It would be possible for more people if only I could insist that my boss pays half my salary to my wife - we'd end up paying far less tax. That is not tax evasion - it a proper recognition of the real structure of our work as a couple. I can only put in honest hours at work because she looks after the children and waits for the plumber, etc. I do not have to short-change my colleagues like many other parents who rush off within 60 seconds of the end of the day, even if urgent work has just come in. My boss should pay my wife for this valuable service to the company, not be prevented from doing so by Gordon Brown.
Tim Temmink, London As Libby Purves suggests, the "elephant in the room" of UK economic and social policy is the astronomic cost of buying and running a home. As many respondents make clear, most families are forced to have two incomes to feed and shelter even a small family. But I simply cannot imagine either of the main parties addressing this problem, as high property prices are deemed the "feelgood" factor which drives the modern, consumption-led economy - and the tax revenues which are derived from that. For Labour, the status quo is fine - far better to have two incomes, and two sets of tax revenues, plus taxes from childcare providers and their employees, than a single revenue generator in each household. I cannot see a change from Blair to Brown making any difference to this policy. For the Tories to challenge the situation, they would have to work out a way to reduce house prices and existing mortgages. Fundamentally, they would have to build lots of houses where they're wanted (generally, alas, in their own constituencies), at the same time as engineering a dose of inflation to depreciate existing mortgages rapidly. You could say that these are hardly natural Tory policies! To become the "party of the family" they would also have to accept reduced tax revenues as a result of mothers (or fathers) leaving the workplace and returning home to look after their children. Any ideas, Mr. Cameron? Mark Allen, Oxfordshire
In my humble, stay-at-home opinion (any spelling mistakes should be blamed on a woefully under-stimulated brain), children are only better off with a stay-at-home mother if that is exactly where she and her partner want her to be. I know a lot of women who could easily stay home but who would go stark mad having to sing "the wheels on the bus" 20 times before breakfast. I know others who would like to stay home but whose husbands want the status not of a clever non-working wife, but of a trophy wife with an impressive career. In either of these situations are the children really better off being cared for by the mother? Charlotte Warner, London
How come we never have a debate about whether men can have it all? Why is it always the woman who has to choose between her career and her children? Half of the career problems of working mothers would evaporate if they were competing in the workplace with men who also struggled with childcare responsibilities. It's time for society to start rewarding parents, regardless of gender, for their contributions to the next generation of taxpayers. Name and address withheld
As usual Libby Purves has hit the nail on the head. I particularly liked her last paragraph. The assumption that rising house prices are a good thing is crazy. And sending babies to nurseries to be looked after by someone less suited to the task than their own mothers smacks of taking in each other's washing. For a start, the personal tax allowance of anyone with a child under three should be transferable to their partner - a drop in the ocean for the mortgage but at least an acknowledgement that caring for a child is the most important job there is. Ann Franklin, Rugby
As a British citizen and young mother of a child aged two, living in Argentina, I probably would have whole heartedly supported the under threes with mum debate, having been raised with that as the norm. Until, that is, I encountered the expertise, love and devotion of childcare in Buenos Aires. As a partner in a newly-established business, my pregnancy was an unexpected surprise. I opted to move to Argentina and continue to build a future for my son. As pubs are to Ireland, so kindergartens are to Argentina and having visited/vetted more than 20 places in our area, I couldn't fault more than three or four. Argentina is like 1960s England in terms of community and family values. Children matter, and for that reason, childcare is a pure vocation. My son runs to jardin every morning. A child with a loving but uncreative, non-stimulating environment will suffer as will a child in a kindergarten that is a non-loving institutional environment. Like all things in life, make your choices carefully and be confident. Remember, they used to say smacking your child for not eating or sleeping was the right thing to do. Fiona Bengtsson, Buenos Aires
Women should not feel guilty about leaving their child in a well-run nursery, nor should they be made to feel so by psychologists who keep changing their minds about whether it is a good or bad idea, or by journalists from a different generation who didn't have to incur the enormous cost of mortgages today. I am tired of reading that women today "have a choice". Of course I have a choice; I could raise numerous children and not work, my husband could choose not to work, too, and we could therefore live off the system and get the Government to provide us with a house, pay our bills and cover our food costs. But my husband and I made our choice, we opted to have a mortgage and pay our bills. We adore our son, and weekends with the three of us are very precious. How can Steve Biddulph be so sure that parents who leave their babies in nursery before the age of three are likely to damage their development? I've seen children raised by stay-at-home mothers who suffer later in life because of the devastating effects a break-up in a marriage can cause. A child needs a happy and loving home irrespective of whether one or both parents work. Jenny Desmond, Oxford
