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!

I'm disappointed to come back to this thread and find Annie being attacked.
Many of us pointed out earlier the unfairness of the current situation while acknowledging that there isn't an infinite pot of money. fox most of my income goes to HMRC too, that's fine, it's an investment in my career. I'm lucky though that I make more than my nanny costs (which is a lot more than one kid in nursery around here).

sunny some women don't have a choice to work and would like to. It's the same thing, unfair both ways.

And it's not just people who might be managers at B&Q which you could presumably work back up to in a few years, I personally have a PhD and didn't make enough as a senior government scientist. That was a huge waste of my (government funded) education. Fortunately I was able to retrain, many of my colleagues in different fields aren't as flexible in their backgrounds.

As for the idea that the job that I left could be instantly filled with someone else - in my case, I was specialized enough that this wasn't the case although I've heard now (over a year later) that they've finally hired a new grad. Who's female. Who will (if she's lucky) end up in the same spot as me and might end up needing to quit to take care of her children. That's a great stride forward for feminism isn't it?

And before everyone acts like this will break the bank, many other countries manage it. Canada allows the entire cost of childcare to be tax deductible. German law holds a mother's job for her until her child is three (and gives another three years if she has another baby during that time). Scandanavian countries have a host of family friendly policies. Strangely enough they all seem to manage. Of course there's not money at the moment, but we should be discussing this for future policies.

Annie does seem to be getting a pasting on here. I suspect I earn more than her but was saying that we are still not in a position to have a second child.

Sunny if you are doing 35 hrs and your DH is doing 40 and you are earning £1,500 a month surely that is less than the minimum wage

35+ 45 = 80x4 weeks =320hrs a month 1,500 /320 =£4.68an hour

Annie, sorry had to post and run earlier and didn't quite make the point I wanted.

The reason I disagree so vehemently with you about this, and the reason I think you get so little support on these threads of yours is your focus on the low-earning partner.

I'm with you all the way on flexible working, shared maternity/paternity leave, subsidised (or free, if it could be afforded) nurseries, or any number of things that should be tried to ease the childcare burden on working families. I don't at all think that middle class families live cosseted easy lives. I support policies that give more choices to the parents in how they rear their children in the early years.

Lots of the things you point out as being unfair are indeed unfair. It's shit that women so often seem "conveniently" to be the lower earner, it's shit how so many if our careers take a hammering because of having children.

Here's another thing that's shit that goes to the heart of why your position on this annoys me so much - it's shit that so many men are forced into the position of being the primary earner when their wife's career goes up in flames, Dads who barely see their children from one end if the week to the other because now their job is so important to keeping house and home together.

Subsidising the low-earner out of a couple doesn't address any of the cultural and organisational issues that have got us where they are.

Your solution would make it possible fir a millionaire to make sure that his wife could pursue her hobby job without it costing him a penny.

It pretends that an individual earning buttons in an interesting but low-paid job, with a wealthy high-salaried spouse is badly off financially.

It accepts that childcare is the responsibility of the lower paid member of the family.

It doesn't seek to help a family, just one member.

It is so simple-minded I can't believe anyone with your obvious intelligence can't see how limited it is and how open it is to pernicious unintended consequences.

skidoodly, there are some fair points in there. I've obviously been approaching this from the point of view of my own experience.

There are of course other situations where people can't afford to work, like those who are better off on benefits, or carers, as Riven has pointed out.

But surely whichever solution works for one situation would work for them all.

And why shouldn't the millionaire's wife have the right to a meaningful career of her own, even if her husband's earnings make it seem to be a hobby. How meneaning for her if she has to be allowed to work because he's willing to sacrifice some of his fortune so his little wife can play at working.

But what if he holds the purse strings and don't allow her to work, refuses to contribute to child care? What options does she have then?

Another thought. Two women have babies, one would like to go back to work, one wouldn't.
If they both stay at home, the govt gets nothing out of either of them, full stop. Benefits to others are in no way affected.

If one does go back to work, and gets a tax break which helps to cover her childcare, even if that tax break is to the point that the govt gets nothing from her tax-wise for a couple of years, what have they lost? Nothing, because if she stayed home they'd get no tax anyway. Cost to those on benefits - nothing. And in the longer term, she's contributing to the economy just by being in the workplace and causing business to be done, and will pay more tax due to higher earning in the long term.

How has anyone lost out here?

The same would apply to single parents, those on benefits (even more to be gained here) and carers.

Annie, I have never understood your frustrtion with the fact that small children need to be looked after and that, in the absence of a parent at home or someone who is willing to do it for nothing, care has to be paid for.

The millionaire's wife gets government subsidy to work rather than her husband sacrificing his fortune? Is that a joke?

Households and families are a unit.

The point about tax, neatly made elsewhere, is that the government still gets the tax, the same jobs are filled but filled by other people. The woman staying at home saves the government money, like the carer, because they don't have to subsidise the childcare....which can happen through work can't it? (We've never qualified for that) A non working mother doesn't get maternity pay or benefits, she is the money saver for the government more than the working mother. Afterall the husband earning £60k to support his whole family (or woman) gives more in tax than the two working parents earning £60k between them.

Perhaps that is the plan anyway...get one income a lot higher to cream off more tax rather than encouraging to medium salaries.

