can we discuss feminism please

I do remember the demonisation of single mothers and the initiatives to get them off benefits and out to work when their children started school'
If you are feeling a bit despondant this may make you feel better about how far we have come. Would be nice to see the UK there! www.youtube.com/watch?v=sECdk6nu_Uk

Galaxy

I think its difficult as I think the cost SAHM pay is quite high but in a different way. They are extraordinarily vulnerable in later life if they divorce and exiting an unhappy relationship is made more difficult, in many cases impossible, if you have been a SAHM. It is decision made by both parents but where it will be predominately women who pay the price. I also am wary of judging people by the financial contribution they make with regards to tax etc as many people can fall into that category for all sorts of reasons.

I agree that judging by financial contribution is wrong - in fact I explicitly said so in my post.

I am not judging anyone for their circumstances, simply pointing out that the tax system quite explicitly favours those who have the luxury of making the choice to stay at home, and that sometimes this is at the expense of those who don't have that choice available to them.

I agree that it is women who pay the price if they leave the workplace for years, but doing so [i]is[/i] a choice, and short of skewing the tax system even further, I don't know how that can be avoided. I know that we don't usually think that things are going to go wrong when we get married or start a family, but maybe we should encourage young women to think about the implications before it is too late?

Oops! I used bb code instead of this one - I was intending to make the word is bold.

My daughter-in-law is a stay at home mum, not from choice, but because of the complicated, severe issues of my disabled grandson. Because my son earns just over the threshold he repays all of the child benefit they receive in added tax. If they were both able to work they could earn almost double his salary and keep all the child benefit. Doesn't feel very fair for them in my opinion and the tax system is very definitely not favouring them in any way. I should add they don't grumble, just accept this is the way it is.

I agree that that doesn't seem fair. I have completely lost touch with the child benefit system - how would they be able to keep it if they both worked? I thought it was now means tested based on family income, so if they earned more they would lose more, but I could well be wrong.

They could, of course, share the care and both work part-time, but that is obviously for them to decide.

I’m surprised that so many young women don’t insist on a legal living together contract. I don’t see why they should have to marry or civil partnership to assume the legal rights wives have. When children arrive, it’s the mothers who go part time or take a work break. The reasons are obvious but it leaves them out on a limb if the relationship breaks down.

Rosie51

My daughter-in-law is a stay at home mum, not from choice, but because of the complicated, severe issues of my disabled grandson. Because my son earns just over the threshold he repays all of the child benefit they receive in added tax. If they were both able to work they could earn almost double his salary and keep all the child benefit. Doesn't feel very fair for them in my opinion and the tax system is very definitely not favouring them in any way. I should add they don't grumble, just accept this is the way it is.

I don't think this is right. As far as I understand it if either parent earns over £60000 the child benefit is repayable. So even if your DIL was working they wouldn't get child benefit.
As she has a disbled child there are other benefits she should qualify for.

That's what I thought, trisher, but these things change all the time, so I am prepared to be told otherwise.

Is it the case that if both parents earn less than £60k each they would still qualify? It would be very unusual if so - usually it is household income that is assessed when it comes to benefits, which I think is a very unfair way of doing things.

Income tax is by far the fairest way to fund society IMO, but there is a mismatch between the way we are taxed as individuals but means tested as households, which works against the lower earner, who is often the woman and is another example of how the tax/benefit systems prioritise some lifestyles over others.

Doodledog that is the situation, both parents can earn £59,000 each and they get child benefit, which is what I meant by my earlier comment. Just another anomaly in the tax system.

Rosie51

Doodledog that is the situation, both parents can earn £59,000 each and they get child benefit, which is what I meant by my earlier comment. Just another anomaly in the tax system.

Sorry, but I think that that's perfectly fair.

If the ceiling is £60k, and a one-earner family qualifies for benefit on £59k, whilst two people in another family earn £30500 each and don't qualify, it massively benefits the one-earner family, who have a much higher percentage of their income as disposable, because of paying one lot of tax, NI etc, and not paying childcare. Also, the two-earner family is contributing two lots of whatever it is they do to society at large.

