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!

Unless there is 100% state-provided childcare for all children aged 1 month and over, included all disabled children, then there are always going to be some people who cannot afford to work because of the childcare costs that working incurs.

I am in the same position as the OP.

I totally agree that the state should not have to give us tax credits as DH earns too much . . . but . . . but . . . I loved my job and I was good at it, and if I go back to it then it's as if it is a little hobby of mine that costs us money, and has to be indulged by my DH, rather than my contributing to society.

There's no answer. I am lucky to have such a "problem."

Gaah I am bored though .

Yes it does come down to sacrifice and balance which is why the first time I took 5 years out and also explains why my career, pension etc took a big hit. It is also why my DH chose a job that has relatively low pay and works hours around our child - because we see the importance of sacrifice and balance. However in doing so it means that it makes life difficult to make a further leap into having another child.

My DH does not want maternity pay. He recognises that he is lucky to have a job, where we live that allows him to give our existing child so much time. If he was to leave that job to look after a baby we woudl lose our long term work life balance.

I am probably sounding selfish as we have it easier than many. However if I, as the woman, had chosen the low paid, less hours route, it would be easier for us now. I could take up to a year out of work, it would not hit us as hard financially and I would have a job to return to.

As I said before as well we also have an extended family to support.

It would also suit the state if I remained in work and my DH stayed at home, I am the higher rate tax payer.

Again, to those who say it's un-feminist to say the childcare costs are your sole responsibility, you're missing the point. If the salary of either partner is lower than the childcare costs, the family is worse off as a result of that person working. This remains true even if all the childcare is technically paid out of the other partner's salary.

Unfortunately the one with the lower salary, and therefore the partner who must stay home, is the woman. Though increasingly it's the man, and as vespasian has pointed out, that can make it even more difficult.

I'm arguing this more as an intellectual exercise because I don't for a minute think it will ever be reality.

Assuming the State wasn't completely broke and the benefits system in a state of chaos.... would it make more financial sense for society as a whole to keep people in the workplace by topping up their childcare, to the point of them breaking even?

Annie yes, I agree it's a sexist system because it penalizes some women's careers. We need to recognize that and admit it, even if we can't afford to change it. Although tax relief rather than tax credits could be a financially affordable system (if all of childcare was tax deducible it would reduce the costs without the state having to pay for it).

If you argue that the jobs these mothers have will go to unemployed men or childless women then it is social engineering to encourage middle class women to stay home.

And the system is unfair as it is now that a family with two adults on £40K a year pay less tax than one adult on £80K if they don't have childcare costs (older kids, no kids etc).

Everyone who's said the state can't afford it has a valid concern but we need to admit that women are making a long term financial sacrifice by staying home. When I was a SAHM for the exact reasons as Annie, I was incredibly worried about our long term finances as a single earner household with a self-employed husband and I've retrained to get a job that covers the cost of a nanny (and I've been very lucky that my background has allowed me to do that).

(posie to get an aupair you need a spare room. Many of us who fall into this tax bracket trap have small houses.)

If your household income (ie DH's salary) is too high for you to receive any tax credit/childcare help etc then it must be over £60k- meaning each of you have way in excess of the average salary, and I find it difficult to feel too much sympathy for your situation.

You could work part time at times when your DH is home, though obviously I do not know the hours he works, and depending whether you are rural/urban there may not be the opportunities there.

I am assuming you realised before TTC the DC2 time round that you knew how much childcare was going to be?

Working parttime might work out better- I found that working 4 days/5 gave me almost exactly the same income as full time, due to paying less in NI and Tax. Time to get the calcuator out... if you did 2 days, and some evenings/WAHM in eve it could well be worth your while financially. It sounds like you really want to work mentally/emotionally.

annapolly - if your career doesn't allow shift or weekend work, while it might be nice to get another job and earn money, your career would still be eroding while you were doing that other work outside your career.

Your taxes contribute to society.

Why in the age of equality(?) should it be the woman who gives up everything she worked for - why can this not be split?

Why cannot men be expected to work part time too and not be penalised for it? This would be much better for women and men in that women would not be overlooked for working part time as this is normal.

Men would see it as normal to have a major part in the child rearing process.

Everyone would have a better work life balance.

And yes Annapolly work nights - but bear in mind that any night workers health suffers as a result and that life expectancy is shortened by 10 years so if it is the woman forced to work nights for childcare how is that equal?

I think in some cases it is easy to talk about shared wage and coping with paying out for childcare that costs more than you earn.

I can remember returning to teaching part time and being worse off by the time I had paid for childcare, travel to work etc. But it was easy for me to swallow that as I knew I would quickly be promoted. I also loved my job. However if you have a job you hate, there is no chance of your wae increasing and no pension to sustain I can see how it becomes less attractive.

My DH and I are in the tax bracket trap!! Well he is.

