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!

Romanarama - the so-called Swedish model with all women in FT employment and all children cared for in fabulous state nurseries is no longer.

Swedish parents take very long parental leave these days and most women work in the lower-paid public sector. Indeed, my female friends in the private sector in Sweden say that this is an incredibly difficult feat to achieve as there is a dearth of domestic employees and nurseries are not open long enough to allow both parents to do long hours in private sector/high powered jobs.

snowmama, totally agree with the London weighting. £60K is pretty marginal in London.

I suppose I am looking at the change in financial exchange being part of an overhaul of childcare, which I think should be organised by the state. The system we have at the moment is a mess.

One of the things that concerns me about this 'big society' idea is that two areas currently run by volunteer committee are out of school clubs and pre-school playgroups. A lot of that childcare is very poor quality, and the paid staff are often treated poorly because the committees are inexperienced/rapid turnover of members.

I think we need to put in place decent quality childcare run by the state, so that we at least get the minimum standard that exists in state schools.

There must be answers to these problems; other countries have achieved decent quality childcare and mothers having real choices. We seem to have given up trying to resolve these problems.

MillyR - "other countries"... same old, same old. Other countries have not yet achieved a childcare model that is high-quality and affordable in the long-term.

I did not want my childcare organised for me by the state. I wanted to hire an unqualified nanny if she was the person I wanted to care for my baby. I objected strongly to the imposition of a curriculum on nurseries. The idea that every use of childcare comes with a compulsory attachment of earnings on parents is simply totalitarianism.

London and Birmingham are cities though so are bound to be expensive. Here £3 is the average but its a recession so you can definitely find cheaper. Everyone is desperate at the moment.

Alibaba - Most people pick the cheapest childcare as otherwise it would be too expensive. If you have to work then you have to find the cheapest.

MillyR - Out of school clubs by schools had 3 years funding here and then had to try and be self sufficient they couldnt do it and loads have closed. Council run nurseries had all the best facilities and high staff wages and most are now getting sold off for being too expensive. These are things that have been tried in recent years and they are now going back to what they were before.

Also just because people are on low wages doesnt mean the care is rubbish. 4 out of 8 staff members at my work are graduates but still get £6 an hour. They have their BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies. Most people who work in childcare do it as a love and a vocation and not too get high wages.

I fully understand how frustrating it must be for mothers who return to work only to see the whole of their family's second income (theirs) consumed by childcare costs in the early years.

But I am very unsure as to why the taxpayer should compensate families for this frustration.

It's frustrating to pay boring bills: food, electricity, transport etc. I'd much rather be spending the money on holidays and clothes! But such is life.

I agree totally with millyr page 9 04/10/10 09:14am

There is a distinct resistance on these pages to subsidise people in their childcare, especially as this does apply to women in particular.

However, if the marriage/relationship breaks down and the woman is unable to live on the paltry CSA arrangements and has to move house, it's perfectly acceptable, it seems, for that woman to claim benefits i.e. tax payers money.

I'd rather subsidise the brief years between birth and school giving the woman monetary automony and a chance to keep her hard earned for career, rather than have her give up due to economic hardship and having no skills if the marriage/relationship breaks down.

Hmmm... don't think breaking even is a problem. That is indeed just life. People who say that they will not return to work because they only make a 'profit' of £10/50/100 get fairly short shrift from me, because it is a temporary situation and the money will return back into the family budget when children go to school.

However, if returning to work means that a families total income incurs a deficit of about £1k per month - actually something is not quite right. This is a very common scenario in London.

Not sure that subsidising childcare via taxpayers or paying childcarers less (definately not) are the answers - but structurally someting is not working. Perhaps as discussed by others - more flexible working by both parents etc, start to address some of the issues.

the fact is the govt/taxpayers are losing a lot of bright middle class women out of the workforce.
these women have been funded through school and university.
these women have married men who now have good salaries.

these women have been unable to get back on the career path after having children as, as a family unit, the finances do not stack up. no tax credits or support with childcare costs. At one point i was paying £2k/month to nursery for two children, yes i know it was temporary, but to earn a salary where you can cover that cost plus the other costs of working you can't be in a low-stress job with no travel etc. So then you have two parents in high powered stressful jobs, not feasible imo.

so what's the answer? well the wife stops working completely. it doesn't make sense.

