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!

Annie - you seem to think people have a right to work and for the state to pick up the pieces for them at home.

bonsoir My experience of Germany is from friends who are all working after taking a few years off - so I might be biased but it has been hugely beneficial to them. There's information about parental leave worldwide here.

Looking up the details of Canada's policy here it seems that the tax break is available to the lower paid parent up to a limit of $10,000 per child (around £6200) for children born since 2003 or disabled children of any age and $7,000 for older children (2010 tax return). For most of us, that would make all of childcare tax deductible.

I know a lot of working German women in France - why are they here? Because the childcare is so much cheaper/widespread. Most of them have horrific tales of trying to combine work and motherhood in Germany. Though I know there are recent attempts to improve things.

Annie - I don't think you've been unfairly got at. There have been loads of suggestions on this thread, but each time you've said something along the lines of,

'well yes that's all very good but I still think there should have been a subsidy available to me'.

Which in the current climate where the aim is to get the overall spend on welfare down, is a ridiculous thing to think when you have the family income that you do. And I'm not bashing you about that, my DH also earns over all thresholds for assistance so I've not got a resentment thing going on.

Annie - I don't think you've been unfairly got at. There have been loads of suggestions on this thread, but each time you've said something along the lines of,

'well yes that's all very good but I still think there should have been a subsidy available to me'.

Which in the current climate where the aim is to get the overall spend on welfare down, is a ridiculous thing to think when you have the family income that you do. And I'm not bashing you about that, my DH also earns over all thresholds for assistance so I've not got a resentment thing going on.

Agree - excellent ideas for alternative working patterns. Largely unworkable though. Absolutely everyone has the right to work, and I'd much rather the state was focussed on supporting people into work than paying for them to stay out of work via benefits. We're getting there, slowly, but the UK needs to look to other countries in Europe for ways to make it's childcare cheaper and more inclusive.

I'm not at all sure they are unworkable.

Just as I am entirely sure that good quality childcare costs a bomb and no country in Europe has solved that problem yet, whatever people who have never lived anywhere else fondly imagine

Bonsoir some of have lived other places.

I disagree - in order to stay productive and competitive companies need staff who are skilled, not taking 7 years out of the workplace. Job sharing is incredibly difficult, not always the most effective way of working and not possible in many cases (having j/sed myself at one time).

Good childcare does cost a bomb, but sadly that bomb is of atomic proportions in the UK compared with the rest of Europe.

The costs of childcare of comparable quality are almost identical across Europe. The only difference is the share which the taxpayer picks up versus the share which parents pick up.

that should read some of us have lived other places oops! obviously I should go to bed, I'm up at 6am tomorrow and DH is away with his work...

Whether it comes from the cost or through tax, it still remains higher for UK parents than for other families. This might interest you - "A study from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of 32 industrialised nations, found that 33 per cent of a British family?s net income goes towards the cost of childcare.
This is higher than every other country in Europe and the rest of the Western world. German parents pay just 8 per cent of their net income towards childcare, while in France the figure is 11 per cent. Costs tend to be higher in English-speaking countries: 19 per cent in the U.S, 22 per cent in Canada, 28 per cent in New Zealand and 29 per cent in Ireland.
But none exceed the amount paid by British parents. The OECD average is just 13 per cent of income, the report says."

I'd like to reiterate my earlier "count your blessings"

When I had my first child, maternity leave was 18 weeks, there was no CTC, no salary sacrifice for vouchers and no right to request flexible working.

Childcare was just as expensive in comparison to income, and we faced the same issues in much the same way. And survived.

Yes, children are expensive, yes it seemed wrong to be working just to stand still or even take a loss forca while. But you come out the other end stronger. Or you SAHP for a while, maybe change field, and to back stronger and wiser.

British parents pay more for childcare because the (1) the taxpayer picks up less of the tab than in other European countries (2) British parents expect far higher standards of care than parents in other countries, in particular adult:child ratios and level of attention to individual needs.

Maisie, but is that because childcare is more expensive? It might well be that more German couple opt for a stay at home parent during the child's babyhood, or that in other countries people earn more, or are more likely to use unpaid grandparents. That survey says nothing about the relative cost of childcare. I find the idea of childless working people (not to mention couple with kids and a SAHP) funding the nannies of the super-rich really offensive tbh.

Annie - I feel your pain (and I hope you will be Annie Tov Maod soon ). After paying nursery for two children and half the mortgage, I had £28 pounds left. Which meant that all of DH's salary went on everything else, and it was a real struggle for a few years (esp as he earned less than me).

But if I hadn't stayed at work, my career wouldn't have progressed. I am now earning around 4 x what I was pre children. Had I taken time out to be a SAHM, I would still have been earning around the same as I was when they were born. So no progress.

I think you do have to take your choices - downsize accommodation if necessary, if you are going to keep working with children.

Belgium has good, and reasonably affordable childcare available - most Belgian Mums seem to work from what I saw.

1)yes, ergo the cost is higher. It's immaterial how we pay for it, the fact is we still pay more than our fellow parents in the rest of Europe.
2)I'm going to bite my tongue there

No, the cost per hour could be less, but if fewer households in, say Germany, use paid-for childcare at all, then the AVERAGE cost will be higher for British households. This is simple maths.

Why bite your tongue? Do a little comparative research into regulations and you quickly find out just how many ten week old babies a single adult cares for in a French crèche, or whether children are by law fed formula by bottle and put to nap to a strict routine (which parents are required to uphold at the weekend).

And, being British, you faint in horror...

Bonsoir is right re carer: child ratios. Much higher child to carer ratio elsewhere. Although DD1 managed to escape from nursery where carer:child ratio was 1:4, by climbing out of the window, and walked down the road unnoticed by the nursery staff. DH found her wandering in the road and took her back. They hadn't noticed she had gone.

Whether it is not physically safer for a child to be imprisoned in a French crèche is up for debate

I've not read the whole thread but it seems to me the problem is not the higher earning partner but the lower earning mother.

Even if my DH earned less so we got tax credits we would not be well off (living in London not conducive to a life of luxury). As it is, I have, oooh, £100 or so pcm after I have paid the nanny (so I run at a loss after commuting costs). But that's ok, for a few reasons:

• I am working to keep my hand in and so I would not end up screwed if I tried to go back in 5 years or whenever

• I work because I love it

• I chose to have children and they are a financial drain.

The answer is actually for me to get a better paid job. It'll happen one day!

FWIW, I do think that the whole cost of childcare should be tax-deductible, but that ain't going to happen while the economy isn't exactly flourishing.

The feminist issue in all of this is the question of why women are so often the lower earner in a relationship. I know a lot of women who have had redundancies and ended up taking lower paid jobs, but none of my male friends have. Go figure.

'
Yes, children are expensive, yes it seemed wrong to be working just to stand still or even take a loss forca while. But you come out the other end stronger. Or you SAHP for a while, maybe change field, and to back stronger and wiser.' Really?

Becuase I also had my older two then and we had three jobs between us and were still largely broke! Was a bloody nightmare time for us.

I bite my toungue because I didn't want to insinuate that the poor french children are being less well cared for than our lucky children here - but now that you've alluded to that fact then I'm happy to take my teeth off my tongue