Why don't men complain?

zagfles

Happier_Me wrote: »

I was born in the 70s when the norm was for the mum to stay at home or work very part time in low end jobs and for dad to be the breadwinner and have very little to do with the practical side of raising his kids. Or at least, this was my reality, but we were poor by most peoples standards so maybe that has skewed my experience.

My husband had a similar upbringing.

So it was very much ingrained in us both that mum does all the mundane bits that needs to be done to keep the children alive and the house ticking over.

The thing I never understand is why men who want very little to do with the raising of their kids have kids in the first place. I think for some they just drift along with what society expects of them, or what their wife wants, rather than thinking "do I really want kids". They just agree to keep their wife happy or because they are guilt tripped by their wife or friends/relatives, and then expect their wife to do all the parenting, because it was her choice.
Having kids is by far the biggest financial and emotional committment you will ever make in your life. It's a far bigger committment than getting married. Before we got married I didn't want kids, I wasn't ruling them out forever, I might change my mind years down the line, or I might not. I did like kids but I definitely didn't want them at that time. My wife did want them, but it wasn't a deal breaker. And she agreed that kids should be postively wanted by both parents otherwise it's not fair to anyone, mother, father or child.

So we got married, few years down the line people started with the usual nagging questions "when are you having kids", we were honest with a few of them and said that I didn't want them. They'd then ask my wife if she wanted them, she said yes, and I couldn't believe the amount of grief I got off these idiots who thought they had some right to guilt trip me into becoming a father, having my life turned upside down, the massive financial and emotional responsibility, when it was something I didn't want. I fell out with a few permanently. In the end we presented a united line, it was none of anyone else's business if/when we have kids.
But these are attitudes which still exist today. People do really think that a man should not have a choice, or have less of a choice, in the decision as to whether he becomes a father or not.

Anyway with us, things did change. After a few brilliant holidays travelling round the world, I started to change, I even got bored of travelling (it was temporary!) and friends & relatives started having children, so we were always round babies and toddlers. Yes, I started becoming broody! Discussed with my wife, and agreed to start trying for kids. Kids that would be positively wanted by both parents.

Absolutely loved having kids, particularly the pre-school years. My wife gave up work and I worked shifts which meant I had a lot of time off in the day which was great as I could take them to activities etc. My wife did all the housework, I did all the money earning work, and childcare was shared as best we could, it worked well.

Ironically years later, after our 2 were in school, I really really wanted a third child but my wife didn't!

But I also got the message that women should be financially independent and I took notice. Admittedly, this was probably driven by the fact that I really wanted to afford to heat more than one room in my house when I was an adult😊

If it's driven by a real need then fine, but governments and the media constantly telling people how they should live their lives really p'eed us off. The last Labour govt in particular, but previous ones too, constantly changing the rules to try to push people towards living their lives in the govt approved way, ie women shouldn't be "stuck in the home", they should be dumping their children in childcare and doing a "proper" job. That was the message.

Independant taxation (aka a non-earner is a non-person) which means single earner families get screwed by tax, childcare subsidies (but only "childcare" by a stranger with a qualification, not by a parent who loves the child), constant speeches about "giving women choices" but actions and legislation which only helped people choosing the New Labour approved way to live, ie get out of the house and into work.

Government tax rules like independant taxation, pension limits which depend on individual earnings etc, are the main reasons there's such a difference between my and my wife's pension.

Now before I say the next bit I'm really not husband bashing, 23 years in I've decided I'm keeping him. Our situation is as much my doing as his.

I've earned more or the same (due to maternity leave and a very short lived period of 3 day a week working) than my husband throughout our relationship. I've also taken on the traditional role of being the main carer for our children and home. I've juggled high stress, professional roles whilst pretending to my children I work 3 days a week. I've been at breaking point at times. I am probably in the minority although I'm certainly not alone in my working environment.

Why were you the main carer, did you husband not want to be? Or did he not think it was his place? When you discussed having kids did you discuss this sort of thing?

Attitudes still needs to change and maybe it will take future generations to do this because we are all influenced by our upbringings. We simply don't value the work that goes into raising our children or managing our homes as much we should, which is why stay at home mums are often vilified for sponging off their partners and career mums are in danger of trying to do it all, whilst being vilified for not looking after their kids!

