# :( feeling crappy. Is it worth working??



## welshsarah

I dont know if this is the right place to put this. I have a 2 year old and a 4 year old. Just recently I have gone back to work, after discovering our working tax credits had been cut from £180 a month to 17 month. (my partner had to do a lot of overtime last year to pay for our car, a lot of things went wrong and we ended up having to buy a new one). Well anyway we had the letter saying we had been over paid by 1600 or something and our working tax was lowered. So as we were struggling on the one wage anyway I decided to go back to work. (we also want a final child in the future too :( ). Well anyway everything was ok for a while. I started working a lot of hours much to the disadvantage of the kids and I put my 2 year old in playgroup 3 mornings a week, only costing £90 a month, (I say only but I know other people pay a lot more than this). 
I felt terrible leaving my children and as I was so desperate in my interview I got taken on as a temp with possibility as being made permanent in january. The only problem is the hours are all over the place and they are different each week. But what kept me going was knowing that I was going to bring home around 500 extra a month and be able to provide better for the family.
However I found out today that im working for peanuts as even through at the moment I may find i get extra money. In april they will review my tax credits and housing and take this off us.
So my child tax will reduce from 103 a week to 47 and Housing allowance from 35 a week to nothing. 
224 loss in child tax credits
140 loss in housing allowance
Plus would have to pay back my working tax (27 a month)
and £90 im spending on childcare a month

So i be getting an extra 19 a month for doing 20 hours overtime. Advice please. I dont want to come across as a scrounger, but its breaking my heart leaving the kids :( and finding out this is hurting even more.


----------



## freckleonear

Personally, I don't think it's worth missing out on precious time with your children for such a small amount of extra money. They'll be at school before you know it, and there's plenty of time to work then. :hugs:


----------



## welshsarah

freckleonear said:


> Personally, I don't think it's worth missing out on precious time with your children for such a small amount of extra money. They'll be at school before you know it, and there's plenty of time to work then. :hugs:

This is what me and my partner are saying. Our kids are more important than money at the moment. I always imagined of having 3 children but without the extra income it looks like we will have to make do with the 2 we got. :( 
xx


----------



## hattiehippo

I'd totally agree that's it's not worth working that amount for that little money. It's a shame though because I think being a working parent is an excellent example to set your kids but like freckleonear says there will be time to work more once they're both at school.

On the other hand lots of women have no choice but to put their kids in child care from a lot younger than 2 and 3 mornings a week in play group is really not a lot and will help support his interaction with other children etc ready for school. Does he like going to the play group?


----------



## welshsarah

hattiehippo said:


> I'd totally agree that's it's not worth working that amount for that little money. It's a shame though because I think being a working parent is an excellent example to set your kids but like freckleonear says there will be time to work more once they're both at school.
> 
> On the other hand lots of women have no choice but to put their kids in child care from a lot younger than 2 and 3 mornings a week in play group is really not a lot and will help support his interaction with other children etc ready for school. Does he like going to the play group?

he does. He only goes for 2 hours a morning, but if I wasnt working I would take him to mum and toddlers 3 times a week anyway. (would save me £78 a month for the same time also, as mum and toddlers is only £1 a session.)X


----------



## happysaurus

I'd suggest thinking about the bigger picture. Just now you might not be better off by much working but, by working, you can start gaining experience and applying for better jobs and end up much better off. This is especially important if you want a third because otherwise you'll end up trapped on benefits, with the state supporting your children and I don't think that's good for anyone's self esteem. Yes, it will be tough in the short term but - if you take the leap off subsidies now - you'll be much better off in the future emotionally and financially.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

We looked at me going back to work when Alex was born and it's just not worth it! We would be WORSE off (like yourself) if I were to go back to work.

You can gain experience by volunteering as well. It doesn't always have to be paid work. I volunteer with Victim Support. I can put it on my c/v and it shows consistancy.

Don't be ashamed of going on benefits for now. You won't be "trapped" on them.


----------



## welshsarah

happysaurus said:


> I'd suggest thinking about the bigger picture. Just now you might not be better off by much working but, by working, you can start gaining experience and applying for better jobs and end up much better off. This is especially important if you want a third because otherwise you'll end up trapped on benefits, with the state supporting your children and I don't think that's good for anyone's self esteem. Yes, it will be tough in the short term but - if you take the leap off subsidies now - you'll be much better off in the future emotionally and financially.

My partner has a degree and as been trying for 5 years to better himself since learning I was pregnant but theres nothing out there. I only have a nvq level 3 in health and social and some A levels. Im just worried I wont be able to advance and get a better job because Iv seen how hard my partner has been trying and its hopeless :(X


----------



## welshsarah

I wouldnt mind volunteering for a few hours each week. xx


----------



## Ozzieshunni

It's a great way to stay connected to the working world, but without the stress of committing to a specific time :flower:


----------



## welshsarah

Ozzieshunni said:


> It's a great way to stay connected to the working world, but without the stress of committing to a specific time :flower:

That be fab as my partner works shift work. :) theres a too good too waste near us I could ask them if they need an extra pair of hands. Do anyone know how much notice you need to give for tempoary work?X


----------



## Ozzieshunni

welshsarah said:


> Ozzieshunni said:
> 
> 
> It's a great way to stay connected to the working world, but without the stress of committing to a specific time :flower:
> 
> That be fab as my partner works shift work. :) theres a too good too waste near us I could ask them if they need an extra pair of hands. Do anyone know how much notice you need to give for tempoary work?XClick to expand...

I don't. It should say in your contract though :)


----------



## LPF

I don't know much about benefits but are you allowed to give up a perfectly good job to claim benefits (I'm not disputing your reasons - I'd probably feel the same!) I'd just of thought with the way systems are changing etc they wouldn't make it so easy for you!

I would agree with the bigger picture - think about how easy (or not) it will be to get into work in the future if the economic climate continues to deteriorate - is it better to stick with a job when you've got one?


----------



## MrsT&Ben

I have to work. We earn too much money apparently so we aren't entitled to a penny. I would love to stay at home with my son but we can't afford it. 
I think any kind of work is good work. I'm not getting at you but the system is all wrong. It should encourage people to work not be better off on benefits!!!


----------



## Ozzieshunni

I'm actually very thankful for the system. In the US, I would have had to go back to work when Alex was six weeks old! Here, I can stay home and raise him, as it's meant to be done. There will always be time for work and money. These years with my son are priceless and I'm damn lucky to be able to have them :)


----------



## AlwaysPraying

I couldn't afford TO work. The cost of daycare, work clothing, work lunches, gas and vehicle expenses would be more than what I would bring in. It's just not feasible. Now I stay at home with my son, we eat at home, play at home, wear reasonable clothing and do reasonable things. We do go without a lot. We don't vacation or travel we have barely any extra spending money but I'm home with our kids and that's working out good for us. I don't see why I'd go to work, and spend 10+ hours away from him and 3 hours with him in the evening to bring in a couple hundred extra a month? Don't get me wrong we could use the extra if for some reason I made more than it would cost to work, but I find it much easier to go to extremes and not spend that extra money. My husband brings in just enough for us so its not like we have a big one income we live very tight but to me bringing up baby is priority.


----------



## welshsarah

Ozzieshunni said:


> welshsarah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozzieshunni said:
> 
> 
> It's a great way to stay connected to the working world, but without the stress of committing to a specific time :flower:
> 
> That be fab as my partner works shift work. :) theres a too good too waste near us I could ask them if they need an extra pair of hands. Do anyone know how much notice you need to give for tempoary work?XClick to expand...
> 
> I don't. It should say in your contract though :)Click to expand...

I know this sounds strange but I dont remember having a contract (well we didnt bring it home anyway) just a bunch of things to sign about selling fireworks and the shops conditions. I dont have any set hours they differ each week and at the moment I am temporary.x


----------



## welshsarah

LPF said:


> I don't know much about benefits but are you allowed to give up a perfectly good job to claim benefits (I'm not disputing your reasons - I'd probably feel the same!) I'd just of thought with the way systems are changing etc they wouldn't make it so easy for you!
> 
> I would agree with the bigger picture - think about how easy (or not) it will be to get into work in the future if the economic climate continues to deteriorate - is it better to stick with a job when you've got one?

yeh, I know what your saying but I have also read a lot of things about the government making it even harder for second earners. so im full of doubt at the moment. :( xx


----------



## welshsarah

MrsT&Ben said:


> I have to work. We earn too much money apparently so we aren't entitled to a penny. I would love to stay at home with my son but we can't afford it.
> I think any kind of work is good work. I'm not getting at you but the system is all wrong. It should encourage people to work not be better off on benefits!!!

