GATLING@SUVM (Keith E Gatling) (01/17/90)
Eric:
I think you missed *my* point. You say that only one of you is working. Okay.
Now if you consider how much you're making now, and what you're getting taxed
on it as part of a family, you *are* getting taxed less than if you were sin-
gle. It may not be enough for you to live comfortably, but it is less.
Also, I know that in the case of me and Cheryl, the difference was one of
about $500. When we were single we each got back $500, now we *together* get
back that much. The $500 we lost on the deal isn't enough to make life miser-
able for us. And if Cheryl weren't working, we'd be taxed less because we'd
be making less...*then* we would probably get back the $1000 as a couple that
we used to as singles. However, even if we got back $2000, it wouldn't make
up for her current salary.
As far as the system forcing women to work goes, the idea of the traditional
family where only the father works, and the mother stays home with the children
has only been traditional during this century...and only among the middle and
upper classes, at that. When we were an agricultural economy both parents
worked together on the farm, and that was the traditional family. When the
industrial age first arrived, it took the father away from the home for extend-
ed amounts of time during the day, and changed the traditional family...leaving
the mother to tend to the home herself. If we want to go by sheer numbers, it
*may* be possible that the "traditional" family was one in which mother, father
and children were all working in a mill somewhere. It is probably only within
the last century, and especially during the boom immediately after WWII, that
we started to believe that the family should be able to live totally off of the
income of one person...the father.
But even that was a fallacy. Wives worked until they had kids, and then
stayed home until they were in school, at which point they went back to work...
usually as teachers and nurses...to whom we could pay less money because they
were "merely" the second income of the household. And large numbers of men
who insisted on carrying the burden of providing for the family alone suffered
heart attacks. I thought that this was a recent development until Cheryl told
me that she read something which showed that it was occuring as far back as the
late 40s and early 50s. And the interesting thing is that had these men al-
lowed their wives to be their helpers, they might have lived longer, rather
than dying early and leaving a "non-traditional" family of widow and children.
Cheryl and I have talked about what we want to do when we have children.
Both of us grew up in families where our mothers went back to work after we
were in school, and neither of us has suffered for it. We've agreed that it
would be nice if one of us didn't have to work full time, if one of us could
work part time, but we've never considered the fact that one person would
still have to work somewhat as an inherent evil. And the only reason at this
point why it would be Cheryl staying home instead of me is because my job has
the better benefits. I'd gladly stay home with the kids.
My father worked two jobs before my mother went back to work, and I've de-
cided that it's better for the kid to see both parents part of the time, than
one parent none of the time, and that's what we're going to strive for. Ideal-
ly, we would each be able to work three-quarters time...30 hours a week each,
but the reality of the situation is that I will probably continue to work 40
while she works 20...and both of us get to spend time with the kid.
In short, the traditional family is always changing, but for more time than it
didn't, it usually included both parents working.
keg