You should see some of the vilification of stay at home dads we've seen on here! But yes the system vilifies all stay at home parents, as above, then expects people to juggle a full time job with parenting and vilifies them when they fail.

But the main problem is that couples don't seem to discuss how they're going to manage stuff when they have kids, they just drift into it. A lot of men become fathers not because it's what they want, but because it what keeps the wife or even relatives happy, it's what's expected by society, as if it's not a decision that'll really affect him, parenting is all down to the wife.

That's the attitude that needs to change. If all men who become fathers did so as a positive life choice, with the acceptance that in all aspects he is equally responsible for the children, things would be a lot more equal.

Rather than, like an ex colleague of mine who had a child at about the same time as me, and I would always bang on about my kids in the canteen at lunch and he'd say virtually nothing about his, he seemed to have no interest in his own child. At the xmas do, we were both a bit drunk and I asked him quite directly, "why did you have a child". His answer was "my wife would have left me if I hadn't agreed".

I'm all in favour of equalising the state pension. In any couple, one will almost always end up with a bigger pension than the other but it really shouldn't matter who in a couple has the highest pension as long as they have both pulled their weights to get there, whether that be through paid in employment or not.

Indeed, assuming their life choices were genuinely the choices of them both.

DT2001

GunJack wrote: »

There is one major flaw in that case that I doubt any government would go for - there would be less tax & NI payable on a split salary than if it was kept whole due to personal tax allowances (now x2 on the same income) and the NI contribution rules...

You are correct. It would need adjustments in basic/higher rate tax %, NI etc to balance the books.

In France I believe you pay tax on household income divided by individuals (children count as 1/2 or something similar). Would this be fairer, maybe even allow more care (children/parents) at home and thus reduce burden on state.

We need a major change to moves us into a more equal society but inevitably getting there will create winners and losers.

DT2001

Happier_Me wrote: »

I was born in the 70s when the norm was for the mum to stay at home or work very part time in low end jobs and for dad to be the breadwinner and have very little to do with the practical side of raising his kids. Or at least, this was my reality, but we were poor by most peoples standards so maybe that has skewed my experience.

My husband had a similar upbringing.

So it was very much ingrained in us both that mum does all the mundane bits that needs to be done to keep the children alive and the house ticking over.

But I also got the message that women should be financially independent and I took notice. Admittedly, this was probably driven by the fact that I really wanted to afford to heat more than one room in my house when I was an adult😊

Now before I say the next bit I'm really not husband bashing, 23 years in I've decided I'm keeping him. Our situation is as much my doing as his.

I've earned more or the same (due to maternity leave and a very short lived period of 3 day a week working) than my husband throughout our relationship. I've also taken on the traditional role of being the main carer for our children and home. I've juggled high stress, professional roles whilst pretending to my children I work 3 days a week. I've been at breaking point at times. I am probably in the minority although I'm certainly not alone in my working environment.

Attitudes still needs to change and maybe it will take future generations to do this because we are all influenced by our upbringings. We simply don't value the work that goes into raising our children or managing our homes as much we should, which is why stay at home mums are often vilified for sponging off their partners and career mums are in danger of trying to do it all, whilst being vilified for not looking after their kids!

I'm all in favour of equalising the state pension. In any couple, one will almost always end up with a bigger pension than the other but it really shouldn't matter who in a couple has the highest pension as long as they have both pulled their weights to get there, whether that be through paid in employment or not.

I am male, born in the 1960’s, have been our children’s stay at home parent for 20 years and my OH and I come from families where mum gave up work to bring up children. It happened as OH earned more than me, I assumed I could bring them up and it is easier with more not less income coming in. As we had children when older the opportunity to restart any career will not realistically present itself.

To mitigate what would be unequal investment pots for retirement, My OH who is self employed paid me for the admin work I did. She dislikes admin so the freed up time allowed her more time with the children. I was then able to contribute more to my pension pot. The ever changing rules for pensions and investments doesn’t help long term planning. We have to spread our options to cope with changes to income tax, pension rules, IHT, ISA’s etc etc

Our aim as you’ve said she be to educate and push equality for all.

Silvertabby

“ There is one major flaw in that case that I doubt any government would go for - there would be less tax & NI payable on a split salary than if it was kept whole due to personal tax allowances (now x2 on the same income) and the NI contribution rules...
Originally posted by GunJack

DT2001 wrote: »

You are correct. It would need adjustments in basic/higher rate tax %, NI etc to balance the books.

