<p>And my wife lost her job before our first child was born because she wanted to spend at least six months with the newborn before going back to work. She also lost all unused sick-leave since they convinced her she'd have to quit if she wanted to take that much time off. She wasn't fired. They just told her if she took that much time off she'd not be allowed to return. So she quit right then and there after working through over eight months of the pregnancy. That's when we made the commitment to raise all our kids with one parent at home all the time. Just like our parents did. It used to be called American Family Values.</p>
<p>I hate "mommy wars" (I really do), but I can't resist asking ProudDad whether those families that do not, or did not, have one parent home at all time don't have American Family Values?</p>
<p>Just checking.</p>
<p>Sorry Proud dad, many of us middle aged folks were raised with American Family Values too... and our mom's worked as well even back in the '60's and '70's when it was unfashionable to do so. You seem to think that a two paycheck household is a new phenomenon. If you and your wife were lucky enough to be raised with one parent home full time then great; there are millions of people out there of our generation who had different role models.</p>
<p>Again-- life is filled with choices. Spending 6 months home with a newborn is a wonderful thing- I would have lost my job as well if I had chosen to do that. Your wife CHOSE not to return after having your first child; I CHOSE to go back. We can debate for a month as to whose kids turned out better- but the fact remains that different choices yield different options down the road. </p>
<p>My mom was a schoolteacher and remembers with some sadness a significant job opportunity she passed up because it involved a long commute but would have paid much more, and was in a district which offered some very exciting long term opportunities. That was a choice too-- be home by 3:30 pm every afternoon because she worked close to home, or get home late but with better professional opportunities. So mom's back in the 60's made hard choices too for the sake of their families- don't paint the "work or stay home" debate as an American Family Values issue and demonize working parents. You could not find a more Betty Crocker-type upbringing than the one in the neighborhood I grew up in.... but most of the mom's worked unless they were exceptionally lucky in their choice of husband. Best friends dad owned a carpet store-- her mom was behind the counter every single day. </p>
<p>I respect the choices you've made but get real-- they were choices.</p>
<p>Economics were very different in the 50's than they are now. That which was affordable on one salary (like a house in the suburbs, or college tuition) isn't any more. </p>
<p>And don't forget - the generation of women who grew into feminists (mine) were raised by these women who stayed home and exhibited the "Family Values". Why did we become feminists? Because we saw the frustration and resentment among our mothers; they resented that they had no choices. If all these mothers had been supremely happy, do you really think their daughters would have rebelled strongly enough to change society?</p>
<p>Be aware as well that the "stay at home mom" is primarily a post-WWII phenomenon. When families lived on farms, do you really think that the mother spent her time on child care? No, she was working the farm (as were the children when they were big enough). Women in cities in the late 1800's to early 1900's worked in factories (remember the shirtwaist factory fire of 1911?), in substandard conditions for substandard pay. Do you think that the mothers of the NY tenements had any "choices" to sit home and solely take care of their children? Even if they were at home because they couldn't get work, they took in laundry and sewing, cleaned other tenements, etc. Do you really believe that the help that the upper middle class and rich had were all single women without children? Not true. And how many had to stay with drunks or abusers because they couldn't earn a living themselves? Remember that paying women equally to men is only a recent development and according to studies, even now it's not quite happening yet.</p>
<p>Your wife and you made a CHOICE. And thank your lucky stars that you never got laid off. And your wife should thank her lucky stars that you didn't turn abusive, become disabled, or die so that she could stay home. Any other scenario and your cozy little "commitment" would go down the tubes.</p>
<p>Echoing Chedva, my mom had made a decision to stay at home, until life got in the way, in the form of my dad being laid off, then having cancer, then dying (how inconvenient all that was....) I don't think that being raised by a single, working mom meant I didn't experience any American Family Values.</p>
