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!

Earlier posters said that they had taken a temporary knock to lifestyle/family income in order to keep their careers on track. Which is something I would happily have done if it had been possible. But as it is we just about break even paying one set of nursery fees. With two. we would have been out of pocket by about £1000 pounds. Which is knock we couldn't have afforded no matter how much we downsized.

Look, enough about me, please! I'm trying to talk about lower-paid partners in general.

While it's lovely that you're all so fascinated about every aspect of my life all of a sudden, I think it's all slightly beside the point.

Yes, I opened with the idea of the taxpayer helping to fund it, in the theory that in the long term the state would be repaid for the 'loan'.

But other posters have come up with even better ideas.

If I really has the solutions to these problems I'd be in politics. It was just my opinion, an idea I was throwing out there. I'm very open to people solving the issue in better ways.

I don't think it is beseide the point.

Some people buy expensive houses right at the top of their budget.

Some people will only consider a fabulous nursery right at the highest end of their budget.

Some people are not prepared to take home £100 a month for 2-3 years to keep their career going and reap more financial reward later on.

No I wouldn't, and I was suggesting top-ups to the tune of a couple of hundred pounds, not thousands of pounds to support a whole family.

I'd be happy to help subsidise his childcare while he retrained though.

Anyway, I'm just getting too annoyed by this, it's all got too personal, I was trying to come up with ways to help keep women employed and I'm being attacked for it. I don't think it's called for, you may think differently.

Please continue to talk amongst yourselves.

so why couldn't you see it as your dh 'subsidising' the childcare (in your family) while you carried on working?

your plan would mean taxes would be sky high and I'm sure even more people would struggle to make ends meet as virtually everybody would qualify for hundreds of pounds - would cost a fortune. It would simply be unworkable.

I still don't get how you didn't forsee this problem though (re childcare).

fwiw, 1 child at nursery is almost the same as a full time nanny I found and then you can have as many looked after as you like without increasing the costs dramatically.

It is outrageously expensive to have full time childcare and work. But as much as it saddens me to watch so much of my hard earned dosh go to Mr HMRC, I still maintain that benefits are for the most needy!

If you want to encourage people to work, encourage the work place nurseries, flexible working hours, part time work (to fit around what childcare people can arrange)....all help lower paid earners back into the workplace.

I guess that if family childcare costs more than one of the parents earns then the balance of market forces regards the care of children to be of higher financial value than the job undertaken. Not too much of a surprising thing, bringing up children is hard and important work.

House: Well quite frankly they shouldn't have bought a house they couldn't afford if they can't still afford it when they have children

does everyone who has children start with the assumption that they will inevitably have children, cos i know i didn't

my house purchase predates the kids by a good few years

rents for a property to house 4 people in this area (non ha or council) easily work out to our monthly mortgage payment

i'm not sure what a person should do - should i frankly have jacked in my job, my husband his, and moved to albania where property is cheaper when the test showed positive?

fwiw i don't agree with the premise of the op either but some of the responses are bonkers

albania it is! it will be a bit of a commute to buckinghamshire but hey, what we save on housing costs...

are you seriously suggesting that we would stand any chance of a council house at all? are we likely as working people in a profession to get to the top of a waiting list within our lifetime?

as to relocating are you suggesting that, once pregnant i should have jacked in my job, left everything i knew to move to some cheaper part of the country in the hopes that i find another job and cheaper housing?

your solutions are worse than what they attempt to solve

i eagerly await your next suggestion- perhaps we should have just lived under a railway bridge lol

lollolol to a 3/4 bedroom house

we have a 2 bed terrace

at any rate we are affording the mortgage fine and do not need to downsize

i was taking issue with your statement of don't buy what you can't afford if you can't afford it with kids

it presumes that you know you will have kids

plenty don't

you might as well say don't buy a house you can't afford if can't afford it after you get in an accident and then have to get by on a disability pension

or do you live in a world where everyone is walking around cushioned by thousands of pounds in 'just in case' money

Decent childcare is very expensive - whether that thildcare is a SAHP (ie one parent foregoing a salary), a nanny, a decent nursery or childminder.

You can reduce the cost of childcare by reducing its quality and/or by making it tax deductible. Both have obvious major drawbacks.

It is not easy to find a satisfactory solution.

i am v lucky in that i earn enough that while paying for childcare is expensive, it is more expensive for me not to work

in terms of progression, pension contributions etc

we can afford to take the hit for a few years till both are in school

we could get probably get some form of tax credits but i have heard so many horror stories that i would just rather get by without

what i mean is i can afford (financially) to take a long term view - i have no doubt that there are plenty of women who don't have this luxury

Best thing is never to work, marry someone rich and relax!!

I think the OP is talking about some people who are low paid and can't afford good childcare but can't really afford to give up work. But I think people who are genuinely, ie no spare room/second car people, unable to afford childcare and do miss out on significant promotions and payrises. Say a manager of B&Q on £30k.

I work 35 - 30 hours a week and my husband 45 and between us we take home £1500 a month with no other benefits except tax credits that just covers childcare. That is why we get tax credits for childcare.

I definitely do not think people should get it if there household income is above the threshold. Loads of people in my income bracket dont want to work but dont have a choice as you have to. Its just the way it is.

I think there's a difference between not wanting to work and having to (which is the default situation - we have to earn our way somehow in this life) and wanting to work but not being able to. Not working is a luxury few can afford. Not being able to afford to work is an insane situation, no matter how you find yourself in it.

It's a big assumption that everyone who doesn't qualify for WTC is living in the lap of luxury and could afford to lose out on a few hundred pounds a month with nothing more than a slight lifestyle downgrade.

It's also a bit insane to suggest relocating, since that would mean moving away from the job you're trying to keep!

Perhaps the real issue is planning. We should all plan for having children, plan for a drop in income(as much as we can), plan where we live, how we live far in advance of children. Of course we don't do this as a generation, but now that credit is more difficult to come by perhaps times are a changing. IE don't live beyond your means before you have children, but saving for a rainy day all of the time. Don't get used to spending all that we earn. There are people that do this....just not me!! The time may come where houses become affordable.

[looks for pigs flying]