In France I believe you pay tax on household income divided by individuals (children count as 1/2 or something similar). Would this be fairer, maybe even allow more care (children/parents) at home and thus reduce burden on state.

We need a major change to moves us into a more equal society but inevitably getting there will create winners and losers.

6 April 1990 saw the introduction of a radical change in the taxation system of husband and wives: Independent Taxation. Until then, husbands and wives were looked upon for tax purposes as one person - and the Revenue saw only the husband! The spouse’s incomes and gains were added together and the couple were treated as if the total income was that of the husband; he was responsible for completing the annual tax return and for paying all tax due including that on his wife’s income and gains.
With the introduction of Independent Taxation, spouses were treated as separate individuals for tax purposes and, for the first time, married women enjoyed privacy in and responsibility for their own tax affairs. In addition, some married couples were paying more tax because they were married than if they cohabited and this was contrary to public policy. Independent Taxation abolished the former tax advantages of cohabitation and it is now marginally fiscally beneficial to marry.

I suspect this started at a time when married women either didn't work or only worked for 'pin money'.

mgdavid

zagfles wrote: »

The thing I never understand ...........

Interesting that you complain of (labour) government trying to tell you how to run your life, then spend several paragraphs suggesting how we should run our lives, at least on the subject of children.....!

nigelbb

DT2001 wrote: »

In France I believe you pay tax on household income divided by individuals (children count as 1/2 or something similar). Would this be fairer, maybe even allow more care (children/parents) at home and thus reduce burden on state.

That's exactly how the system in France works. It works especially well if one partner earns nothing or a low income as the total household income is spread across two personal allowances & tiers of income tax rates.

Primrose

I seem to remember that in the UK some years ago a slightly different tax, for paying local authority rates, was introduced by the Conservatives, where every adult member was charged individually, although it wasn,t based on income. It was dubbed the poll tax and was very unpopular.

I think this is because tax was levied on every adult household member, whatever their income. I could sort of see the reasoning because all adults benefit from the same services so should all contribute towards the cost. The reality is though is that no form of taxation is popular, however you levy it.

jamesd

nigelbb wrote: »

I don't know where you get your fantasy figure from or the idea that the state pension is unfunded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance_Fund

By being accurate.

A funded pension scheme is one which accumulates investments to pay its future liabilities, examples being the private sector and LGPS. Unfunded schemes pay benefits out of current inflows and include the state pension and most central government pensions. In 2012-13 expenditure was 91.5b, income 7b less and the fund balance 29b, 33% of annual expenditure, a history on page 4 here.

It's obvious that a scheme only holding enough money to pay for a third of a year is unfunded and the trillions in the post you replied to were an estimate of the unfunded cost of future benefits.

The fund has had a few positive year recently but the Government Actuaries Department recently estimated that a NIC increase of 5% or increase in Treasury Grant (subsidy) above its current limit of 17% of annual benefits is needed by 2032.

This move towards large ongoing deficits is a natural consequence of the pay as you go nature of the scheme and the boomers retiring and being replaced by smaller generations paying the bills. It's been known about for a long time and increasing state pension age was part of the package of measures suggested by the Turner Pensions Commission back in 2001-5.

zagfles

mgdavid wrote: »

Interesting that you complain of (labour) government trying to tell you how to run your life, then spend several paragraphs suggesting how we should run our lives, at least on the subject of children.....!

That's the exact opposite of what I've been trying to say! Which is we shouldn't be pushed into "choices" that the govt, partners, relatives etc want us to make!

zagfles

nigelbb wrote: »

That's exactly how the system in France works. It works especially well if one partner earns nothing or a low income as the total household income is spread across two personal allowances & tiers of income tax rates.

Yes, resulting in lower marginal tax rates for families, whereas the system here is the opposite, with independant taxation and means/income tested benefits (child ben/tax credits) which are withdrawn as income increases, resulting in higher marginal tax rates for families, typically at least 73% effective tax rate up to average income.


So in France, families are encouraged to support themselves, whereas in the UK, they are encouraged to rely on benefits. Which is probably why we have a far greater proprotion of children in workless households despite having lower unemployment.