Actually, yes, this thread is making me much more amenable to the ideat that there is taxpayer support to enable women to keep working!

Sadly, in this day and age, I fear it is highly unlikely - even if there are long term economic benefits to be had. Which I guess begs the next question - what other innovative ideas are there to get around this problem ? (which is also a problem where higher earner is the wife, and single mamas...)

Snowmama,

Try working for two years only getting £10 per month as a return and eventually the incentive to work will wear off.

No man would do this. I don't see why a woman should accept it either. Joint accounts are all very well but relationships do break down and the woman is the one who will loose out. Go into the benefits system? Your credit history will become tarnished. Get new skills? You're in a market that is overcrowded and in favour of a much younger person.

Childcare subsisdy is much more preferable than a new family down the line that finds it acceptable to depend on benefits.

Another approach is to teach young men that childcare is their responsibility too. They should be automatically wired to do this as it can become a stress factor in relationships.

but it is the woman who is pregnant and then has maternity leave/career breaks.
when i went on maternity leave with DD1 dh and I earned the same
within 5 years and 2 pregnancies/maternity leaves, his income had doubled.
yes i know we are v lucky but it meant that there was absolutely no point me returning to work.
and of course due to the tax system it is not like we have the same money as before when both working on half his current salary.

craziness.
leaves me dependent on him, or on benefits if something happens. but i have two small DDs and a husband who works crazy hours & travels. I can't do that aswell without a total breakdown for us all. so i stay at home and tidy up.

Also, now if he earns more than 44,000 you will no longer receive child benefit.

CelticFairy.

I worked the first two years as a mother at a £300 loss, then £50 - now I just break even. I am speaking from frome experience - not theoretically. I am also taking these figures as total family income (intially for me as two parent income now a single parent income)...

i know. i am ok about the CB tbh, it is a nice to have for us.
i would much prefer childcare to be tax free.

I agree. I think if you earn less than 44,000 if you're putting your child into childcare to return to work you should receive a tax break.

Don't you already get tax credits if you earn less that £44K ?

than - sorry cannot type today.

i don't know. our h'hold income is over £44k so CB is the only thing we get.

I don't know much about tax credits either, other than it's a complicated issue based on total household income.

I would also add that given university fees are due to double to around 7.5K, I'd wager that a lot of strapped for cash households will put their sons through the university system but will think twice about the girls. After all, they'll get married, have children and loose their hard worked for and now expensive skills...

Although this would be outrageous and disgraceful, it's a real possibility.

You know what, CelticFairy, I think you are right.

I have already come accros a colleague at work who cannot send both his kids to private school - so has chosen to send his son. I don't think private school is always the best option - but shows intention and priorities very, very clearly.

It is heartbreaking to think about. It is a real and distinct possibility.

Thought i'd add an international perspective if that's of interest.
Here in Norway parents get almost 12 months fully paid parental leave after each birth. 10 weeks is reserved for each of the parents, the rest can be split between the couple as they see fit (in most cases the mother takes the majority of the leave, but dad must take at least 10 weeks or the couple looses out on those weeks of leave)
State subsidised nursery places (40 hrs per week) are available from the babies are 9 months. At 20 months at the latest the baby has the right to a nursery place, the local authority must organise this. The cost is 300 pounds per month.
Nobody is paid less that 25000 a year for a full time job. Therefore it will always make financial sense for both parents to work, and almost all women go back to work around the time the child is 1-2years old, although often part time.
Why do we have this system? Partly because we can, it's a rich country. Also we believe it is a good thing to enable women to work. but I also think that this must make long term financial sense for the country, it's not just something we do out of the goodness of our hearts;)

The way I see it, the issue the op describes is the result of a) a lot of jobs in the UK does not pay a living wage b) lack of state subsidised nurseries and flexible parental leave. I would not consider solving those issues to be the same as paying parents "benefits"
But I do realise that your view on this will depend on your political views.