It is wrong hun. I was really happy when I got the job thinking I be able to provide for my little ones and be able to afford to take them nice places and give them little treats. Was disgusted finding out the money I be earning will all be taking away.x


----------



## welshsarah

Ozzieshunni said:


> I'm actually very thankful for the system. In the US, I would have had to go back to work when Alex was six weeks old! Here, I can stay home and raise him, as it's meant to be done. There will always be time for work and money. These years with my son are priceless and I'm damn lucky to be able to have them :)




AlwaysPraying said:


> I couldn't afford TO work. The cost of daycare, work clothing, work lunches, gas and vehicle expenses would be more than what I would bring in. It's just not feasible. Now I stay at home with my son, we eat at home, play at home, wear reasonable clothing and do reasonable things. We do go without a lot. We don't vacation or travel we have barely any extra spending money but I'm home with our kids and that's working out good for us. I don't see why I'd go to work, and spend 10+ hours away from him and 3 hours with him in the evening to bring in a couple hundred extra a month? Don't get me wrong we could use the extra if for some reason I made more than it would cost to work, but I find it much easier to go to extremes and not spend that extra money. My husband brings in just enough for us so its not like we have a big one income we live very tight but to me bringing up baby is priority.

I know what your saying hun. Im leaning towards that way of thinking. xx


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

You can't claim out of work benefits if you've quit, I don't think. I was made redundant personally so could claim income support (I'm a single parent.) I am better off than I was when I worked, by quite some way. The system is messed up, although I am currently very grateful for it.


----------



## RachA

Personally for that little i wouldn't bother working at the moment. OH wanted me to go back to work ofter having our first but once we'd done the sums we worked out that i'd be working 16 hours a week but out of the house for well over 20 hours and we would of brought home an extra £20 per month. The extra stress wasn't worth it.

I agree that these years go by so quickly and you need to be happy with what you are doing. While you are gaining experience in doing your job it's not something that you won't get if you waited a couple of years before going back to work, that gaining of experience will be there whether you work now or in 5 years time.


----------



## _Vicky_

freckleonear said:


> Personally, I don't think it's worth missing out on precious time with your children for such a small amount of extra money. They'll be at school before you know it, and there's plenty of time to work then. :hugs:

This exactly!!!!!


----------



## welshsarah

Mum2b_Claire said:


> You can't claim out of work benefits if you've quit, I don't think. I was made redundant personally so could claim income support (I'm a single parent.) I am better off than I was when I worked, by quite some way. The system is messed up, although I am currently very grateful for it.

we will be able to claim the tax credits and housing benefit hun. Im not looking to claim job seekers. x


----------



## welshsarah

RachA said:


> Personally for that little i wouldn't bother working at the moment. OH wanted me to go back to work ofter having our first but once we'd done the sums we worked out that i'd be working 16 hours a week but out of the house for well over 20 hours and we would of brought home an extra £20 per month. The extra stress wasn't worth it.
> 
> I agree that these years go by so quickly and you need to be happy with what you are doing. While you are gaining experience in doing your job it's not something that you won't get if you waited a couple of years before going back to work, that gaining of experience will be there whether you work now or in 5 years time.

Thank you hun, I am going to give up work and do volunteering for a few chosen hours a week when hubby is home to get experience. Just need to find out what I should do with my current job its temporary and I started on 15th October. I dont have the contract here with me. Do I have to give an notice or ring and say I cant come in no more.x


----------



## welshsarah

_Vicky_ said:


> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't think it's worth missing out on precious time with your children for such a small amount of extra money. They'll be at school before you know it, and there's plenty of time to work then. :hugs:
> 
> This exactly!!!!!Click to expand...

xxxxx I know x


----------



## Sarahwoo

welshsarah said:


> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> I have to work. We earn too much money apparently so we aren't entitled to a penny. I would love to stay at home with my son but we can't afford it.
> I think any kind of work is good work. I'm not getting at you but the system is all wrong. It should encourage people to work not be better off on benefits!!!
> 
> It is wrong hun. I was really happy when I got the job thinking I be able to provide for my little ones and be able to afford to take them nice places and give them little treats. Was disgusted finding out the money I be earning will all be taking away.xClick to expand...

But the money you earn isn't been taken away - you were been given money because the government thought that you needed it to get by - then you found a job, so you were earning the money and didnt need the government help for essentials. You were thinking that the benefits would pay for you to take your little ones out and buy them treats and that's just not what they are for. 

I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but it frustrates me that people should be so, so grateful that they get benefits in this country, that we live somewhere that we are helped out. Not many peopl can afford to stay home and raise their kids, even if they would love to and it breaks their heart to leave them - like someone else said in America you'd be lucky to get six weeks never mind the six month maternity we get here. 

I'm really lucky in that my husband earns a good wage, which means we've never been entitled to benefits. I desperately wanted to stay home wih my son so I set up my own business and I work from home while I look after him. I know Im very lucky, but I always knew I would want to stay home so I spent years planning a work from home business, starting up while working a full time job etc, hoping that one day it would all come together - which it did. We don't have lots of holidays, or new cars, or a big house, all things we could have had if I'd stayed in my full time job - that's the price we paid, to us it was well worth it. But it took years of planning, saving, not moving to a bigger house etc.


----------



## patch2006uk

I can see both sides tbh. I didn't earn enough for it to be worthwhile for me to go back to work-by the time I'd paid for childcare, my wages would be totally spent. However, we don't get any government support beyond child benefit. If I was claiming housing benefit, or another benefit, and working meant I didn't need that benefit, I would consider working even if my wages didn't add in much more to the overall disposable income. 

It's a difficult situation. Maybe in your shoes I would look for a job that was more consistent in terms of hours, and was perhaps more satisfying, rather than just work for the sake of it. Or perhaps look for evening or perhaps night work (call centres often offer very well paid evening or night work, and it isn't all cold calling. I looked into working for the NHS's phone service, and the shifts were 8pm-4am or 12-8am, three nights a week and paying about £18k. I wasn't looking for night work at the time, so I didn't take it, but it's another option to consider)


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Don't feel guilty about it. Do what's best for your family. If staying home is best, do it!


----------



## welshsarah

Im giving them a ring this morning to tell them that the job is not right for me. Iv signed up to some mystery shopping jobs (I can take Little one around with me) and my friend has offered me some work with helping her with her mascot bushiness, now and again with children's parties. I have no idea what I am going to say to work. I started on 15th October should I ring and say I cant work no more, or do I need to give notice for being a temp?X


----------



## welshsarah

We looked into night work but my partner works shifts 2 days on 2 nights on and 4 days off so would be hard for us to find a job which would cater around that. as it means 4 nights in 7 weeks we would be stuck and have no one there for the kids. However if he had a day job I wouldnt mind doing nights. you would only need to do 3 shifts in 7 to get around 30 hours.x


----------



## welshsarah

Sarahwoo said:


> welshsarah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> I have to work. We earn too much money apparently so we aren't entitled to a penny. I would love to stay at home with my son but we can't afford it.
> I think any kind of work is good work. I'm not getting at you but the system is all wrong. It should encourage people to work not be better off on benefits!!!
> 
> It is wrong hun. I was really happy when I got the job thinking I be able to provide for my little ones and be able to afford to take them nice places and give them little treats. Was disgusted finding out the money I be earning will all be taking away.xClick to expand...
> 
> But the money you earn isn't been taken away - you were been given money because the government thought that you needed it to get by - then you found a job, so you were earning the money and didnt need the government help for essentials. You were thinking that the benefits would pay for you to take your little ones out and buy them treats and that's just not what they are for.
> 
> I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but it frustrates me that people should be so, so grateful that they get benefits in this country, that we live somewhere that we are helped out. Not many peopl can afford to stay home and raise their kids, even if they would love to and it breaks their heart to leave them - like someone else said in America you'd be lucky to get six weeks never mind the six month maternity we get here.
> 
> I'm really lucky in that my husband earns a good wage, which means we've never been entitled to benefits. I desperately wanted to stay home wih my son so I set up my own business and I work from home while I look after him. I know Im very lucky, but I always knew I would want to stay home so I spent years planning a work from home business, starting up while working a full time job etc, hoping that one day it would all come together - which it did. We don't have lots of holidays, or new cars, or a big house, all things we could have had if I'd stayed in my full time job - that's the price we paid, to us it was well worth it. But it took years of planning, saving, not moving to a bigger house etc.Click to expand...

