[bottle~rocket]

WOMEN are being discouraged from returning to work after having children because tax, childcare costs and lost government benefits leave some clearing as little as 20¢ from every dollar they earn.

Read more: [url="http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/life-style/family-finances/mums-penalised-for-working-20121127-2a58i.html[/url]

I didn't realise that there is so little financial reward for second income earners to work in two-parent families with children.

Reason for edit: edited to add EB article link

[ednaboo]

I recall a similar article from the Herald-Sun about 10 years ago and sadly nothing much has changed.

[lsolaBella]

For us (and we don't get anything from the govt) for me to return to work (also adding transport costs) I would clear all of $20 for a weeks work.

Not worth it for us.

[CupOfCoffee]

This is true in our case (but the lower income earner is my husband). The reason he does work (even though we are not really better off financially (with day care etc) is because for a male it is harder to re-enter the workforce after a break and I have a personal objection to being supported when we can support ourselves.

But sometimes it is tempting to have one parent at home.

[Lucretia Borgia]

I'm going back next feb three days a week....for various reasons we are going down the nanny path, cash in hand so won't get anything back from the govt...I will net $58 a day.....not really worth it but I figure he won't be in expensive care like that forever, I am keeping my skills up, getting super paid.....racking up"time served" to hopefully get long service łeave at some point ....meh, ask me next march if I think it's worth it!

[casime]

I hate stories like this. For one thing, it assumes that all the costs of childcare come out of the woman's pay. Where are the fathers in this? A dual income should be looked at on a per family basis, not just on one person's wage. Secondly, it ignores the benefits of women remaining in work. Children are only in child care for a short period of time, so the expenditure is finite, but has benefits such as retaining employability and building superannuation. Quite frankly, I think this sort of thing is an excuse that some women use to avoid having to go back to work (flame suit firmly on).

[BornToLove]

Our situation is similar to the high income couple with on child in the article (though we make slightly less than they do). I would agree that after childcare I bring home about 60% of my net pay. For us, it makes sense that I work.

But for me personally, working is not about money. I am not SAHM material and find I need the balance and stimulation that going to work provides me. Working makes *me* a better mother. So as long as my wage covers child care fees, I will continue to work without guilt.

[FrogIsAFrogIsAFr...]

Secondly, it ignores the benefits of women remaining in work. Children are only in child care for a short period of time, so the expenditure is finite, but has benefits such as retaining employability and building superannuation. Quite frankly, I think this sort of thing is an excuse that some women use to avoid having to go back to work (flame suit firmly on).

I somewhat agree. I worked for many reasons, few of them financial.

Now that I have school age children and don't pay child care costs anyway, I really value the way my resume looks with my employment history, the skills I gained in that working period and the contacts I made (invaluable).

[lsolaBella]

Casime yes you could try and divide costs across both incomes. We were looking at what me working would add to the household bottom line. Then offsetting that against the disruption to the household etc.

As DH working is not the change we were looking at the impact on my income only.

[MrsLexiK]

I hate stories like this. For one thing, it assumes that all the costs of childcare come out of the woman's pay. Where are the fathers in this? A dual income should be looked at on a per family basis, not just on one person's wage. Secondly, it ignores the benefits of women remaining in work. Children are only in child care for a short period of time, so the expenditure is finite, but has benefits such as retaining employability and building superannuation. Quite frankly, I think this sort of thing is an excuse that some women use to avoid having to go back to work (flame suit firmly on).

I agree a little bit but if I am not working my DH's wage is already budgeted. If I return to work we need to weigh up the extra petrol I would, any tolls and child care.