<p>And, to get this back to what the thread started being about--approaches to work can change, especially as kids get older and close to college age. I chose (and was fortunate to be able to) to work part time when my kids were younger, and we lived frugally to make that work. When oldest was a sophomore in college and youngest a soph in HS, I switched to full time work, pretty much solely to pay for college (my salary actually doesn't quite do it, but I adjunct on top if that, and then it does.) </p>
<p>Because we'd always lived as if we made about half of what we did, this worked, and it also meant H could career switch which slashed his salary but preserved his sanity. (Ironically, now, in our eighth year of kids in college, we are getting pretty substantial aid. Oh well. I'm glad we're almost done!)</p>
<p>but my big point is that college tuition paying should not be a mommy wars subject, because, except for families with a very wide spread between kids, they're pretty grown up by now.</p>
<p>What a poor role model I would have been if I hadn't worked; my "daughters "would not have learned to find a balance for work and family, and my "sons" would not have learned to do household tasks (some cooking, laundry) and to seek a partner in life, with the knowledge of the adjustments and effort that would entail. </p>
<p>I was fortunate in choosing a field that allowed me to adjust hours, so I could be home a lot for baby years, then again for caretaking parents. It sure hurt my paycheck, but life is about balance. I have also seen many 2 professsion couples do amazing things. One woman set up a day care center next to hospital, so she and others could continue to breastfeed and visit (as did her husband--the visiting). Another man reduced hours of his residency so he would be able to share in childcare in the early years. My lawyer friend often worked from home. There are too many examples of couples who made life choices so both parents could be an essential part of the early years to cite here. Books are devoted to this topic. No research that I know finds better outcomes for traditional vs more innovative ways to combine work and childcare.</p>
<p>All the people I know found companies or were essentially self-employed so they could be present for child's significant events or illness. I felt sorry for some children who were left at preschool, then afterschool activities, because their parents worked 8-5:30 or later at inflexible jobs. I don't mean that this pattern didn't work for everyone, but there are clearly children who didn't adapt and parents who lived in perpetual stress.</p>
<p>"what a poor role model I would have been if I hadn't worked"</p>
<p>wow, mommie wars are in full swing. I'm outta here.</p>
<p>Isn't it a little weird when SAHMs throw themselves into their daughters' homework, so that the girls go to great colleges...and get fabulous degrees...and then stay at home to help THEIR daughters? Meanwhile the sons are learning that mothers/wives are there to keep them fed and laundered. </p>
<p>The feminist movement happened for a reason, folks. I sure hope we don't forget it.</p>
<p>If the feminist movement had truely been successful, we'd be having 'daddy wars' too. Instead, we women are still beating on each other. :(</p>
<p>There are plenty of productive contributions a "non-working" spouse can make as a good example to their children, and those don't always come with a paycheck. Not everyone has access to proximate or qualified affordable child care at work. Count your blessings if you do. Those in rural areas, for one, might not have that advantage. Or even access to white-collar jobs at hospitals or universities, or even real-estate careers. I entered this discussion because the non-FA recipients were slamming those who took aid for what it looked like they were implying was either laziness or not making sufficient sacrifices. I asked why working families aren't allowed child-care deductions when one spouse chooses to perform that duty their self at the expense of income from outside employment. I never got that question answered. At the heart of this discussion is the supposition that FA recipients don't "deserve" what they receive because they could have easily earned enough money to pay for college had they only picked themselves up by their own bootstraps. It's not that simple. The real point made obvious here is that those who begrudge FA find it unfair to them. That's a class war issue, not a feminist issue, and not even a tax-fairness issue. It's just plain ignorance.</p>
<p>I don't like mommy wars either. I used to get sick watching SAHMs and working moms battle at an Oprah show when my child was born. So I'm going to stay out of that discussion.