Theoretically you need to work out tax contributions long term, taking into account career progression against what the government would have to pay you. Perhaps a pay as you go system? So you get a sort of loan via tax credits which comes out of household income when both return to work or child is two? Perhaps a working parents tax/credit. Meaning if you return you get significant tax breaks for four years or something but you then pay more tax when child is at school???

Jumbled ideas...sorry.

I don't earn 60K, although I do earn very good wage. I am not asking for money from the state. We also are not TTC at the moment as we can't make another child work financially. As I said we also have to support extended family, a wage that allows one family to live like Kings allows another to get by.

We are in the situation where my DH earns less than our childcare costs. He continues to work because he wants to, its relatively short term and he wouldnt want to be a SAHD.

However I feel people are much more accepting of this and never question why he goes to work than they would be if I was the one still working and bringing home less than the childcare costs.

when you say that childcare costs are not a household expense, you are making yourself solely responsible for the children. it is a household expense and saying otherwise just devalues women

Those are some very good ideas, Posie!

See, those are solutions I'd be very happy with, because as I said, I'm not looking for a handout solution, but a solution where families and the State work together to keep people in the workplace. When you said I had a sense of entitlement, you had it wrong.

Besides which, DD1 is at school now, and I'm back at work, so I'm OK. But just because I'm out of the situation doesn't mean I'm going to forget about it, and not feel for those who are still trapped there.

Exactly, Riven. Some families might be able to absorb the loss for a while. But lots couldn't.

I have worked after having children.
For along time I was working for a loss. By the time I had taken Child care into account at £350 for two children, transport to and from work as well as all the not so noticible expenses eg appropiate clothes that I wouldn't wear in my downtime or anywhere else apart from the work place I was hugely out of pocket.
I kept working for a couple of reasons. The main one being that I didn't have a break in service.
The second one is that I loved the job I was doing at the time

The third reason was the I was continoulsy paying into my superannuation fund.

And finally we knew the hard circumstances wouldn't last forever.

Back then my DH business was struggling before it finally collapsed and there wasn't WTC. It never of occured to us to see if we could be entitittled to any benefits tbh.

The costs of child care was never my responsibility or Dh's. All our money gets thrown together and spent together. Whether that is a good feminist thing or not I do not give a toss. It has worked for us for over 20 years.

Vespasian I know where you are coming from.

I would love another child.

We can't afford it. My dh is self employed too and earns half of my full-time salary. Our ds has just started Reception and I went back to work full time last year (returned to work part time when dd was 4 months old) as money was so tight, we really had no choice. We had (and still have) a complicated mix of childminder, a bit of family help one day a week and flexability in my hours.

I can not contemplate another child, it would be financial suicide.

I think that most well educated women undertand that the state is expecting them to sacrifice their careers for their family, but also understand that once their children are older, they have a good chance of securing employment.

I take responsiblity for my own situation though - we took on mortgage that was too large to think that dh would ever be able to make payments on his own. I am sad that I never had the opportunity to stay at home with my children.

Insertexpletive.
Have you thought about downsizing if you want another child so badly, or moving to anothe area where you could have the same size house but for less money.

It seems awful to give up the dream of a baby for bricks and mortar.

upahill we really are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

We moved six years ago to be close to my current work - I have a great, well paid job that gives me the flexability to do morning school run, can get home if children are sick etc.
I am lucky, I know I am.

DH should just not be self employed! He is not motivated enough to really be able to make his own business work. He works hard, but never quite hard enough iyswim - I think we would struggle to down size enough for me to be sure that we could manage on his (not guaranteed) salary.
But that is probably a whole new thread - finances worry me sick, they always have - dh has his head in the sand with his frustrating 'all will be ok' attitude.

Here's a slightly more controversial idea.... children are future taxpayers, and we do need to have more children to support our ageing population.

So why does it seem fair to everyone that hard-working taxpayers who can't afford to have more than one child, shouldn't get any help to have more? And yet people who are on full-time benefits with no intention of ever working, get increased benefits every time they have another child?

Surely the money would be better spent allowing people who will actually contribute to the economy to have more children?

Personally I think the answer is to actively discourage those on benefits not to have more children, so more money is available elsewhere.

I don't want to turn this into a benefits debate, just wanted to throw in the angle that people who don't contribute to the economy 'get paid' to have more children, in that they will never be worse off by having another. So why shouldn't that principle be more universally applied?

'Here's a slightly more controversial idea.... children are future taxpayers, and we do need to have more children to support our ageing population.

So why does it seem fair to everyone that hard-working taxpayers who can't afford to have more than one child, shouldn't get any help to have more? And yet people who are on full-time benefits with no intention of ever working, get increased benefits every time they have another child?

Surely the money would be better spent allowing people who will actually contribute to the economy to have more children?'

The underlying presumption is that children of people on benefits will never work or be taxpayers.

Sigh, expat I didn't say that. I thought it was obvious that I'm only talking about those on benefits who continue, on purpose, to have children that they can't afford to support.