I am going to try working for home, going to do some mystery shopping work and help out with my friend with her party mascot buisness. Maybe be able to learn some skills that way xxx


----------



## LPF

Sarahwoo said:


> welshsarah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> I have to work. We earn too much money apparently so we aren't entitled to a penny. I would love to stay at home with my son but we can't afford it.
> I think any kind of work is good work. I'm not getting at you but the system is all wrong. It should encourage people to work not be better off on benefits!!!
> 
> It is wrong hun. I was really happy when I got the job thinking I be able to provide for my little ones and be able to afford to take them nice places and give them little treats. Was disgusted finding out the money I be earning will all be taking away.xClick to expand...
> 
> But the money you earn isn't been taken away - you were been given money because the government thought that you needed it to get by - then you found a job, so you were earning the money and didnt need the government help for essentials. You were thinking that the benefits would pay for you to take your little ones out and buy them treats and that's just not what they are for.
> 
> I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but it frustrates me that people should be so, so grateful that they get benefits in this country, that we live somewhere that we are helped out. Not many peopl can afford to stay home and raise their kids, even if they would love to and it breaks their heart to leave them - like someone else said in America you'd be lucky to get six weeks never mind the six month maternity we get here.
> 
> I'm really lucky in that my husband earns a good wage, which means we've never been entitled to benefits. I desperately wanted to stay home wih my son so I set up my own business and I work from home while I look after him. I know Im very lucky, but I always knew I would want to stay home so I spent years planning a work from home business, starting up while working a full time job etc, hoping that one day it would all come together - which it did. We don't have lots of holidays, or new cars, or a big house, all things we could have had if I'd stayed in my full time job - that's the price we paid, to us it was well worth it. But it took years of planning, saving, not moving to a bigger house etc.Click to expand...

That's an interesting point of view actually. 

Benefits should be there to support you if you can't work or find a job not as a lifestyle choice. I guess this is what the government are going to try and implement to stop people giving up a perfectly good job to clam benefits. 

I can see it from both sides but I've always believe you should only give up work and stay at home if you can fully support yourself without benefits, but I know that seems crazy when you could be at home with your children and benefits paying you to do it.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

We get child tax credits (incl. working tax credits) and child benefit. We are entitled to those as DH works and we have a son :shrug: With those that we are entitled to because DH works his ASS off, we would STILL have less coming in if I went to work. That, to me, doesn't make sense, so I'll continue to consider myself lucky.


----------



## Septie

I think there are two valid points of view here: Given the generous benefit system, what is best for an individual's family (like the OP's)? It is hard to argue that she continuing to work is best for her kids, unless her current job provides substantial experience and upward mobility. And what are the effects of these incentives created by the generous benefits on society? Will the system go "bankrupt"? Will an increase in taxes be needed to sustain it? Personally, I think that even in countries like the UK or my own home country, sooner or later, benefits will be reduced AND taxes will be increased. I doubt the government intends these benefits to pay for well-bodied parents who are able to find a job to stay at home (beyond the maternity leave, of course, which is for bonding). After all, other - working - parents have to pay (via taxes) for this, which reduces the time they are able to spend with their kids, or the amount of money they can bring home.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Tax credits aren't really a benefit. It's basically getting back taxes you already pay.


----------



## katieandfras

Ozzieshunni said:


> Tax credits aren't really a benefit. It's basically getting back taxes you already pay.

This isn't strictly true as you get tax credits if you don't work/have never worked and in alot of cases you get more than people who have previously worked.


----------



## chell5544

katieandfras said:


> Ozzieshunni said:
> 
> 
> Tax credits aren't really a benefit. It's basically getting back taxes you already pay.
> 
> This isn't strictly true as you get tax credits if you don't work/have never worked and in alot of cases you get more than people who have previously worked.Click to expand...

this is where the system is wrong i believe if you have 1 person working in a family unite working a certain amount of hours you should be entitled to more tax credits/tax breaks then those who dont work

or give family more support and help on childcare when the second person goes back to work


----------



## _Vicky_

Personally I am passionate in my belief that the best person to look after LO is their patents. Look at society and this system that doesn't make sense and tell me that there is any other MORE worthwhile use of 'benefits' in whatever form they come than to facilitate mothers and fathers to raise their children??? After all what the hell is the system for if not for future generations? 

I am lucky (and old) I work for myself from home so don't have to compromise on childcare or money and get the best of both worlds BUT had I had children earlier and not been in this position my heart would have broken to have to leave them with others and go to work. So anyone that can IMO should do it! I have no issue in my taxes going to support families who are shaping our future xxxx


----------



## LPF

_Vicky_ said:


> Personally I am passionate in my belief that the best person to look after LO is their patents. Look at society and this system that doesn't make sense and tell me that there is any other MORE worthwhile use of 'benefits' in whatever form they come than to facilitate mothers and fathers to raise their children??? After all what the hell is the system for if not for future generations?
> 
> I am lucky (and old) I work for myself from home so don't have to compromise on childcare or money and get the best of both worlds BUT had I had children earlier and not been in this position my heart would have broken to have to leave them with others and go to work. So anyone that can IMO should do it! I have no issue in my taxes going to support families who are shaping our future xxxx

Whilst I think this is a nice sentiment, realistically, if every woman who had a child was in receipt of benefits to be a sahm, the country would be in financial ruin and there would be no enefits system. 

So why should some people be in receipt of benefits and stay at home giving the child 'the best person to care for them' as you put it while others are not fortunate enough to have this luxury and have to go to work and leave their child with someone who isn't the best for them????

As a worker and a tax payer it really annoys me that I have to work, put lo in nursery and my taxes pay for other people to stay at home looking after their child in what may be the better situation for the child and the 'best person looking after them'. 

Why can someone pay me to stay at home with lo????????


----------



## Ozzieshunni

chell5544 said:


> katieandfras said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozzieshunni said:
> 
> 
> Tax credits aren't really a benefit. It's basically getting back taxes you already pay.
> 
> This isn't strictly true as you get tax credits if you don't work/have never worked and in alot of cases you get more than people who have previously worked.Click to expand...
> 
> this is where the system is wrong i believe if you have 1 person working in a family unite working a certain amount of hours you should be entitled to more tax credits/tax breaks then those who dont work
> 
> or give family more support and help on childcare when the second person goes back to workClick to expand...

Dunno if Scotland is different then. But no mom should feel guilty for staying home. I'd rather raise my own kids than have a childminder or nursery raise them. I've worked in a nursery in the uk. I wouldn't put my kids in nursery unless I had to. Maybe this comes off as harsh, but I'm just as harshly judged for staying home.


----------



## _Vicky_

^^ as I say I don't and have never claimed benefits so really don't have a clue how people are assessed and why it's better for some people not to work and not for others - can't help you there. 

I am also not saying the system is right (don't get me started on that I will be spouting politics all night!) but I do think if I were the OP I would decide to stay home.


----------



## _Vicky_

Actually I lied I do know exactly how it works basically if you own your own home you're stuffed - if you rent you get housing benefit and that after all is the biggest outgoing foe most families isn't it.

The government has totally screwed it up and the middle ground of people with halfway decent salaries that stretch to make all their mortgage payments are worse off BUT they arent low income. 

That's the bare bones of it and unfortunately until we get a proper government in and people start thinking aboit the greater good rather than themselves then nothing will change. 

As I said not sentiment at all cold hard facts I DON'T mind my taxes being used to support these families and if more people that were in the position to be able to do this felt the same then more people could stay at home


----------



## patch2006uk

You don't automatically qualify for housing benefit just because you rent. I don't think you automatically disqualify if you own your own home either. If you have an income over £24k, you don't qualify. I'm not sure there's any other criteria :shrug:

ETA what actually needs to happen is a crash of housing prices, but given that there are so many 'investors' (home owners) then the govt has to artificially prop up the prices, or else they'd be commuting electoral suicide. Until incomes are adequate to cover housing, bills, food and essentials, we're stuck in a loop of credit and loans. Raising wages to reflect house prices would also work, but the inflation that would go with that for the rest of the economy would also be hideous. FWIW, we don't own property, we rent.