Libby Purves - pile on the guilt! I'm writing this with my four-month-old asleep on my shoulder and my two-year-old currently suffering irreparable damage for life by spending the day at a good quality nursery where she seems very happy. I'm due back at work in two months and seem to have no good options. Staying at home is financially unviable, and would mean the end of a career I've spent 15 years building. I've no relatives living in the country, let alone nearby. Quality of childminders and nannies seems even more variable than quality of nurseries, and much harder to monitor and control - now I'm told even quality daycare isn't good enough. Help - what do I do? Debra Webb, Reigate
The phrase "having it all" is confused with the term "having it all at the same time". I do believe that to achieve the former is possible, to achieve the latter is not. I am a 35-year-old mum of two who enjoyed a fulfilling and well-paid career for ten years before giving it up to raise the children. I felt fulfilled at work, and yes, for a moment I had to pinch myself to question "am I really doing the right thing in giving up all these privileges?" But all those privileges were quickly replaced by the wonderfully fulfilling experience of caring for my children. If lots of money matters, then I don't have it all. If reaching my potential at work matters, then I don't have it all either as I know that I could have progressed further if I had continued. However, I know I had a great career in those pre-children years, can adapt to the change in financial circumstances, and am now fulfilled as a wife and mother. I also know that the workplace will always be there to return to when family life is better suited to it. Women place too much pressure on themselves by trying to do it all at the same time. Name and address withheld
This debate is too crucial to be superficially ranted about using a few anecdotes, the de rigueur reference to one or two experts, an extremely narrow definition of "working mother", not to mention a whole host of other issues thrown in for good measure. If Libby Purves's article is meant to be a provocative rant, she has succeeded. A scientific, rational and qualified analysis it is not. Sean Lund, London
It is becoming more and more clear that there is a group of feminists who will not settle for equality, and are hell-bent on all-out supremacy. The only sexism I witness on a regular basis are repeated jibes on how rubbish men are. If I inverted the gender of the lists of jokes about men that regularly hit my inbox before forwarding them on, I'd get sacked and chased down the street like a pestilent rat. Women should do what makes them happy in themselves, and not try to live up to some pie-in-the-sky ideal penned by a deluded militant. Simon Clark, London
The great mantra today for the "have it all" woman is "choice". Fine; but at least let it be informed choice. Are you aware of some of the effects of persistent stress on the developing infant brain? Are you aware that babies and toddlers experience very real stress if left for long hours in some day nurseries? Have you read about the different reactions to nurseries of the under-2s-to-3s and the over 3s? If you read it up and weigh it up and, in addition, consider what your baby's choice might be as well, then indeed your choice is a free one. Diana Dean, Cambridge
I am 28 and would dearly love to have a child. I can't afford to; my partner and I can't afford to buy a house where we live (even though we both earn above average salaries and have a deposit). We wouldn't be able to afford to rent our (one-bed) flat were we to have a child: we could neither afford to pay our rent on one salary nor pay for those cost of childcare so we could both keep working. It's not that we want it all, or are too interested in our careers. The simple truth is that house prices, and the cost of living, are too high for us to start a family - even as working graduates in our late-20s. We have no choice but to wait and to try to earn more so we can buy a house (which means focusing on our careers). By the time we can afford to have children, we might not be able to. This situation has not been caused by women 'wanting to have it all'; it has been caused by the deregulation of the mortgage market (in the 80s), and ridiculous levels of property speculation (still continuing, and often based on people buying second homes to let as investments) which has driven the prices of houses, compared to incomes, way beyond the experience of previous generations. My parents could afford to buy a family house on one income in the 1970s and early 1980s; I can't afford even the smallest flat in my area of the south-east, where local house prices are over ten times average incomes. The long-term demographic implications of a generation with its lives on hold, waiting to be able to have a house and a family, are hugely worrying. The birth rate has already fallen below replacement levels. Those who think children are a lifestyle choice: ask who will pay for your pension, pay the tax to keep your country running, carry out your healthcare, and rent your buy-to-let investment properties in the future? Children support a society: it's not in our collective interests not to support both women and men in having and raising families. Name and address withheld
