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!

sounds great Maje
but what is the tax rate in Norway?

Norway has lots of lovely oil money that other European countries don't

I forgot to say that childcare costs are also tax deductible.

of course celticfairy, that is happening already. i know quite a few families with sons in private school and girls in state. then again the local girls' state school is good. but still...

my university education has been pretty much wasted. i worked for 10 years post uni, but since having DDs not much. glad my parents didn't have to pay for it, they funded me through it (living costs) but tuition fees were still free then.

amidaiwish - do you not think that your education makes you a better mother and partner than if you had not gone to university?

I will dare to poke my head back in to say something to those of you who are still shouting that I want to take benefits money away from people who need it and giving it to 'wealthy' women (which, if you mean that to apply to me is just laughable).

What I am talking about is not taking taxpayers' money away; it's about women, as taxpayes themselves, simply paying less, or ideally no tax, to the point where they are not making a loss by working.

If a women was to work, pay her full tax allowance, and then childcare, and end up with less than she earned, the state is making money from her working, but she isn't making a penny. So how is that fair?

I'm suggesting that she should pay the state less, not that the state should necessarily pay her. So please explain how that takes anything away from 'those who really need it'?

And in the long run, the state gets more money back in the long run and a stronger economy. No-one loses out here, that I can see.

And yet again, to posters who are shouting that childcare is a join expense, well, yes, it is. If you pay 50%, and your husband pays 50%, or even if he pays 100%, or you both pay 100% out of your joint account, if childcare for 2 pre-schoolers costs you £2300 a month (which it would around here) and either one of you make £1800 after tax, your household is £500 worse off, simple because you are working. Can any average family afford that? We couldn't. So obviously that lower-paid parent, usually the women, stays home.

As other posters have said though, it's even worse when the man is the lower earner, as it's harder for men to take a break from their careers to be a SAHD.

The systems needs overhauling, whether is be by couple paying less tax when they pre-schoolers (which may or may not need paying back later), or by childcare being tax-deducible, or any number of other solutions, something should be done.

yes Bonsoir i do, i nearly said that but thought it sounded a bit smug.

but still, economically, the country isn't getting value for money.

Annie - I am fine with the concept of tax breaks for all parents of very young children, though not just for couples where both parents work.

It doesn't matter how you work it, all DCs cost parents a lot of money when they are very small and need 24/7 care (be that by a SAHP or an external carer).

I pay 30 percent on an income of 35 000 pounds. Would pay less if I had a mortgage and/or children. how does that compare to the UK?

It is very true about the oil money. but the UK also have large oil fields in the north sea, don't you? But I suppose since your population is so much higher the oil doesn't have such a big impact on the economy?

amidaiwish - it's not smug to think that your education makes you a higher performing parent and partner!

Lots of SAHPs make huge contributions to society without shouting about it. Seemingly small things, like being a class rep and ensuring that you answer all the questions parents have about school, takes a huge burden off teachers so that they can concentrate on the DCs. That's the kind of hard-to-quantify task that educated and hard working SAHPs do that are highly valuable to society at large (not just their own families).

Am I missing something, but don't Childcare Vouchers effectively make childcare tax deductible?

well not many small companies offer childcare vouchers
even if they do it is £243/month towards childcare costs. I was paying £2k/month.

and thanks Bonsoir

I agree Bonsoir. Excellent points. These details are often overlooked but if this support system was withdrawn society would know about it.

sprogger, bonsoir didn't say that ONLY university educated SAHPs volunteer

sprogger - what transferable skills did your university education (or any other part of your education) teach you?

Childcare vouchers make £245 of your childcare tax-deductible. So if you pay the 20% rate, you make a saving of £49 a month, £98 if you both get them. Which is lovely, but doesn't help that much when only one child costs you £1170.

I'm very worried by the number of people who think they're actually saving the whole £245.

I have both undergraduate and graduate degrees and I directly apply skills I learned at both undergraduate and graduate level to both being a parent, a partner and managing my household.

I learned a lot of parenting from my mother (who is a devoted mother, as were her parents before her). But there are many skills she did not have that I do. Ditto for my sister. And those skills derive from our education - and also experience of the corporate world, in which, of course, I would not have worked without the education.

If you are using the parenting skills that your parents imparted with no updates (are you really sure that you are doing this?), you should think again!

In France the data shows that the single greatest predictor of successful academic outcomes for children is the level of education of the mother.

I would have thought that was connected to poverty more than anything else though SaF