----------



## chell5544

_Vicky_ said:


> Actually I lied I do know exactly how it works *basically if you own your own home you're stuffed *- if you rent you get housing benefit and that after all is the biggest outgoing foe most families isn't it.
> 
> *The government has totally screwed it up and the middle ground of people with halfway decent salaries that stretch to make all their mortgage payments are worse off BUT they arent low income.*
> 
> That's the bare bones of it and unfortunately until we get a proper government in and people start thinking aboit the greater good rather than themselves then nothing will change.
> 
> As I said not sentiment at all cold hard facts I DON'T mind my taxes being used to support these families and if more people that were in the position to be able to do this felt the same then more people could stay at home

think you hit on the nail there this is us we are whats classed as a "middle class" family we are fortuate to own our flat my partner is the main earner but after mortgage, bills, petrol,food on his wage alone we dont have much spare cash each month to buy the kids clothes etc. 
so i have to work part time i work 25 hours a week (well on maternaty at the mo) after childcare i takehome 50 quid a week but we need that 50 quid so we can go out as a family or buy clothes for kids christmas/birthday presents etc.
i dont mind working but it would be nice to see alittle help from the government lol


----------



## chell5544

patch2006uk said:


> *You don't automatically qualify for housing benefit just because you rent. I don't think you automatically disqualify if you own your own home either. If you have an income over £24k, you don't qualify. I'm not sure there's any other criteria *
> ETA what actually needs to happen is a crash of housing prices, but given that there are so many 'investors' (home owners) then the govt has to artificially prop up the prices, or else they'd be commuting electoral suicide. Until incomes are adequate to cover housing, bills, food and essentials, we're stuck in a loop of credit and loans. Raising wages to reflect house prices would also work, but the inflation that would go with that for the rest of the economy would also be hideous. FWIW, we don't own property, we rent.

oh yer your right you have to earn under a certain amount to qualify and the rent critria averages from place to place depending on area however you dont get any housing benfits if you own your own (which im not moning about lol) my partner earns about 23k a year so if we rented and i decided to stay at home the first few years of my kids life will would be entitled to some help but because we own our own flat (which was very cheap luckily, but needs updating) i do feel as tho im pushed into work abit


----------



## katieandfras

chell5544 said:


> _Vicky_ said:
> 
> 
> Actually I lied I do know exactly how it works *basically if you own your own home you're stuffed *- if you rent you get housing benefit and that after all is the biggest outgoing foe most families isn't it.
> 
> *The government has totally screwed it up and the middle ground of people with halfway decent salaries that stretch to make all their mortgage payments are worse off BUT they arent low income.*
> 
> That's the bare bones of it and unfortunately until we get a proper government in and people start thinking aboit the greater good rather than themselves then nothing will change.
> 
> As I said not sentiment at all cold hard facts I DON'T mind my taxes being used to support these families and if more people that were in the position to be able to do this felt the same then more people could stay at home
> 
> think you hit on the nail there this is us we are whats classed as a "middle class" family we are fortuate to own our flat my partner is the main earner but after mortgage, bills, petrol,food on his wage alone we dont have much spare cash each month to buy the kids clothes etc.
> so i have to work part time i work 25 hours a week (well on maternaty at the mo) after childcare i takehome 50 quid a week but we need that 50 quid so we can go out as a family or buy clothes for kids christmas/birthday presents etc.
> i dont mind working but it would be nice to see alittle help from the government lolClick to expand...

This is like our situation. OH works full time, myself 20 hours and we have a mortgage and 2 kiddies to pay for. After everything, there is barely any money left and I find myself thinking sometimes - what is the point?!? But I have to work as we would not survive on OH's wage alone - yet it is deemed to high to qualify for any help. 

It just makes me cross sometimes when some people who don't work seem to be able to afford alot more luxuries for themselves and their families - without having to leave to leave there LO's to go out and provide


----------



## hattiehippo

It's all bit of a mess really isn't it...

I do agree that if a woman wants to stay at home and raise her kids until 3 or 4 then they should be able to but it's really unfair that some people are entitled to get benefits that help them do this whereas other families don't and have no choice but for both parents to work. And I would not agree that only families where mum stays at home are looking after the future of our country...that kind of implies that those of us who work for whatever reason don't care about our kids or their future...I may work 3 days but by doing so I set a valuable example to my son and also contribute taxes etc to help supprt families who recieve benefits that mean their mums can stay at home.

And I don't think tax credits is getting back tax you've already paid as people who earn very little get back way more than they have paid in so it is a benefit just like housing benefit etc.


----------



## TennisGal

In your situation, OP, it makes sense to stay at home :hugs:

I am a stay at home mummy - I resigned from my job (London architect) as my heart and soul just went out of my career when I had my girls. I am very fortunate that I have this choice, as DH earns enough.

However, if he didn't, then I would work. I don't believe it is a 'right' for the mother to stay at home...in this day and age, it's a privilege. And I do think its unfair that some mothers get squeezed and have to work to provide relief to those who choose not to. The system should be that no one should be better off not working...but that's a problem nowhere near being resolved.


----------



## Eternal

chell5544 said:


> _Vicky_ said:
> 
> 
> Actually I lied I do know exactly how it works *basically if you own your own home you're stuffed *- if you rent you get housing benefit and that after all is the biggest outgoing foe most families isn't it.
> 
> *The government has totally screwed it up and the middle ground of people with halfway decent salaries that stretch to make all their mortgage payments are worse off BUT they arent low income.*
> 
> That's the bare bones of it and unfortunately until we get a proper government in and people start thinking aboit the greater good rather than themselves then nothing will change.
> 
> As I said not sentiment at all cold hard facts I DON'T mind my taxes being used to support these families and if more people that were in the position to be able to do this felt the same then more people could stay at home
> 
> think you hit on the nail there this is us we are whats classed as a "middle class" family we are fortuate to own our flat my partner is the main earner but after mortgage, bills, petrol,food on his wage alone we dont have much spare cash each month to buy the kids clothes etc.
> so i have to work part time i work 25 hours a week (well on maternaty at the mo) after childcare i takehome 50 quid a week but we need that 50 quid so we can go out as a family or buy clothes for kids christmas/birthday presents etc.
> i dont mind working but it would be nice to see alittle help from the government lolClick to expand...

^this :thumbup:

We are the same, oh earns too much for any help, but actually compared to our friends on tax credits take less home on an average month, yes we get more some months but the months we don't its tight. I can't work as I have three under three and no one to help us with them and we would have to at full price child are which would cost in excess of £25,000! Stuck between a rock and a hard place are we. Thanks government for screwing us middle classed!


----------



## freckleonear

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with guilt-tripping mothers into working rather than staying at home with their children for the first few years. 

If the government invested in improving childhood rather than in stocks and shares, they would get almost double the yearly return for their money than they currently do. In fact, to see long-term social and economic benefits, the government should be investing MORE money into family benefits such as tax credits.

The first five years of life are crucial and all the evidence shows that the UK is failing children on a huge scale compared to other comparable countries such as Spain and Sweden.

If a mother decides that staying at home with the help of tax credits is the best option for her children, then in the long run she is ensuring that they become productive and valuable members of society. Giving children a good start to the rest of their life more than pays for any benefits the mother claims for a few short years!

Our children are our future, so we should base our individual decisions on what is best for them (whenever we have that luxury, I understand that some people have little choice), rather than making people feel guilty about receiving tax credits.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Well said, freckle. I think that was what I was going for.


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

freckleonear said:


> I'm afraid I strongly disagree with guilt-tripping mothers into working rather than staying at home with their children for the first few years.
> 
> If the government invested in improving childhood rather than in stocks and shares, they would get almost double the yearly return for their money than they currently do. In fact, to see long-term social and economic benefits, the government should be investing MORE money into family benefits such as tax credits.
> 
> The first five years of life are crucial and all the evidence shows that the UK is failing children on a huge scale compared to other comparable countries such as Spain and Sweden.
> 
> If a mother decides that staying at home with the help of tax credits is the best option for her children, then in the long run she is ensuring that they become productive and valuable members of society. Giving children a good start to the rest of their life more than pays for any benefits the mother claims for a few short years!
> 
> Our children are our future, so we should base our individual decisions on what is best for them (whenever we have that luxury, I understand that some people have little choice), rather than making people feel guilty about receiving tax credits.

thank you, totally agree and ok, I am getting considerably more than tax credits, but I will definitely pay them back in future earnings as like you say, it's a few short years in the scheme of things.


