One of the most dangerous times in any society is when a government attempts to introduce changes by stealth rather than by overt action. This is what happened in this year's Budget in relation to single-income couples.

In contrast to last year's budget, the Government presented things differently. They dropped the term "individualisation" but added to it in practice.

Single-income couples reach the top rate of tax at £29,000, whereas double-income couples do not reach it until they earn £40,000 between them. This can make single-income couples over £30 a week worse off on the same income.

Thus the Government is pressing onwards with the concept of individualisation. Women, who forfeit an extra income, who forfeit the stimulating adult world of work and who give in to their hearts' desire to be physically and emotionally close, on a daily basis, to their children, now find that something worse than mere discrimination is afoot.

They are gradually being forced out of existence. Soon they will look like pariahs, whereby even their own children, finding themselves to be different to their peers, will feel it distinctly odd and disorientating to have a mother who works in the home.

They will be asked by their peers why their mother should be at home, as if she had some sort of illness or was congenitally lazy.

Women who now decide to work in the home will have to be exceptionally strong characters to withstand the financial, political and social arrows that will fly in their direction.

They have long been covertly criticised by some mothers in the paid workforce, some of whom find unsettling the idea of mothers being supported to stay at home with her children.

Articles have begun to appear in newspapers which seek to portray stay-at-home mothers as nail-painting dilettantes of the "shop till you drop" variety. Phone calls are made to talk shows, suggesting that these women are selfish and superior.

All of this is a perversion of the truth. But the fact that these charges are made is symptomatic of a deeper malaise and one which this Government through the Budget is helping to foster.

Career women are generally better educated, more articulate and assertive than their sisters in the home. Eighty-seven per cent of women with degrees work outside the home, as against only 46 per cent of those with Junior Cert level education.

Women graduates, being articulate and well placed, command greater media space and governmental attention. Not only are women in the home less vocally dominant, but they are generally too absorbed in the life and times of their homes and families to participate in public spats.

Mothers remain in the paid workforce for a number of reasons. First, they may wish to pursue their career. Second, economic circumstances dictate their actions. The price of houses and the cost of mortgages deprive most young couples of any choice but work. Third, there may be some emotional and psychological need requiring care and nurturing through work outside the home.

All of those reasons have varying degrees of credibility and necessity, depending on circumstances, some more than others. They cannot all be dismissed nonchalantly. The price of houses is an absolute imperative for many.

Mothers who work in the home have their reasons too for wishing to do so. Fundamentally, they have a deep belief in the need of a full-time parent in the home. In their reckoning this belief outweighs all other considerations and desires.

For many, however, the cost of owning the home in which their children will grow up forces them to go against this instinct. But the social cost of this decision may be very high, if it means that parents are not around when children come home for their main meal of the day.

That meal, and the conversations that take place over it, shape young people's thoughts and ideas for their future.

The individualisation of tax bands, escalating house prices and ever-lengthening commuting times are combining to induce both parents to spend fewer hours a day in their homes.

A recent US study by President Clinton's economic advisers estimated that there has been a decrease of 22 hours a week in parental time available outside paid work in the past 25 years. This is happening at a much faster pace in Ireland.

The same advisers have found significant differences between American teenagers who "eat dinner with their parents at least five times a week" and those who do not. They are, broadly speaking, the same age group. The US teenagers who are not close to their parents and who do not eat regularly with them each week are, according to President Clinton's report:

Twice as likely to use marijuana;

Three times as likely to have suicidal thoughts and twice as likely to attempt it;

Twice as likely to be drinking alcohol while under 16;

Thirty-three per cent more likely to get into serious fights; and

Fifty per cent more likely to smoke cigarettes while under 16.

The Minister for Finance might do well to study the reports of those advisers before he converts his Budget proposals, to add further to the tax penalties on families where one spouse works at home, into concrete legal form in the Finance Bill.

He has no financial need to penalise one-income families to give more to two-income families. He can treat both equally, and still be generous to two-income families. He has no shortage of money.

Finola Bruton is the wife of John Bruton, leader of Fine Gael. This article first appeared in Thursday's edition of the Irish Catholic. Next week, The Irish Times will publish Budget commentaries by Father Sean Healy of the Conference of Religious of Ireland, Michael Noonan of Fine Gael, and the Tanaiste, Mary Harney.