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!

No, but you're saying people should have more children to support an ageing population on the one hand, and on that other saying certain folks shouldn't have them, or have more, and others should.

That suggests the children of the benefits people aren't going to fulfill the role of future taxpayer, so shouldn't be born.

Expat, I said I didn't want to get into a benefits debate, you're deliberately seeing insult to people on benefits where none is intended and I don't think this will help the thread. So I won't engage any further here. I'd be happy to take the discussion elsewhere....

My point is, if there are systems in place for people on benefits to have children they can't afford to support, why are there not systems in place for people not on benefits to have more children than they can afford. Why are people supported by the state given a privilege that no-one else gets? That's all....

Let's imagine Lucy earns £50k and so, for ease, she pays £100k of tax in four years. The government could pay her either nothing to stay home and lose £125k for her first four years. Lucy then goes back to work but has to take a pay cut because she's not worked for five years and time's moved on, so instead of £25k tax per year, she's now paying £15k. Government lose another £10k oer annum until Lucy catches up!

Or Lucy takes maternity leave twice for six months each time over 5 years. At £50k per year salary her work is prepared to foot her maternity pay bill. So she continues to contribute tax at £25k per annum. The government love people like Lucy, the workers that keep working and so they give Lucy a 25% tax bracket which affords childcare for Lucy's child, another 5% for her next. (is 10k enough for good childcare?)

So Lucy working with a tax break costs the government £50k over five years, but over ten Lucy will not decrease earning potential. Alternatively Lucy costs the government, by not being able to work, £125k in the first five years and a further £50k from lower income tax....

So theoretically OP I now agree, although my maths may not be perfect and I also think this tax break could be shared!

Annie don't know what you're talking about.

You can BOTH get help with childcare costs in the form of vouchers (up to £243 each per month).

I have three children, two pre-schoolers. Somedays (not always) it costs me (us!!) £85 in childcare in order to bring home about £100.

But I do it in order to keep my sanity, keep my career rolling along (ish), and to keep my self-respect.

Try it. You might like it.

Nonno - vouchers are only £245 tax-free. So if you pay 20% tax, what you're actually saving is £49 per month. £98 is you both get vouchers. Not to be sneezed at, but not a huge help when your nursery costs £1170 per month.

Surely all this is an argument for high quality affordable childcare for all, which would benefit eveyone, and extend the choices open to many families.

God, could you be any more condescending, Nanno?

Or an argument for allowing parents to share their maternity leave allowance. I don't want money I just want job security for my DH. I am willing to downsize, wear rags etc to fund my second child.

Posie yes, exactly (give or take with the math, but yes!!! And other countries like Canada already do this).

Expat, I can see why Annie's post raised your concerns about stereotyping benefits but I also think there's a real issue here about the cost of children for some income levels that needs to be discussed and I don't want it to be missed because we start debating the worthiness of benefit claimants etc (whole other issue IMO).

I know quite a few families who only have one child because that was all they could afford. It is a real unfairness in the current set up and I'm surprised that there's not more bitterness about it honestly. Accidental pregnancy can happen and we shouldn't put strict caps on the benefit system for X kids only etc but we do need to address the unfairness that those benefits are paid for by the taxes of people who've had to limit their family size in order to afford to stay in their homes and not rely on benefits.

Nonno I've the same tax/childcare/profit ratio as you. That's worth it, but at my old job I was losing money every day. We couldn't actually use my husband's salary to subsidise my work. (And it's not sexist, just the reality of our respective incomes).

Vespasian it's ridiculous that your DH can't get your share of the maternity leave. Again, that's not the case in Canada where so many of our friends have split it.

Yes vespasian also I would be v happy with ability to split leave after children between parents in some way. Also somehow extend flexible working/part time etc so that it didn't stuff people's careers and it didn't get a when men try to do it. At the moment going part time is all too often career suicide.

Max flexibility in all this stuff extends choices - result = happier families.

in answer to your question - child poverty is not desirable. that's is why people on lower incomes get help with childcare, and increased CTC/WTC.

the costs of not helping people in that situation are higher - don't help people with their mortgage/rent - they wind up needing council housing. Don't help people to maitain their standard of living above the breadline - and they wind up not coping, needing social workers and costing even more.

But if vespasian should find herself pregnant, her family might have to go on to benefit to get by, as they would lose the income that pays their bills. Surely it's better for the state to pay out a couple of hundred a month in childcare than thousands of pounds to house and support that family?

Annie of course the state should assume that married partners will look after one another.

I think that there are times when the govt attempts to have it both ways with this eg taxing us as individuals but assessing benefits as a couple. I think the latter is right and the former wrong though.

Wanting the government to supplement the wages of the wives of the wealthy is ridiculous. There are people who cannot work having DLA taken off them and you want some public money so you can "afford" to work? It's not affording if someone else is paying.

Who do you think should lose out so you can have the world arranged exactly to suit you?

I have some sympathies with your situation but the way you talk about it makes you sound extremely self-centred.

skidoodly - good point about tax allowances.

Much better idea to allow a shared tax allowance - at least the personal allowance part. Then while the lower paid/SAH partner wasn't earning the working partner would pay less tax, which could be saved up to assist with childcare costs once the other partner returns to work.

The key to this for many people is getting more jobs to offer flexible/part time hours. If a couple could each work half time then each would get a career, make full use of their ta allowance and could share childcare. And of course for the minimum wage to be a living wage.

"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."

As skidoddly said, why wouldn't married people look after each other? The old fashioned view is that a family unit/household essentially operate as a co-operative, so if one person is caring for dependent children then the other person is being a breadwinner on their behalf, out of love and commitment (and because it's their child to support, normally). Both the person working and the person caring for the family are making a valuable, mutually helpful and caring contribution.

I think this is all well and good but the problems are lack of flexibility (for more gender-equal childcaring) and the loss of employment prospects after an extended break, these are killers and a radical rethink of business culture would be needed. Redressing the balance should not mean mums are forced to return to work FT after ML as if they didn't have a child, it should mean both parents get flexible working opportunities to work out their own balance. This exists in law but is very patchy in practice.

(BTW I got brassed off with being an SaHM too and went back to work, I do sympathise)

haven't time to read whole thread or reply right now, but this is a bugbear of mine so placemarking for later!

skidoodly, I'm not in that situation, so I don't think this is coming from a selfish point of view.

And it's not about the poor losing out so that 'the wealthy' can have a play at working.

I'm asking if it makes more financial sense for the state to help the lower-earning partner to stay in work, because anything they might lose in the short-term will be recouped in the long term through taxes on the higher income brought about due to no break in that person's career.

Childcare subsidy/tax credits, as it has been pointed out by others, is not the only solution. Shared paternal leave, more flexible hours, tax-deductible childcare are just a few great options that have been presented here.

What it all boils down to is that in our modern society famillies are split up all over the place and we HAVE to pay for childcare when once we could have just got our relatives to look after the children.

We have it MUCH tougher when trying to bring up kids. The only way to bring in money without paying for childcare is to work in the evenings or at weekends at least then the husband or wife will be able to look after the children.

Governant money is there to keep families out of poverty NOT to stop middle class mothers being bored.

If you are really unhappy then its perfectly reasonable to return to work even if you are at a financial loss for doing so for a short period of your life. Especially as your children will get nursery vouchers when they are three years old. Why is it OK for other tax payers to subsidise you working so you break even. Surely its more logical for your DH to subsidise you. Lets face it, you are rolling in money as a family.

Prehaps the biggest issues is how little you value yourself and you see looking after children as demeaning.