Does the current system of tax credits/lack of childcare encourage the male breadwinner model?

[weatherall]

Was on this thread and started to think that the current tax credit system (and lack of childcare) encourages the male breadwinner model.

It seems that especially if a woman wants more than 2dc she will have to become a sahp.

Childcare tax credits will subsidise a bit of childcare (from experience 1dc in nursery or 1dc in nursery and 1dc in after school care max) but won't help if you need more. So lots of women end up having smaller families than they'd want, or see all their wages go on childcare or be forced to give up work, with long term consequences.

I see this as a huge feminist issue.

I want 3dc but the only way we can think to do it is for DP to become a sahp and me to work ft. But I know this isn't a common set up and it is quite stressful and not really how we'd want.

Would it be better for women if childcare was free as per one of the seven demands of the 1970s women liberation movement rather than have a tax credit system which incentivises women being financially dependent on men?

I think part of the issue is the assumption that it is the woman who will stay at home and the man go to work. Also that childcare comes out of the woman's wage. Lots of families, mine included, work it by using a range of methods of working and managing childcare e.g opposite shift patterns, night work, part time for either or both parents, periods of man or woman being at home.

Sometimes I've been sahp and sometimes dh has.
Not sure woman being sahp in traditional way has ever worked or been great for women in history where actually very few women have been able to be sahps with no outside work.

Not sure either how feasible having lots of children is or should be if you aren't able to afford them without relying on substantial state help with one parent not working.

It's biology that tips it towards women staying at home more - if you're planning more kids, it seems silly to go back to work if you're going to have another baby in a year anyway (or at least that's how I ended up at home)

I don't think that tax credits or childcare are the biggest problem. To me I think that it's the unwillingness for so many jobs to allow part-time workers.

I know a couple who are psychologists (of some sort) and they both work 3 days a week, which gives them just over one full-time wage, but two tax-allowances, often no need for childcare at all, and they both have 4 days a week off.

To me, that is the ideal setup - everyone gets kids alone, gets time together and still gets to go out to work for their career. It's just very hard finding jobs which will let you do that - even though so many really, really could.

But surely if you're a low income couple on tax credits either one of you can either work or not work. There's nothing to say it has to be the man. I was the breadwinner for a while and dh didn't work and now we are the opposite way round. I do agree though that especially on low incomes there is a bit of a trap where childcare costs are not completely covered so even with the tax credit allowances it hardly makes sense financially to return to work (we would be £20 a week better off if I went to work which would be eaten up by petrol costs so not worth it at all).

I think so.

I think there's a bit of a circular problem too. From reading threads on here, it seems a big reason women become sahp is not just because of childcare costs but because their DH makes more money/has greater earning potential, so it 'makes sense' for her to stay home.

So as long as men tend to make more money and advance further, it will make sense for women to stay home... but the more women stay home, the easier it is for stereotypes about working women to hinder women's advancement in the workplace, unfortunately.

I live in Germany now where parental leave is 12 months (13 if both parents split it) and in my city childcare is mostly free from 12 months and up. This gives people a huge amount of freedom in making work choices.

But there is a reason for this, which is that Germany is trying to increase its birth rate. There's no real incentive for the UK to do the same, as I understand it women staying home helps keep unemployment figures down as well.

My patents did the day/night shift working when I was growing up so it was normal for me to always have 2 ft working parents.

It's only as an adult, and discovering feminism, that I realised this isn't the norm.

Some jobs/careers can be arranged this way but most can't which still leaves women in a difficult situation.

I don't like to use the phrase 'not working' to describe childraising. It is harder work than any job I've had and I think that use of language is another feminist issue and another thread

I do think there should be a greater right to pt working.

The both parents working 3/4 days is a model I think lots of parents would ideally like. But for people in low paid jobs this is still going to require lots of tax credits.
And once DCs are in school this model doesn't work as well.

I've done the 'working for nothing' thing for a year or so. I was ok about it at the time as I thought it was good for the long term but with the unpredictability of the job market now I don't think I'd do it again.

Afaik in Germany the school day is very short which causes problems in doing a full day if there is no after school care- but I don't know much about it.

Dh is going to be sahp for 9 months with our 3rd. Then all 3 of ours will be in childcare with me as breadwinner. If it wasnt for tax credits for childcare dh would of been sahp since dc1. Tax credits for childcare for us has bern the greatest policy ever invented.

I would never ever consider not going to work. If our dc3 had been concieved a few months later we could of took advantage of the new paternity leave rules.

Yes, I think it is to be honest.

We can't currently get rid of income related benefits because huge numbers of children growing up in poverty doesn't do anyone any favours either, and we need to maintain our birthrate because we have an ageing population - proportionally speaking most people can't afford to have children without help but we need them to have them!

The are only 2 ways to solve it - 1 is higher more equal wages for everyone.

The current reason we have women SAHP for financial reasons is high cost of living and uneven incomes between spouses.

Because if the man is earning more than the woman (literally just enough to pay the bills and feed and clothe everyone) and the woman's wage is less than childcare cost will be, then the woman going to work will leave the family with not enough to live on. Additionally, if she is not working they Mau receive a small amount of tax credits, if she is working they probably won't (assuming fairly average wages)

Now if the family go on to have several children the family get caught in a trap - the higher the cost of their childcare becomes and the more they receive because she is not working and their income is low.

Long term, the woman will find it harder to earn more due to her gap in cv.

There's another loop in terms of trying to limit benefits for non-working families, and saying you will only pay their living costs while they have a child under X age - the problem you have here is the harsher you make the rule (under universal credit it's under 1yo) the more motivation there is for someone who is really determined/afraid of working to have another baby in quick succession! With the obvious long term disadvantages for the mother.

The problem with trying to make the system really harsh and 'incentivise' working by cutting benefits is that women are inevitably left worse off and suffering.

The alternative is that if wages were much higher and everyone working could afford to fund their own families comfortably on one wage, with more men and women earning similar amounts (so that an additional wage minus childcare is still always always positive money)

The other option is I actually read a really good argument for a single universal payment to everyone regardless of income is that it gives those who need it help without incentivising behavior that helps or is the only option short-term but not helpful long-term.

Can you tell I'm at home with 3 children? We don't actually get much from tc - but it is enough that loosing that, plus childcare costs, plus an extra car... I would have to earn a he'll of a lot more than I ever have before just for us to break even and bring home the same as we do currently. In the meantime DH has done really well in his career and gets all The benefits of free flexible childcare (from me)

Another thing that makes it worse in the UK is the get on your bike attitude - this means families move away from friends, siblings and parents they could make cheap childcare deals with, having to use 100% paid for childcare is really cost prohibitive.

I do like the idea of more people working 3/4 day weeks in conjunction with each other - not so keen ob SAHP going out to work in bars in the evening, it's badly paid and means the SAHP is putting in a huge number of cumulative hours and not enough sleep which is not great for anyone's health.

I'm a big fan of both parents working part time. I can bore for Britain about this, but I refuse to believe that the vast majority of jobs magically need a single person to spend five days a week doing them. Most jobs consist of a variety of different tasks which, with a bit of imagination, can be divided between two or more people. If more employers took this sort of enlightened attitude to working patterns, there'd be far fewer people having to decide between working full time or parenting full time, but could instead a achieve a much healthier balance.

That's a really insightful post TeWi.

Thanks. It's a topic close to my heart!

There's lots more 'standard' variations where the couple has no choice but for one of them to stay at home or if housing costs are particularly high having to both work and make a loss through high cost childcare years.

But the main issues are always cost of living (particularly housing and childcare) and low, unequal wages.