Affording Stay At Home Parents

A recent study from London University’s Institute of Education has discovered that most parents want more time with their kids. All sarcasm related to the question of who funds these research studies aside, the findings were that many families have both parents working in order to meet their financial demands (especially their mortgage), but that most would prefer to leave one parent at home with the children instead of with a caregiver. In another piece (also from the U.K.), an author wonders who would want to be a stay at home parent when the role is so undervalued by society.

Of note is a very concise yet powerful argument made in the second piece. Fifty years ago, women were practically unable to find work outside the home. The concept of a woman being employed outside her home, working in what was then a man's world, was foreign. Now, just fifty years later, the pendulum has swung to the opposite side: most women are practically unable to stay at home because of financial reasons. In short, we have traded one inflexible model for another.

This is not to say that every mother or father wants to be a stay at home parent. For some people the prospect of spending entire days without adult conversation, playing toddler games or changing diapers is frightening. For some, it's a preference for the office environment, or a genuine love for their job. Whatever the reason, for some remaining at home with the kids is not their idea of bliss.

However, those who do prefer that lifestyle should be able to live it. As many of us know, especially those in the Toronto area, it's just not feasible with today's economic climate. It's sad to note that what was once common and available to everyone has now become the right of the upper echelon of the job market; that it has become a privilege, not a choice.

But what can be done to make this option available to all families? One option would be to offer tax incentives that make a stay at home parent distinct from an unemployed spouse. (At the present time, at least under Canadian tax laws, there is no distinction. The only distinction is that the family - usually the employed parent - is able to claim additional tax credits.) Offering additional incentives, such as credits to the working spouse that would reduce their tax payable would enable (and possibly encourage) more parents to stay at home. Alternatively, the funding could be directly attributed to stay at home parents as a form of government-subsidized income that would be distinct from any existing credits available to all families.

On the one hand, these types of changes would be damaging to the childcare industry that has continued to grow and flourish in today's economy, since more parents could stay home and therefore have no need for their services. However, if that is what the family would prefer, and in most cases the child would benefit from lower caregiver to child ratios, not to mention more time with their parents, isn't that worth it?

To read more SciFi Dad, you can go to Tales From The Dad Side.

Comments

[Julie Pippert]

Your last paragraph puts forth one of the largest political arguments in the US right now: business or personal?

The business proponents argue that supporting business does support people.

But I tend to agree with your final sentence.

We have moved three times and downsized twice in the last not yet four years in order to be able to continue to afford an at-home parent on one salary (and a low one at that).

Each downsize affords us one year of breathing room and then suddenly expenses jump dramatically again---such as fuel costs (my husband's job requires a lot of driving and travel).

We once again face the question of either downsizing (again) (and this time...to where?) or pushing me back out into the workforce.

In which case...who will do my job, and how will my husband do his? I support and enable him to do his job as he does it now, and manage the home and children. I handle all repairmen, appointments, kid issues, and so forth.

It is definitely an under-respected and poorly understood complex job. Much more than bum wiping and puzzle playing.

I do wish my culture---which claims to be family focused!---would better support and enable families to make working or at home choices as best suited their family. By this I not just enable parents to be at home, but slowed the work-a-holic culture, too.

[LD]

Interesting point about the childcare providers not making as much money.
I don't mind being a working parent. It's a choice and a necessity and I wouldn't give it up entirely. But I would like the option of a 3 or 4 day week - more specifically with the benefits I have now.
I'm not sure of the solution, but I am sure there is one to make it more feasible for a parent to stay home. And, I think it should be partly based on income.

[Russ]

As a SAHD, I can say it was not an easy choice to make. My wife and I had decided long ago that one of us would be the one to leave work when the child came along. That affected our decision making. We bought our house on one income, then refinanced with two incomes to get a lower rate (had we gone in with two incomes, the temptation would have been too great to get more house). As a result, we don't live in as nice of a house as we could have, but it is still nice and has a big back yard for the child(ren).

What I'm getting at, poorly, is that it all comes down to making choices. Not everyone has those choices (admittedly, but most do), but most people are still making less than smart personal finance decisions. I see families on the news complaining that they can't make the house payments, while there children play billiards in front of the over-sized flat panel TV. It's about the choices we make. (Lord knows I've made enough dumb ones.)

[heathersway]

I'm with Russ here. It may not always be the case but many families with dual incomes could manage to have one parent be at home if that was a true priority. Should it be a priority? That is up to the family. As a SAHM who has her own issues with being at home and out of the work force for such a long period of time, I fully understand those who choose to work.

[b*babbler]

As an incentive, how about income splitting? Why is it that we cannot split Mr Babbler's salary between us paying a lower tax bracket for each of us instead of his salary in a higher tax bracket? Now there's an incentive.

As someone who recently made the decision to stay at home, I have to say that I have been really surprised by the sudden decrease in status. It's one thing to tell people that you are on maternity leave, with a cherubic newborn on your shoulder, and have people murmur in approval. It's another entirely to admit that your job is staying at home with your adorable, but sometimes awkward 16 month old. I've come to dread the question, "but what do you DO? But when do you plan to go back to WORK? It's only for a little while longer, RIGHT? "

Or even better, the "oh, are you PREGNANT? Surely you'll have more children right away then, RIGHT?"