----------



## LPF

freckleonear said:


> I'm afraid I strongly disagree with guilt-tripping mothers into working rather than staying at home with their children for the first few years.
> 
> If the government invested in improving childhood rather than in stocks and shares, they would get almost double the yearly return for their money than they currently do. In fact, to see long-term social and economic benefits, the government should be investing MORE money into family benefits such as tax credits.
> 
> The first five years of life are crucial and all the evidence shows that the UK is failing children on a huge scale compared to other comparable countries such as Spain and Sweden.
> 
> If a mother decides that staying at home with the help of tax credits is the best option for her children, then in the long run she is ensuring that they become productive and valuable members of society. Giving children a good start to the rest of their life more than pays for any benefits the mother claims for a few short years!
> 
> Our children are our future, so we should base our individual decisions on what is best for them (whenever we have that luxury, I understand that some people have little choice), rather than making people feel guilty about receiving tax credits.

The thing is though - that isn't what benefits are for. 

They are there to help people who can't find a job in the short term or who are physically/mentally unable to work. Its there for the destitute, and for people living on the breadline because they can't find employment to help them bridge the gap to employment. 

Benefits weren't designed for people to choose to stay at home and raise children - and that is where the system and the benefits culture is so very wrong. 

I'm all for people staying at home to bring up children but only if you can afford it out of your own pocket.


----------



## _Vicky_

^^ the whole point is that the system is broken and it's not working so who cares what its for. The best reason is for children and we aren't talking forever just the very very few formative years we have with our children


----------



## Ozzieshunni

What's working tax credits then?


----------



## welshsarah

Hi guys just an update. I have quit my job. The manager was very understanding and said that I could possibly come back when LO is in school full time :D not bad for only being there a month :D
I agree with all of you. And I know benefits are there as a safety net and I would happily work if I could do part time hours (around 20 and bring home some money to support the family) but it feels like I'm paying to work especially when you take out petrol and some sort of lunch money too. It wasnt a job where I could advance in, and it was slightly above minimum pay. I enjoyed the job and I do feel sorry for those who's partners earn more than the minimum wage and cant claim housing benefit as they have mortgage. But we will never be able to afford a mortgage. As all our money goes straight out and we have little left to buy the kids clothes (we use ebay a lot) never mind save for a mortgage. So at least you will have a house at the end of it. I dont have enough money to go back to uni or the time with the kids (who knows when they get to 18) so best I can hope for is a little over minimum wage anyway. And to be truthful I am very hands on with my children. The health visitor commented on my son when she came around after a week of my sons second birthday and was shocked he knew all his colours and could read numbers up to 12. Id rather put in all the energy and make sure they dont make the same mistakes as me, and go to uni and become a doctor, a lawyer, a vet whatever. But successful xx A lot better than what I can offer the community and country by doing shop work.x


----------



## freckleonear

I'm glad you've made a decision that's right for your family. :)


----------



## welshsarah

Thank you, hun. I think deep down I know its the right thing too do. I know people have different views but for my position this is the best thing for me to do for my family x


----------



## TennisGal

freckleonear said:


> I'm afraid I strongly disagree with guilt-tripping mothers into working rather than staying at home with their children for the first few years.
> 
> If the government invested in improving childhood rather than in stocks and shares, they would get almost double the yearly return for their money than they currently do. In fact, to see long-term social and economic benefits, the government should be investing MORE money into family benefits such as tax credits.
> 
> The first five years of life are crucial and all the evidence shows that the UK is failing children on a huge scale compared to other comparable countries such as Spain and Sweden.
> 
> If a mother decides that staying at home with the help of tax credits is the best option for her children, then in the long run she is ensuring that they become productive and valuable members of society. Giving children a good start to the rest of their life more than pays for any benefits the mother claims for a few short years!
> 
> Our children are our future, so we should base our individual decisions on what is best for them (whenever we have that luxury, I understand that some people have little choice), rather than making people feel guilty about receiving tax credits.

I understand your point - but I have to question drawing comparisons with other countries. We may be behind Spain in terms of child care during formative years - but Spain are in the middle of a substantial economic crisis. To me, it is equally as important to provide a child with financial stability as it is to have a parent at home. I'm not talking about financial luxury, but the stability of a job, home etc. Serious financial concerns can cause untold stresses, which - in turn - can affect children in some way, shape of form.

Obviously we are largey singing from the same hymn sheet, as I am Sahm and believe that my girls benefit from me being at home...however, I do not think it is fair to suggest that children who are not brought up by a parent are somehow letting their child down. Different things work for different families - and many believe that providing financial security is as vital as being at home. Besides, the 'squeezed middle' that have been referenced throughout the thread don't have a choice. 

Wherever possible, I believe it's ideal for a parent to be at home with a child - but only where that is financially viable. If the Gvt made it so that working actually became more profitable than staying at home, then that would be a start. Benefits are not there - and I don't believe they should be - to fund lifestyle choices. They are there as a much needed cushion for those who have fallen on harder times, for whatever reason. If the Gvt didn't invest in stocks, shares etc - this would have catastrophic effects on investments, exports, imports. What needs to happen is for better systems of child care, better incentives to return to work, help in returning to work, flexible hours...the list goes on!

I realise I am lucky to stay at home with my girls, but I truly do see that as a privelege and not a right. I chose to have my girls, it's my responsibility to look after them, surely? 

Anyway, to each their own - and I feel this has been a good debate!

Most importantly, op, I am glad you've made a decision that works best for you and your family :hugs:


----------



## choc

katieandfras said:


> chell5544 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Vicky_ said:
> 
> 
> Actually I lied I do know exactly how it works *basically if you own your own home you're stuffed *- if you rent you get housing benefit and that after all is the biggest outgoing foe most families isn't it.
> 
> *The government has totally screwed it up and the middle ground of people with halfway decent salaries that stretch to make all their mortgage payments are worse off BUT they arent low income.*
> 
> That's the bare bones of it and unfortunately until we get a proper government in and people start thinking aboit the greater good rather than themselves then nothing will change.
> 
> As I said not sentiment at all cold hard facts I DON'T mind my taxes being used to support these families and if more people that were in the position to be able to do this felt the same then more people could stay at home
> 
> think you hit on the nail there this is us we are whats classed as a "middle class" family we are fortuate to own our flat my partner is the main earner but after mortgage, bills, petrol,food on his wage alone we dont have much spare cash each month to buy the kids clothes etc.
> so i have to work part time i work 25 hours a week (well on maternaty at the mo) after childcare i takehome 50 quid a week but we need that 50 quid so we can go out as a family or buy clothes for kids christmas/birthday presents etc.
> i dont mind working but it would be nice to see alittle help from the government lolClick to expand...
> 
> This is like our situation. OH works full time, myself 20 hours and we have a mortgage and 2 kiddies to pay for. After everything, there is barely any money left and I find myself thinking sometimes - what is the point?!? But I have to work as we would not survive on OH's wage alone - yet it is deemed to high to qualify for any help.
> 
> It just makes me cross sometimes when some people who don't work seem to be able to afford alot more luxuries for themselves and their families - without having to leave to leave there LO's to go out and provideClick to expand...

This is us too. I find it so frustrating.


----------



## welshsarah

Thanks hun xx :)x


----------



## chell5544

freckleonear said:


> I'm afraid I strongly disagree with guilt-tripping mothers into working rather than staying at home with their children for the first few years.
> 
> If the government invested in improving childhood rather than in stocks and shares, they would get almost double the yearly return for their money than they currently do. In fact, to see long-term social and economic benefits, the government should be investing MORE money into family benefits such as tax credits.
> 
> The first five years of life are crucial and all the evidence shows that the UK is failing children on a huge scale compared to other comparable countries such as Spain and Sweden.
> 
> If a mother decides that staying at home with the help of tax credits is the best option for her children, then in the long run she is ensuring that they become productive and valuable members of society. Giving children a good start to the rest of their life more than pays for any benefits the mother claims for a few short years!
> 
> Our children are our future, so we should base our individual decisions on what is best for them (whenever we have that luxury, I understand that some people have little choice), rather than making people feel guilty about receiving tax credits.

