or SPP!), not the mother.

Pretty much what Posie said - that state does not have enough money to give it out to people who do not need it.

I appreciate the spinoff from the 'lucky not to have to work' though, because really anyone who has the choice should count themselves "lucky to have the choice". Being financially unable to go to work is no better than being financially unable to stay at home.

I just think that

a) the system has finite resources
b) it it complex enough

isn't it correct that a family where both parents earn £20k each is treated the same was as a family where one parent earns £40k and the other is a SAHP? but the family where both are working have massive childcare costs to cover? i just think the system can't cope with any more.

I can see that you think by being in work that you would contribute to the economy. Fine, it's true - but if you don't have the job and someone else has it instead (say a single man who would otherwise be unemployed), then the economy is still receiving the benefit of a person working, but not having to bear the costs of unemployment.

Annie - what you are arguing sounds quite 'un-feminist' in lots of ways, because it assumes that the responsibility of the childcare is 100% yours when it isn't - or certainly shouldn't be.

We are to some extent in the same situation, when I looked at returning to work after maternity leave by the time we had paid the childcare hours needed plus my commuting costs and other associated expenses (like running a second car!) we would have been out of pocket by several hundred pounds each month.
I think if it had been a career I loved where I knew that years worked now would reap reward later then maybe I would have done it, but it was just a job and so it didn't seem worth it to have a much lower standard of living.

As it is, I'm very happy at home with DS and now expecting DC2. We've decided that I will stay at home until our youngest is well settled into school, and then I will re-train and go back into the workplace.

Runmersgged: it's not quite the same. The sole earner £40k household is worse off because only one earner's personal tax allowance will be in use, and higher rate tax/NI would kick in.

But I agree that means tested child related benefits should be based on the total income of the household where the child resides.

CTC and WTC didn't exist in my day - I'd say count your blessings.

I don't want any money from the state. I just feel like somewhere along the line I have been had. I have lived the feminist ideal, educated myself and support myself rather than relying on a man. However because I earn too much to be considered poor but not enough to jump off the gravy train for a while and I fell in love with a man who earns less than me, I may only have one child.

We managed it first time with me stopping work for 5 years and running up debt we knew I could pay off. As my ovaries are screeching to a halt I suspect we will have to do the same again. But my husband would really like to be a SAHP, he prefers being at home and I prefer being at work. It just goes to show you really cannot have it all.

I think your household income has to be pretty low to get child care help; much lower than the working tax credit threshold.

I think that benefits should generally be there to help those who really need it - If you can manage on one wage then other income is a bonus or an opportunity to stay in touch with your career and this should not necessarily be funded by the state.
I have had to go back to work, initially part time, now full time much earlier than I would like as I bring home the larger wage.

I have been helped by working for a local authroity so I can 'salary sacrifice' to assist with child care costs, but at about £240 per month, this would be a drop in the ocean for full time child care costs.

For most who are contemplating returning to work, childcare does not have to cost the earth. Of course you can always choose a top-notch nursery or nanny, but there are plenty of really good childminders about who would cost less than a working wage - it really depends why you want/need to work and only you can decide if the additional income is enough.

no I completely get your argument.

I think this is about households where the net income does not sustain childcare costs full stop.

Possibly put another way the cut off point for help with childcare should be higher, so that women can stay in the workplace rather than reluctantly give up.

Unfortunately due to the inequality that still exists it is usually women who have to sacrifice their career/job/independence.

As I said I don't want money from the state. There is not much anyone can do, it is just frustrating. We have looked into childminders locally, because of where we live we would have to drive some distance and they are unwilling around here to start before 8:30 which is of little use.

To be honest we don't want to use childcare for the first year, but we will have to because the person in our family who is willing and able to provide the at home care is a man.

We will work round it, even if it means selling up and living somewhere smaller for a year. I know that many more people have bigger problems.

insert - I was looking at childminders. I would have needed 12 hours a day, 5 days a week to cover my commuting as well as working hours. Which at the prices childminders charge around here was the wrong side of £1000 a month just for the childcare before we even looked at anything else.

And I was earning just over the national average wage, and still couldn't make it pay.

Some households also have extra expenses, we support elderly relatives as well.

Hmmmm - isn't there always going to be a point where it doesn't add up (either because of actual wages or benefit threshholds). Does availability if benefits do anything other than move that "trap"?

Equally women who would rather stay at home don't get any subsidy. It really is about what's best financially and if it's better to stay at home then that's what you do. The state doesn't fund 'choices' it finances real need.

BTW I can't imagine an Au pair at £65 per week breaks anyone's bank, if they're working.

I don't want subsidy, I would just like it if my DH could share my maternity leave allowance. Just having the knowledge that he would have a job to return to would be enough for us.

I agree with Alibaba, it is an unfeminist argument to say that you shouldn't be splitting the costs of childcare between you and your partner. Why should society ignore the fact that your household income is adequate to live on and still dole out benefits just so you can work because you want to?

It is sad if you can't afford work if you want to but no system is going to be perfect. There are always going to be individuals who fall just outside the scope of benefits who are worse off as a result - it is tough but I don't see that there is any magic solution to this. It would be great if you had your freedom of choice to chose whether or not to work but it is costing the rest of society money which would be better off spent on improving the lot of those whos need for necessities is much greater. I don't see that as contributing to the economy really.

We don't have room for an aupair, we have had one in the past. You also don't get many language students wanting to live in the middle of nowhere.

My DH could care for our child much better than an aupair.

I am not sure how feminist it would be to pay someone £65 a week to look after children for the hours most working people need.

When we had an aupair she woke dd up at 8am and walked her to school. She then picked her up at 3:45 and watched her until 5:15 pm. That was about it really.

But then it comes down to sacrifice and balance doesn't it?

If you have to work because you need the money and childcare is too expensive you have to work around that
It may involve changing jobs to something closer, working part time, retraining, working evenings/weekends?

If it is to keep a hand on the career ladder then that is a choice and a hard pressed state can not be expected to fund it.

vespasian Sun 03-Oct-10 12:49:48
I don't want subsidy, I would just like it if my DH could share my maternity leave allowance. Just having the knowledge that he would have a job to return to would be enough for us.

I agree absolutely with this statement.

You can work at the weekend, or nights, or any other time that your DH is home.

I have worked full time by doing 16 hrs
Saturday 16 hrs Sunday and 8hrs night shift on a Wednesday.

Where there is a will there is a way.

Working part time and not needing childcare would help your household finances.

Whatever your career choice is, it is unlikely you would make less that you would pay for child care.

Look at it as a long term plan, you will be promoted earn more and childcare needs will reduce as they get older.