However, I want to inject one point is that my family moved many times to area where there are high paying jobs. And with the high paying jobs came with the high paying childcare and the sky high mortgage.</p>
<p>ProudDad, you got the answer about why a tax deduction is not allowed. You didn't like it. But that's tax policy - you must have an expenditure to have a deduction.</p>
<p>All women (and men, for that matter) should have choices. (BTW, ProudDad, why didn't you stay home and raise your children?) Every choice has consequences. Being a mother who works outside the home is a choice. Being a mother who does not work outside the home is a choice. Both are valid. But both have consequences. If you don't like the consequences, make another choice.</p>
<p>They can give families with stay at home moms (or dads) a tax credit of a certain amount. Then you don't need an expenditure.</p>
<p>They could (as they do with the standard deduction for dependents), but that's not the policy decision that was made by Congress. There are very few, if any, deductions that are allowed without a direct expenditure. If you don't like the policy, take it up with Congress.</p>
<p>
ProudDad, you got the answer about why a tax deduction is not allowed. You didn't like it. But that's tax policy - you must have an expenditure to have a deduction.
The rhetorical argument was in reply to the boot-strap mentality. I do have the expense, and it is loss of income. And I pay taxes. Just because someone makes enough money by working to afford child care doesn't justify to me why they deserve a tax break anymore than why the less-fortunate get FA does to those here who find that unfair. I do understand the tax code, at least as well as those who don't get aid understand the FA system. Think of my argument as tit-for-tat. </p>
<p>
Being a mother who works outside the home is a choice. Being a mother who does not work outside the home is a choice. Both are valid. But both have consequences. If you don't like the consequences, make another choice.
Again, I didn't start the argument that those who get aid should simply work harder or "pick the right womb" as my Dad used to say. I understand the consequences and made the choice. It's those who find FA unfair to the more economically advantaged and suggest poorer families simply didn't make enough sacrifices who perpetuate the "mommy war" here. They, too, need to understand that in our system of FA, they made a choice, too. So quit complaining that you don't get tuition discounts, or simply make your kids work harder, be smarter, and make more sacrifices in their free time to get more merit aid...</p>
<p>See how that feels?</p>
<p>Proud Dad, I get what you are saying. I don't agree with child care tax deductions for anyone -- I think that's handled through the standard deduction. Having and taking care of children has costs, which are the responsibility of the parents, imo. </p>
<p>I would have appreciated a tax deduction, at least on the local level, for private schools. Our kids have never attended a public school, which relieves the community of the expense of educating our children. So we've always paid twice. Once again, our choice, but something that has struck me as unfair.</p>
<p>Chedva, I don't see where anyone has said that the parent who stays home has to be the mom -- the argument works regardless of who is staying home to care for the children. The foregone income is an expense, just as child care to a third party is an expense. Either there should be a standard amount available to all parents or increase the standard deduction.</p>
<p>A lot of parents don't have a choice to stay at home or not; certainly not single parents. Choice is a beautiful thing, and I hope our sons and daughters have the freedom to create families in whatever way they wish. What I am really sick of is the sanctimony "American Values???" with which so called "traditional" families view their choices.
I do wish colleges and universities would spend some time examining the "choices" they make about tuition in terms of its effect on class structure.
There is a gap in between aid and ease, and a lot of people fall into that gap.</p>
<p>Proud-dad--if you go way back in the thread, the mom staying home subject was first raised by a SAHM complaining she couldn't afford to send her kid to her alma mater, a school which, by the way, meets full need. So, the subject did not come up as a complaint about SAHM's getting aid, but as a response to a SAHM not willing to meet EFC at a full-need school, and blaming the school for that. I felt that at this point, this was a choice issue--the aid is there at a full-need school, unless the income is too high to qualify, which is not the school's fault.</p>
<p>The subject has gotten offcourse since, but, back when I posted, the point I was making was not to blame the school for not giving you aid because your income is too high,and you don't want to pay the price (or make lifestyle changes to feel more able to do so). It wasn't orginally at all about begrudging a SAHM family the aid they get; it was about re-framing the complaints of a family which, apparently, didn't qualify for aid.</p>
<p>Hooray for Harvard for spending some of that dough. Their average grant quoted for that level of income is about the same as what my kids get with my income at half that. Maybe I'll sacrifice more, work harder, and have my third child go to Harvard!</p>