Means testing households is another example of what I was talking about earlier - people on lower incomes supporting those on higher ones. Tax and other offtakes are taken from individuals, so IMO means testing should be on an individual basis too.

Why not pay child benefit to everyone, and tax all higher earners more to pay for it? That way, someone on twice the national average income doesn't end up getting a means tested benefit, when a couple who are each earning half that amount do two lots of work but miss out by earning slightly over the threshold between them.

To bring this back to feminism, it is often the woman who earns less, so if the household loses out by crossing the threshold for benefits, it is usually the woman who gives up her independence to save costs, or who feels that when childcare and loss of benefits is taken into account it is not worth her working.

No Doodledog each partner can earn £59000, making a household income of £118000 and still get child benefit. It is not a household limit but a personal one. They only take the allowance and my son repays the lot because that way my daughter in law gets home protection for a pension, and obviously she hopes at some point to be able to take up her career again. Incidentally, my son's line of work doesn't allow for part time or else they would share the childcare.

Ah, I see, thank you for explaining.

Yes rosie is right, it was quite a bizarre decision that was met with relatively little resistance at the time.

So many actions taken by successive Tory governments have met with significant resistance.

Sorry Rosie51 I don't know who has been advising your DS but they are on completely the wrong track. If one partner isn't working that person (mum or dad) can claim the child benefit. It really isn't a sexist piece of legislation
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/child-benefit/before-you-claim/check-if-you-can-get-child-benefit/

If you don't do links
Child Benefit is a monthly payment that can help you with the costs of your children.

If you're eligible you'll get £21.05 a week for your first child and £13.95 a week for any children after that.

You can claim Child Benefit if:

you're 'responsible for the child'
the child is under 16 years old - or 16 to 20 years old and still in education or training
It doesn’t matter if you work, or have savings and investments.

Not according to this link trisher www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/changes-to-child-benefit-from-2013#you-and-your-partner-each-earn-less-than-£50000-per-year

it would appear a couple can only earn under £50, 000 each, so £98,000 or so and still get the benefit without having to repay any of it.

I apologise Rosie51 however it still isn't a sexist piece of legislation as it doesn't matter which partner is working the other can claim the child benefit.
And as has been said the couple with both workng are contributing two lots of NI, two lots of tax and possibly paying for childcare.
In fact you could argue that they are paying effectively 3 lots of NI as child benefit also includes NI cover.

I agree, trisher. I didn't want to labour the point, but it is really unfair that those paying in twice are more likely to be denied it than those not paying in, or only paying once.

This unfairness feeds through to pensions, too, as NI is paid for those who can afford to stay at home, and is paid by those who work.

It is not a regressive piece of legislation, and I don't see it as bizarre - it is much fairer than a household means test (which is much more usual) would have been.

Sorry - it would be clearer to say that it would have been unfair if those paying in twice were more likely to be denied it than those not paying in etc.

(oh for an edit window)

But it doesnt affect just sahm it affects whichever partner is a low earner. So if you have a person earning 50 grand and their partner earning 10, they dont get the allowance whereas a couple earning 60 between them will.

Up to whatever the cut off point is.

I would have thought it was perfectly obvious. If you insist single mothers must go out to work as soon as their children are school age and make claiming benefits dfficult so that they become economically active, you can't then reward SAHMs n(or dads) for not working.

Which is why it would make more sense to make it a universal benefit, and then tax people earning well above average (I'm reluctant to suggest figures, as they are inevitably arbitrary) so that they contribute more.

My point is not specifically about SAHMs, but about anyone who chooses not to pay into the system being supported by those who do. This does not apply to those looking for work, or to those who are sick, disabled or otherwise unable to work (that is why we have a welfare state), but those who make a conscious decision not to work and have that choice subsidised by people who are financially unable to make that choice themselves.

Cross posted with trisher - good point.