But then I come from a household where all income/expenses are shared and it doesn't matter who earns the money to pay for it. Which, in my vvho, is the way it should be for a couple who have children together. Anything else is madness.

posie what about the cost to the government for educating that woman? Because the women I know in this situation all have professional jobs (teachers, nurses, scientists etc).

What I'm really unhappy with now is the notion that it's okay that someone else fills the job. That's a policy that says essentially that mothers shouldn't be working.

Further, I'm unconvinced that taking skilled workers out of employment just leaves more jobs for other people. Perhaps if all mothers of young children had the option of working, it would grow the economy instead. For a start childminders, nannies, and nursery staff pay taxes as well. Then we all spend money etc. The economy doesn't have a fixed number of jobs that we can't move beyond. I really am startin to think that this is as another way of saying that working mothers are "taking jobs away from men(/childless women) who need work more"? Aren't we long past that?

skidoodly All current policies are open to abuse too - so I don't think the fact that 1% might abuse the system means that we can't talk about helping the other 99%. And it doesn't have to be benefits - tax relief is not a benefit as such. The number of millionaires wives would be very small compared to the number of us who's husbands are in the £40-80K range which is where I suspect the take up would be.

AnnieLobeseder - young children need 24/7 care. Nature gave DCs two parents for a purpose - one to care, another to provide.

First of all, I think you need to rethink the notion that "the govt" (by which I presume you mean the state) gets nothing from women who stay at home to raise their children. It could be argued that having children well-cared for in their own home by a loving parent has economic benefits in all sorts of ways. Paying tax isn't the only way you contribute, it's not the thing that makes you worthwhile.

A similar error is at work in your (offensive) idea that a very, very rich woman needs to be given public money in order to exercise her "right" to work.

It is not demeaning to be so wealthy you can view your job as an optional pleasure. The very suggestion is ridiculous.

A family with that much money have almost endless choices about how they set up their childcare, they don't need help.

Most families, spanning a very wide spectrum of earnings, have very restricted choices.

Yes to widening those options.

No, no, no to taxing the poor so that the very wealthy aren't demeaned by having to share their resources with their spouse.

2 parents - one to care, another to provide? Good god, what absolute tosh.

LOL BTP

Bonsoir, you may find that loosening your corsets allows the blood to flow upwards to your brain more evenly and easily

skidoodly and why would it be so wrong to allow tax breaks to women paying for childcare if it could be financed without decreasing benefits? Is that not a decent option? (For the sake of arguement, increase taxes over 100K by 1% to pay for it....)

And no, of course society as a whole benefit from good parenting. Personally I think there should be income splitting for tax purposes to recognize that within the tax system but that's not my issue here. If women want to work, we should support that by allowing short term tax breaks that will eventually pay off in taxes over the woman's career.

Posie - mostly joking about the millionaire's wife yes, but also making the point that things aren't always as simple as they seem.

The argument that tax is still being paid by the new person in that position, so the government gets more tax only holds up if the new person was previously unemployed. Otherwise the tax is just being shuffled around.

You're quite right about how the government gets so much for nothing out of the non-working mum, which is blatantly unfair. But don't forget the working mum doesn't just contribute to the pot by paying taxes, money moving around in the economy by the job she's doing also needs to be taken into account.

nameymc - I am talking about shared/pooled income and outgoings. But if childcare costs more then one partner earns, the family are still worse off as a direct result of that person working. (de ja vu anyone?)

We're getting off-topic again though. I've received the message loud and clear from most of you that you think my idea of partner-independent tax-breaks is shit.. fair enough.

But I definitely like the ideas of tax-deductible childcare, split paternal leave, longer period of jobs being held open etc... and as abdnhiker said, other nations manage to do this things and not end up bankrupt, so why can't we manage it too?

What can we do to get this country more working-parent friends (both mums and dads). I mean, most people are mums and dads, it's not like we're in the minority!!

No neuroses corsets interfere with my thinking . I find it very useful to get back to nature and basics personally, rather than get all hot and bothered about quite straightforward issues.

Annie - which other countries have these ideal childcare scenarii? I'd be interested to know what your experiences are.

And before anyone accused me of SAHM bashing, I'm not saying that SAHMs aren't contributing anything meaningful to society, just that they don't pay tax!

What about the oodles of tax that SAHMs' DHs pay because they are enabled to work very long hours in high-earning careers by virtue of the fact that they have a SAHP managing every detail of their home lives?

Bonsoir, I have no personal experience myself, but was referring to abdnhiker's post of 19:05:50.

abdnhiker - as so often happens to me , you seem to be managing to say what I've been trying to, with so much more eloquence, clarity and intelligence! Thank you!!!

Bonsoir, I have no personal experience myself, but was referring to abdnhiker's post of 19:05:50.

abdnhiker - as so often happens to me , you seem to be managing to say what I've been trying to, with so much more eloquence, clarity and intelligence! Thank you!!!

I know nothing of Canada, but Germany has a very low proportion of working mothers and a high proportion of women choosing to remain childless in order to pursue careers and can in no way be held up as a model for successful childcare policies.

And Sweden has back tracked hugely on childcare in recent years as it was too expensive to provide quality group care for babies.