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!

Perfectly cool here, and interested to know which basics, or laws of nature demand that 2 parents are necessary - one of which (I presume from your latter posts you mean the man) goes out to work, and the other (the woman) stays at home to do whatever it is that they are apparently unable to organise for themselves.

Would you leave your baby on its own at home all day?

Quick question to those of you who say that people should realise that childcare costs money and you shouldn't be surprised at not being able to work.

Sorry, but how does knowing about the facts in advance make it any more fair that millions of women are forced to choose between a career or having children?

I knew about the costs, I had my children anyway and stayed at home for the time I had to, serving my 'sentence' for having children. But that doesn't mean I should just accept the situation as fair and not want to change it for others.

Why yes, Bonsoir, I would. I do it all the time. Why do you ask?

I presume that's a rhetorical question?

And it's not fair that men cannot get pregnant, carry the baby to term, give birth and breastfeed and you know what, I have heard that in all other countries men can now do these things and I am going to write to the Prime Minister this very minute and ask for him to change UK policy so that life is fair. So there.

If you find the burden of childcare too much to bear, why on earth have children?

Bonsoir - really, you've lost it. You are truly barking, but very, very funny.

Annie - I have been in the position where all but a couple of hundred pounds of my salary would have been taken up by childcare costs when my two dc were really little.

Had I really wanted to work in that time then, as household, we would have taken it on the chin and written it off as an investment in my career, or whatever.

I am NOT being obtuse but I really do not understand your point in all these threads. What it boils down to, I think, is that you think childcare is too expensive or that your household income is not high enough? And I make the point, over and over, that people who work in childcare should not be low paid.

I do not came from the same pov as Anna, however.

Annie in all honesty I think the situation is fair.

If you didn't want to be in the position you were in, you could have made different choices. You could have moved to a cheaper house with a smaller mortgage, you could have delayed having your second child so that you didn't have two lots of childcare overlapping.

Benefits and state-subsidies are supposed to help those most in need from falling into poverty, not subsidise lifestyle choices for families earning £60k+

I haven't lost it all. I am just stunned that women have so much difficulty assuming the basic biological fact that they are women and that if they want children they are going to have to become mothers too, and that if they want to spend all day out of the house working they are going to have to pay someone to take their place by their children's side.

"serving my 'sentence' for having children" -

fucking hell.

Leaving thread.

namey - yes my eyebrows shot up at that aswell.

Honestly, if you think that staying at home to care for your DC is a "sentence", you really, really shouldn't have had them. Poor children.

Oh good grief, I knew as soon as I hit 'post' that someone would twist that the wrong way. You know perfectly well how I meant it - we all make some sacrifices in order to have our children, who, of course we love to bits and wouldn't be without.

Hmm, well I think that if more women were helped to stay in work then the recouped taxes 9given that mroe women would manage to remain at the top of their pay structure) would probably cover it, over a lifetime, probably more than.

However, there are very many anomallies. For example, in order to qualify I need one more year (and I need that well paid job as chidlcare for disabled kids costs so many mroe than a minimum wage job would ever cover, even state help has a cap).

TCs I beleive would allow me to hire a nanny (not sure, was told on ehre). Student help will not, only nursery or Cm which we cannot use.

A silly little anomally, no?

In an ideal world I think there should be some access to a fund where a woman can take X help with chidlcare over a finite time if she pays back (and should she leave work it will revert to her DH / DP) via her tax code.

But we don;t ahve an ideal world, sadly.

Annie - you come across as incredibly spoilt and foot-stamping.

It's a sentence from an economic point of view for many, many women, and nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Of course the childcare has to be paid for, but while childcare in the UK remains one of the highest in Europe, too many women are being forced out of economic independence. Unless we start to look at how we fund care and how we can support every woman who wants to return to work, we're never going to move forward. Not a great legacy for our daughters.

I disagree with your foot stamping comment Bonsoir - she comes across as nothing of the sort. What an odd post.

Since no country yet manages simultaneously to provide high quality childcare at low cost, maybe we should be looking at alternative working patterns.

Alternative working patterns - such as?

I've had enough, been at this all day, I'm absolutely physically and emotionally drained from bashing my head against the wall. Mainly due to having to repeat and explain the same points again and again because some people obviously can't be arsed to read the whole thread before posting.

If you don't agree with my original POV, fine, join the club, not many people think my solution is workable, which is fine, I can accept it has some major flaws. But for pity's sake, how about suggesting something better than, "suck it up", "don't have children" or "move house and downsize" (any smaller and we'd be in a bedsit).

I simply hold the point of view that no-one who wants to work should be in a position, due to any set of circumstances you choose to name, where they can't afford to. I also don't think that anyone should ever have to downsize their career in order to afford to work.

I was looking to see what people though of my solution (not a lot, obviously), and hopefully to contribute solutions of their own. Funnily enough, I wasn't looking for a public pasting, but hey ho, I got one anyway.

I feel somewhat flayed alive, so I hope you'll excuse me, have a lovely evening and I'll no doubt see you again on other threads.

I think the problem is partly in the language. Terms such as 'tax credits' are just euphemisms for 'benefits'. So the question, 'should millionaire couples get tax credits' sounds almost reasonable, but 'should millionaire couples be entitled to benefits paid for by the vast majority of people who earn less' sounds less reasonable. Which, of course, it is.

Sancti - the situation you describe is entirely different, you are entitled to funded childcare, or at least help with it but the restrictions around the funding don't allow you to use it in the way that you need to.

To me that seems stupid.

Your fund idea is a good one, but if we are attempting to be feminist about it then the fund shouldn't only be accessible to women. Women, men, families should all be able to access such help should it exist - otherwise we are still in the position where organising and funding the childcare is the responsibility of the mother.

Changing the taxation system to one where it is the household that is taxed rather than individuals would be a huge step forward to being able to implement something like that, because then the payback would automatically be taken off all household earnings rather than just the low-earner/woman.

More longer unpaid parental leave (up to seven years).
More job shares.