Oh yes I defferently agree I just think the system should be fair to all families rather then those who fit a certain criteria I'm only speaking through my personal experience here on my partners wage if we rented and didn't own our own place I could stay at home with the help of tax credits and housing benifits however I do have to work I simply don't have a choice because my partners earnings are on the borderline of earning too much for much help and not enough to survive comfortable because of our mortgage/insurances which come with owning our own a place
Now I know it was our choice to buy it has given our children stability which having to move so much when rented that is what we wanted I just think the system should be fairer to all


----------



## kaths101

choc said:


> katieandfras said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chell5544 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Vicky_ said:
> 
> 
> Actually I lied I do know exactly how it works *basically if you own your own home you're stuffed *- if you rent you get housing benefit and that after all is the biggest outgoing foe most families isn't it.
> 
> *The government has totally screwed it up and the middle ground of people with halfway decent salaries that stretch to make all their mortgage payments are worse off BUT they arent low income.*
> 
> That's the bare bones of it and unfortunately until we get a proper government in and people start thinking aboit the greater good rather than themselves then nothing will change.
> 
> As I said not sentiment at all cold hard facts I DON'T mind my taxes being used to support these families and if more people that were in the position to be able to do this felt the same then more people could stay at home
> 
> think you hit on the nail there this is us we are whats classed as a "middle class" family we are fortuate to own our flat my partner is the main earner but after mortgage, bills, petrol,food on his wage alone we dont have much spare cash each month to buy the kids clothes etc.
> so i have to work part time i work 25 hours a week (well on maternaty at the mo) after childcare i takehome 50 quid a week but we need that 50 quid so we can go out as a family or buy clothes for kids christmas/birthday presents etc.
> i dont mind working but it would be nice to see alittle help from the government lolClick to expand...
> 
> This is like our situation. OH works full time, myself 20 hours and we have a mortgage and 2 kiddies to pay for. After everything, there is barely any money left and I find myself thinking sometimes - what is the point?!? But I have to work as we would not survive on OH's wage alone - yet it is deemed to high to qualify for any help.
> 
> It just makes me cross sometimes when some people who don't work seem to be able to afford alot more luxuries for themselves and their families - without having to leave to leave there LO's to go out and provideClick to expand...
> 
> This is us too. I find it so frustrating.Click to expand...

^^ this is us too, my OH is on minimum wage, I was the main earner. The only help we could get was £10 a week tax credits, couldn't get any housing benefit etc. so off to work I had to go! I've wanted children all my life and I'm incredibly sad I can't get the help for 3/4 years in the early years of my children's life. 

I know people say If you can't afford children don't have them, but I find it really unfair that some mums have to go back to work and some don't! There seems one rule for one and one for another! Really sad. 
I'm not having a go at anyone here, just in general it seems the benefit system is all wrong. I would feel better getting up at 6am after 5 hours sleep if every mummy was doing the same! Fair enough btw if you have a OH to support you and you dont need to claim benefits at all ...that's a different kettle of fish.
I just need to find a rich husband :haha:


----------



## Ozzieshunni

I'm glad you made a decision that suits your family :hugs: I don't think years from now, you'll look back regretting it :)


----------



## patch2006uk

kaths101 said:


> choc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katieandfras said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chell5544 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Vicky_ said:
> 
> 
> Actually I lied I do know exactly how it works *basically if you own your own home you're stuffed *- if you rent you get housing benefit and that after all is the biggest outgoing foe most families isn't it.
> 
> *The government has totally screwed it up and the middle ground of people with halfway decent salaries that stretch to make all their mortgage payments are worse off BUT they arent low income.*
> 
> That's the bare bones of it and unfortunately until we get a proper government in and people start thinking aboit the greater good rather than themselves then nothing will change.
> 
> As I said not sentiment at all cold hard facts I DON'T mind my taxes being used to support these families and if more people that were in the position to be able to do this felt the same then more people could stay at home
> 
> think you hit on the nail there this is us we are whats classed as a "middle class" family we are fortuate to own our flat my partner is the main earner but after mortgage, bills, petrol,food on his wage alone we dont have much spare cash each month to buy the kids clothes etc.
> so i have to work part time i work 25 hours a week (well on maternaty at the mo) after childcare i takehome 50 quid a week but we need that 50 quid so we can go out as a family or buy clothes for kids christmas/birthday presents etc.
> i dont mind working but it would be nice to see alittle help from the government lolClick to expand...
> 
> This is like our situation. OH works full time, myself 20 hours and we have a mortgage and 2 kiddies to pay for. After everything, there is barely any money left and I find myself thinking sometimes - what is the point?!? But I have to work as we would not survive on OH's wage alone - yet it is deemed to high to qualify for any help.
> 
> It just makes me cross sometimes when some people who don't work seem to be able to afford alot more luxuries for themselves and their families - without having to leave to leave there LO's to go out and provideClick to expand...
> 
> This is us too. I find it so frustrating.Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ this is us too, my OH is on minimum wage, I was the main earner. The only help we could get was £10 a week tax credits, couldn't get any housing benefit etc. so off to work I had to go! I've wanted children all my life and I'm incredibly sad I can't get the help for 3/4 years in the early years of my children's life.
> 
> I know people say If you can't afford children don't have them, but I find it really unfair that some mums have to go back to work and some don't! There seems one rule for one and one for another! Really sad.
> I'm not having a go at anyone here, just in general it seems the benefit system is all wrong. I would feel better getting up at 6am after 5 hours sleep if every mummy was doing the same! *Fair enough btw if you have a OH to support you and you dont need to claim benefits at all ...that's a different kettle of fish.
> I just need to find a rich husband* :haha:Click to expand...

My husband certainly isn't rich! We just make sacrifices so I don't have to work. We rent (although our city centre flat isn't cheap rent), we don't drive, we stick to strict spending limits, meal plans, we don't go out after LO has gone to bed. Our holiday this year was 3 night's camping. The child benefit money we get pays for LO's shoes and any unexpected outgoings, but basically we just kept cutting back on luxuries until we could make it work. 

I'll be going back to work when kids are in school, so we can afford to take them on holiday and buy them things. I just felt it was more important for them to have me at home during the early years than us being able to afford to go to the cinema :thumbup:


----------



## RachA

freckleonear said:


> I'm afraid I strongly disagree with guilt-tripping mothers into working rather than staying at home with their children for the first few years.
> 
> If the government invested in improving childhood rather than in stocks and shares, they would get almost double the yearly return for their money than they currently do. In fact, to see long-term social and economic benefits, the government should be investing MORE money into family benefits such as tax credits.
> 
> The first five years of life are crucial and all the evidence shows that the UK is failing children on a huge scale compared to other comparable countries such as Spain and Sweden.
> 
> If a mother decides that staying at home with the help of tax credits is the best option for her children, then in the long run she is ensuring that they become productive and valuable members of society. Giving children a good start to the rest of their life more than pays for any benefits the mother claims for a few short years!
> 
> Our children are our future, so we should base our individual decisions on what is best for them (whenever we have that luxury, I understand that some people have little choice), rather than making people feel guilty about receiving tax credits.

Good post :thumbup:



_Vicky_ said:


> ^^ the whole point is that the system is broken and it's not working so who cares what its for. The best reason is for children and we aren't talking forever just the very very few formative years we have with our children

And this :thumb up:


----------



## RachA

patch2006uk said:


> kaths101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> choc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katieandfras said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chell5544 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Vicky_ said:
> 
> 
> Actually I lied I do know exactly how it works *basically if you own your own home you're stuffed *- if you rent you get housing benefit and that after all is the biggest outgoing foe most families isn't it.
> 
> *The government has totally screwed it up and the middle ground of people with halfway decent salaries that stretch to make all their mortgage payments are worse off BUT they arent low income.*
> 
> That's the bare bones of it and unfortunately until we get a proper government in and people start thinking aboit the greater good rather than themselves then nothing will change.
> 
> As I said not sentiment at all cold hard facts I DON'T mind my taxes being used to support these families and if more people that were in the position to be able to do this felt the same then more people could stay at home
> 
> think you hit on the nail there this is us we are whats classed as a "middle class" family we are fortuate to own our flat my partner is the main earner but after mortgage, bills, petrol,food on his wage alone we dont have much spare cash each month to buy the kids clothes etc.
> so i have to work part time i work 25 hours a week (well on maternaty at the mo) after childcare i takehome 50 quid a week but we need that 50 quid so we can go out as a family or buy clothes for kids christmas/birthday presents etc.
> i dont mind working but it would be nice to see alittle help from the government lolClick to expand...
> 
> This is like our situation. OH works full time, myself 20 hours and we have a mortgage and 2 kiddies to pay for. After everything, there is barely any money left and I find myself thinking sometimes - what is the point?!? But I have to work as we would not survive on OH's wage alone - yet it is deemed to high to qualify for any help.
> 
> It just makes me cross sometimes when some people who don't work seem to be able to afford alot more luxuries for themselves and their families - without having to leave to leave there LO's to go out and provideClick to expand...
> 
> This is us too. I find it so frustrating.Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ this is us too, my OH is on minimum wage, I was the main earner. The only help we could get was £10 a week tax credits, couldn't get any housing benefit etc. so off to work I had to go! I've wanted children all my life and I'm incredibly sad I can't get the help for 3/4 years in the early years of my children's life.
> 
> I know people say If you can't afford children don't have them, but I find it really unfair that some mums have to go back to work and some don't! There seems one rule for one and one for another! Really sad.
> I'm not having a go at anyone here, just in general it seems the benefit system is all wrong. I would feel better getting up at 6am after 5 hours sleep if every mummy was doing the same! *Fair enough btw if you have a OH to support you and you dont need to claim benefits at all ...that's a different kettle of fish.
> I just need to find a rich husband* :haha:Click to expand...
> 
> My husband certainly isn't rich! We just make sacrifices so I don't have to work. We rent (although our city centre flat isn't cheap rent), we don't drive, we stick to strict spending limits, meal plans, we don't go out after LO has gone to bed. Our holiday this year was 3 night's camping. The child benefit money we get pays for LO's shoes and any unexpected outgoings, but basically we just kept cutting back on luxuries until we could make it work.
> 
> I'll be going back to work when kids are in school, so we can afford to take them on holiday and buy them things. I just felt it was more important for them to have me at home during the early years than us being able to afford to go to the cinema :thumbup:Click to expand...

This is us too. It definitely depends on how you define 'affording children'. We made the decision that i wouldn't work while we had pre-schoolers. Whilst we aren't in the position of having no excess money, we do have very little and we have cut back on things that we used to do before we had children so that i could stay at home. Like pre children we had two cars but now we only have one, pre children we would eat out whenever we like, now we only eat out on special occasions.


----------



## Septie

Fair...what is fair exactly? No system is ever fair for everybody. We are well off (though it doesn't feel like it when considering the cost of private school, college etc. in the US, that's for sure!! The public school system where we live is horrible.) BUT we had to make lots of sacrifices along the way: We both were in school/uni until our late 20's (and we were certainly poor by all standards at the time, sharing a flat with multiple people), then had a career that basically was all work 6.5 days a week for many many years. I had to go back to work within 2 weeks of my LOs birth (I did take a few weeks maternity leave later that year; for the second, I did not get any real leave, only a "reduction" in work responsibility for a few weeks!). However, now in our late 30s early 40s, we are established, and can work from home quite a bit, including at odd hours (late at night), which is absolutely fantastic for the kids. And we are fairly well off - though we still rent, own one 10 year old car, buy mostly used clothes for the 3 year old - the baby inherits his brother's clothes,... . To be able to afford the lifestyle we have now, I was not able to have kids until my mid 30s. Who knows if I'll be able to have a third. And who knows if I will get to know and enjoy my grandkids, or if I'll be dead and buried (or sick). Will one (or both) of us have significant health trouble before the kids are grown? Lots and lots of tradeoffs and sacrifices along the way. Is it fair?? Would we have been better off moving back to my home country and living off minimum wage and welfare, and have as many kids as we want in our early 20's (I would have LOVED to be a mother earlier)? Plus have good public schools and university paid for for them? Who knows, really. We'll see when we reach the end of our lives and look back.
To me, the optimal government system encourages all able bodied adults to work to support those who unfortunately can't. And to provide high quality, affordable child-care and good public schools for all. Plus a good paid parental leave for bonding after the birth or adoption of a child. And paid sick leave for yourself or to care for a loved one. Apparently both the UK and the US are sorely lacking, albeit perhaps along different dimensions.
Research does NOT show that HIGH- QUALITY childcare is inferior to stay at home parenting. Indeed, the opposite is often the case, at least in US studies! I wish this were pointed out more, as working moms are often portrayed poorly. The main problem is availability of such high quality childcare (we were not able to find anything even moderately acceptable for under 3 year olds where we live, regardless of cost!).


----------



## RachA

I agree that all systems seem to fall short. But I dont agree that all abler bodied people should be encouraged to work if that means they are having to put their children in nursery etc. in the uk it seems that working parents are given benefits to encourage them to stay in work but if 1 parent chooses to stay at home then they end up struggling to make ends meet. I think that both lifestyle choices should be encouraged rather than one more than the other. Personally I worked from being 17 until I was 30 and had my first child. I paid tax for all of that and feel that I earnt the time off I am having now. I plan to go back in the next 3 or 4 years and so will again be paying tax probably until I retire. Looking at it like that it's only a short amount of time that help would be needed for.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

I worked from the age of seventeen until twenty four when I had my son. I'm sure this break is nothing. And what if I don't want him in nursery?


----------



## Septie

You may think a few years off and claiming benefits or credits for kids is nothing...Sure, but take a look at the bigger picture of how many years a person is a financial "burden" to society vs the number of years contributing: 12 years of generally free education, more if a person attends uni (at least in countries where fees don't cover all the costs), plus lets say 6 years off the work force to stay at home to raise 2 kids until school age, plus lets say 15 years in retirement (probably more - in my home country the average retirement age is very early 60s for men, in the 50s for women!), at least in pension/social security based societies. That's 33 years!! Now lets calculate average years of contribution, say from 18 to 65 minus 6 years off for child care = only 41 years, assuming you are never involuntarily unemployed/sick etc. Are the taxes you are contributing really covering all your costs to society? It's highly unlikely!! And who will ultimately cover the burden via ever increasing taxes? OUR CHILDREN!! Because they will have to pay our pensions (in most societies, the current workers' contributions pay for the payouts of the retired). Unless the system goes bankrupt before then (in which case, say good bye to public support in old age). It's simply not sustainable.


----------



## LPF

Septie said:


> You may think a few years off and claiming benefits or credits for kids is nothing...Sure, but take a look at the bigger picture of how many years a person is a financial "burden" to society vs the number of years contributing: 12 years of generally free education, more if a person attends uni (at least in countries where fees don't cover all the costs), plus lets say 6 years off the work force to stay at home to raise 2 kids until school age, plus lets say 15 years in retirement (probably more - in my home country the average retirement age is very early 60s for men, in the 50s for women!), at least in pension/social security based societies. That's 33 years!! Now lets calculate average years of contribution, say from 18 to 65 minus 6 years off for child care = only 41 years, assuming you are never involuntarily unemployed/sick etc. Are the taxes you are contributing really covering all your costs to society? It's highly unlikely!! And who will ultimately cover the burden via ever increasing taxes? OUR CHILDREN!! Because they will have to pay our pensions (in most societies, the current workers' contributions pay for the payouts of the retired). Unless the system goes bankrupt before then (in which case, say good bye to public support in old age). It's simply not sustainable.

Exactly, I think it's quite narrow minded to think that if every mother who fancied it could claim benefits while raising children could and it's okay because it's just for a few years. All that adds up to a massive amount that is not sustainable.

Benefits are not designed as a lifestyle choice even if you are better off on them, they are there for the destitute in crisis while they get on their feet and yes, the system is flawed, but while people feed into that system and milk it for all it's worth it will struggle to be anything else and eventually, the welfare system will be lost.


----------



## LPF

Also, I've worked for 15 yrs paying taxes and I can't claim anything to stay at home - why should some people feel they deserve to claim and have a break because they've worked and paid some taxes?

It should be one rule for all. 

Personally, I'd like to see some money left in public sector finance when I'm old and need to go into hospital or when my children retire - the way things are going, they will be none unless people chance their attitudes.


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

I just don't like the way people think only have a wealthy oh should be able to stay at home with the children. I'm sorry I think my children deserve just as much, I'm not going to put them through me working just yet, for us to be worse off financially and for them to rarely see me. Just because their dad messed up they don't deserve that. I can assure you that neither myself or my children are burdens to society, thank you very much. It's not all about money.


----------



## TennisGal

But, Ozzi, do you not think many of the mums who have their kids in nursery would rather they were at home? My friend has recently had to go back to work, no choice, and I've had her tears on many occasions. 

