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!

Yes but stealthpolarbear - I have to wait until my child is in school as I cant afford the £20 a week I would have to pay to supplement the other child going to childcare. I cant stop work as I have a very low household income but cant apply for HB. Therefore I have to wait 4 and a half years between children.

There is no point in me moaning about it though as I cant afford it so I cant do it. Simple as that.

oh yes I agree
But either children are a good thing and people are funded to have them, or they're not
Is what i think the OP is saying

'You have no money so how do you leave your partner?'

Milly if you leave you get a place to live and benefits surely?

I do not understand why people seem to understand the concept of household income when it comes to paying the mortgage, but not when it comes to paying childcare, which is still thought of us a purely a woman's expense. You buy a house, you pay a mortgage, you have children and work, and you don't have family to hand, you have to pay for childcare. It is an entirely predictable expense.

some of us can't afford childcare taking into account partners wage plus our own.

there's a dilemma for you, op. BTW YABU. Of course your dh should contribute to childcare costs if they are his children.

stealthpolarbear - If I didnt work we would be on benefits and I think its morally wrong for me to stay at home and claim benefits when I am physically able to work. I enjoy my job but there are times when I would like to have to do less hours or have another child.

I am only funded to have them in the sense that I get tax credits that just cover my childcare. If I didnt get that then I would be able to stay at home claim hb, tax credits to stay at home and income support. That is why the government pays the childcare bills for the poor.

MillyR, sorry, but what a strange post. you assume most of us live in a crap, controlling relationship where we can't afford to leave our dh's. what tosh. how you expect the government to legislate for every single eventuality is just plain daft to me.

I haven't read all of this, but I think the govt in the UK is short-sighted in not funding childcare. If you fund childcare for pre-schoolers, the participation of women in the workforce is much higher, so you take more tax, and it more than pays for itself. That's the Swedish experience. It would make economic sense for the State, it's not about handouts to spoiled people. Women participate in the workforce at a very low rate in the UK.

I live in Belgium. State schools here offer free wrap around childcare from 7.15am to 18.30pm. There are full-time holiday playcentres and sports camps in every week of every school holiday, all over the place. They also offer the wrap around childcare, and the cost of the activities is tax deductible.

From this forum I have the impression that childcare in the UK is prohibitively expensive and that there is complacency about seeking a more imaginative approach.

Sunny, you would be placed in temporary accommodation. So in that sense you would get a place to live, but a person living in temporary accommodation is legally still homeless.

SSH, I'm not saying that all women do experience that, but abusive relationships are very common, and the government does have a responsibility to the children of those relationships.

Not here you wouldnt here you get HB on any private property. People all around me are living on HB as single mums and most houses on my street are £140k+. Everyone here on benefits has a better standard of living than most minimum wagers. We live by the sea and I have friends in sea view apartments all on HB and are single mums. That is why so many people pretend they dont have boyfriends as it doesnt pay to be in a reltionship if you are in a low wage area.

Sunny, in order to move into a property you need a deposit and rent in advance. In many parts of the country there are not enough houses available for rent to HB tenants. Many women and their children end up living in temporary accommodation for the homeless.

If you look at the women's aid website info on how to leave an abusive relationship, one of the main pieces of advice is to get a job, as it makes it so much easier to leave.

MillyR - you can't blow a huge hole in the budget to legislate for the type of cases you are talking about. Provision for women leaving abusive relationships should be better, there is no question about that, but funding childcare for women who have a high household income is not the answer.

sunny2010 - I don't live in London and childcare here is £50 a day. That is over £1000 a month just for childcare - and that's after tax. There are an awful lot of people who don't have that earning power.

Here they have to give you the deposit and rent in advance as most people in the town are on HB or at least a top up of HB whether in a couple or not.

It all depends on the area and in my town there isnt much point in having a job really. I dont blame anyone though its the system not them. I have many times been tempted not to bother as we would be living in a more decent property if I gave up work. Most houses and flats here are rented unless people are very rich and moved here from London or living in somewhere small or bad area.

alibaba - cant you get a really cheap childminder? Some will take ever so cheap and it will only be £2.50 an hour? Its worth thinking about if its too expensive.

Ali - I'm not suggesting the government deals with it by paying for all of the childcare. They could change the mechanism by which childcare is paid. If it was taken out of parents' salaries that would establish the idea that it is a joint expense, and not the mother's sole responsibility.

I think the idea of the government treating our money as their money by treating discretionary spending as taxation is frankly terrifying! What next? Our Sainsbury's bills taken out of our bank account by the government? Madness!

CCF, this is already done for many fathers who pay child maintenance payments. Why is it so different?

It is totally different. Deductions only happen by court order when SEPARATED fathers have refused to pay money that has been demanded from them by the CSA. It would be a totalitarian precedent if the state started interfering in couple's discretionary spending. It's insane to suggest it.

sunny - it is a moot point for us, as I don't need to work financially and I'm very happy to have these years at home looking after my children while they are small.

But the cheapest childminder I could find when I did look, was £4 an hour and she didn't seem that great. Everyone who I would have been happy to leave DS with charged £5/6 an hour.

Really don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of finding the cheapest possible childcare, it would feel unfair to DS.
As I say, it isn't an issue for me personally, but I'm sure there are people who live locally who really struggle with the high costs of childcare here.

CCF I agree. The state should have nothing to do with a private transaction between parents and a service they are buying.

I have had preschool childcare in both London and Birmingham - and have never come accros a £2.50 ph childminder- and would be pretty worried if I did!.

I am not sure that I fully agree with Annie, but think a lot you have been very, very unfair on her.

Taking the threshold salary as an example, £60K in London/SE vs £60K salary further north are completely different propositions and lifestyles. So perhaps simply the Tax credit threshold should be applied differently - depending on the cost of living of areas ?? And it is not easy to move, if the work is in London. If you have to commute back to London, the cost of the daily commute can blow out any savings made.

I suspect the main issue is that whatever the threshold - there will always be those just on the borderline of it - for whom choices around childcare/work/staying at home are going to be pretty difficult...

in 'a couple's' is what I meant to type.
My mind is boggling at the suggestion that the minute you put your child with a childminder you have to by law inform a special government department, tell them how much you are paying, and that dept then informs another dept who then deducts 50per cent of that amount at source from the father's earnings and presumably does the same with your earnings. If you decided to drop or increase hours or move from childminder to nursery, say, you do the same all over again. Can you imagine how expensive that would be, quite apart from how totalitarian it would be, and how many families would hate it.