What the Gvt should be doing is helpign people stay at home, if that is what they choose...incentivising family - tax breaks, universal child benefit for family units. Basically, a mother choosing to stay at home is currently penalised in a number of ways - and the Government should work on reversing that. I dunno, like transferring tax breaks from the woman to the man (or vice versa)while she is bringing up the children? Ideas like that! There also should be good assistance for single mothers.

I fully believe that it should be made easier for women to work - flexible hours, more rights to accommodate child care, better child care options etc. However, benefits have to be there for the truly in need. They are not a choice, they are a safety net. Economically, it just isn't viable for people to take breaks from work and just claim benefits. It also isn't fair to those truly in need (and I include families in this - there are many, many families who don't have an option but to claim)


----------



## RedRose

TennisGal said:


> I fully believe that it should be made easier for women to work - flexible hours, more rights to accommodate child care, better child care options etc. However, benefits have to be there for the truly in need. They are not a choice, they are a safety net. Economically, it just isn't viable for people to take breaks from work and just claim benefits. It also isn't fair to those truly in need (and I include families in this - there are many, many families who don't have an option but to claim)

Totally agree with this, although such a hard thing to implement in a recessionary period. But I imagine the cost of investing in this area would pay of indefinitely in the long term.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Like I said way back in this thread. We are worse off if I go to work. I don't feel guilty about DH claiming CTC/WTC and child benefit :shrug: We don't get any breaks on housing or council tax. I don't claim job seekers or income support.


----------



## krissy1984

I'm A single mum on benefits and don't feel guilty at all. I would have less money if I worked. I get to spend time with my son, which since his dad left is what he needs.

I don't feel any guilt not working, I didn't choose this, my ex husband chose to leave. 

I am going to volunteer and am using this time to study and get more qualifications. I worked for 10 years before this happened so I have paid into the system. maybe not as much as others but then we all have paid into the NHS but the amount we pay in doesn't cover the amount it costs if we have children etc.

Benefits are there to help people

Xx


----------



## krissy1984

I do agree it should be easier for people to get back in work. I'd love to work but it financially makes no sense at the moment and I have to do what's best financially for my son and I.I think that people who have never worked shouldn't be able to claim benefits unless there is absolutely no alternative. 

Xx


----------



## TennisGal

I don't think this thread is about calling people out or finger pointing - to each their own circumstances which, in fairness, we all know little about. My comment about nursery was more a general comment that there are lots of mothers out there who have little choice about having their little ones in child care.

Obviously, if people need benefits - they need them. That's what they are there for. To be used. What needs to change is the Gvt approach. 

I *do* think it's unfair that the 'squeezed' middle have no choice but to work - and yet others who can claim benefits, get the choice to stay at home. There needs to be a different approach. Those mothers also feel that it would be best to stay at home with their babies...but because of the way the benefit cookie crumbles, their choices are taken away.

The system needs an overhaul and rework - with focus on incentivising.


----------



## mummyclo

LPF said:


> _Vicky_ said:
> 
> 
> Personally I am passionate in my belief that the best person to look after LO is their patents. Look at society and this system that doesn't make sense and tell me that there is any other MORE worthwhile use of 'benefits' in whatever form they come than to facilitate mothers and fathers to raise their children??? After all what the hell is the system for if not for future generations?
> 
> I am lucky (and old) I work for myself from home so don't have to compromise on childcare or money and get the best of both worlds BUT had I had children earlier and not been in this position my heart would have broken to have to leave them with others and go to work. So anyone that can IMO should do it! I have no issue in my taxes going to support families who are shaping our future xxxx
> 
> Whilst I think this is a nice sentiment, realistically, if every woman who had a child was in receipt of benefits to be a sahm, the country would be in financial ruin and there would be no enefits system.
> 
> So why should some people be in receipt of benefits and stay at home giving the child 'the best person to care for them' as you put it while others are not fortunate enough to have this luxury and have to go to work and leave their child with someone who isn't the best for them????
> 
> As a worker and a tax payer it really annoys me that I have to work, put lo in nursery and my taxes pay for other people to stay at home looking after their child in what may be the better situation for the child and the 'best person looking after them'.
> 
> Why can someone pay me to stay at home with lo????????Click to expand...

Why should I pay someone most/ nearly all of my wage to look after my child!?

Honestly not everyone who claims benefits of some kind are scroungers.
My DH works 30 hrs for minimum wage and it is not worth it for me to go to work for pretty much a few £.
So people who didn't get a good job for whatever reason shouldn't be alowed to have a family?
In these hard times who can entirely afford to live just off of their wage. Not many!


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Exactly! Why should I work to pay my entire wage to a nursery or childminder?


----------



## LPF

Ozzieshunni said:


> Exactly! Why should I work to pay my entire wage to a nursery or childminder?

But my point is - I have to And so do many other people on this thread - I have no other choice because I can't claim anything to give me a choice otherwise. 

My point was - why should some people have the choice and others not, and who should have the power to say who gets this choice? 

It's not a fair system and when someone tells you it's better for the child to have a sahm and you don't have the option to do so but others do - its pretty galling.


----------



## indy and lara

.


----------



## TennisGal

^^ agree. I'd also add that the money the Gvt puts towards benefits essentially comes from taxes - further perpetuating the unfair nature of the whole thing!


----------



## Ozzieshunni

I volunteer part time so I maintain work experience. I think that is the way to go to be honest. I get free training and I'm learning all the time.


----------



## mummyclo

TennisGal said:


> ^^ agree. I'd also add that the money the Gvt puts towards benefits essentially comes from taxes - further perpetuating the unfair nature of the whole thing!

Would it be fair if we both worked and I paid for nursery and then didn't have the money for basics like heating etc....
Nothing is fair it's the impact of the 'fairness' that's most important! 
I find how pensioners get treated far from fair these days too and actually give to my food bank for that reason.


----------



## TennisGal

^^ no, it wouldn't be.

I am not commenting on individual situations as - like I said - I don't know everyone's personal situation, so that would be hugely unfair.

I just think the system IS hugely unfair, and there is a certain section of society who simply do not have any choices.

I agree with the treatment of our elderly - I also give to the local food bank, and I donate to Help the Aged. It disgusts me how old people are just disregarded.


----------



## LPF

Retirement is another reason why I work now - I pay into a good pension now because I don't want to spend 20 yrs of retirement on the poverty line expecting handouts when lets face it, the statutory pension will not be there when we retire. We think the elderly have it bad now, it'll be ten times worse when we are old.


----------



## TennisGal

^^ very true. Pensions will be non existent or worth very, very little.


----------



## LPF

Just another spin on this too. 

I work for the nhs. I know of 3 people who have left their posts as they are better off on benefits. Every time a person leaves our trust that post is frozen and the money is put back into the black hole of debt. This means the service the nhs is offering is getting worse and worse and those needing to access the services are getting a terrible service because of it. We are shutting down services because there is no one to staff them and people are waiting longer. Anyone who has had to wait 6 - 12 + months to access speech and language therapy?? this is one of the main reasons why. 

We also managed to get an assistant post recently refunded (hurrah!) and twice went to interview offering 15 people (no training/experience required) to interview - 2 turned up. Neither really wanted the job - the post is still unfilled and we will probably have the funding retracted. And they say people want to work but can't find jobs!!

The system is so bad it needs this radical overhaul so no one is better off on benefits and the working ethos is massively improved or the entire public sector will implode - not just benefits but schools, health, police, housing - all of it can't sustain this drain any longer.


----------



## vaniilla

I think with questions like why do I have to do x y and z the answer is simple, because you're responsible for the choices you make along with the consequences these choices bring. Thanks to the government changes we no longer receive child benefit and we are worse off per month than many who earn less. I currently don't have to work but when we have another I will have to work with the majority of my wages being eaten by childcare, the system will never be fair but I don't understand why I should feel entitled to a lifestyle that others can't have? staying at home is a personal lifestyle choice and as such should remain one with only you dealing with it's effects. I think it's great to do what you feel is best for your family, but nobody else should have to suffer the consequences.


----------



## Jazzy-NICU

freckleonear said:


> I'm afraid I strongly disagree with guilt-tripping mothers into working rather than staying at home with their children for the first few years.
> 
> If the government invested in improving childhood rather than in stocks and shares, they would get almost double the yearly return for their money than they currently do. In fact, to see long-term social and economic benefits, the government should be investing MORE money into family benefits such as tax credits.
> 
> The first five years of life are crucial and all the evidence shows that the UK is failing children on a huge scale compared to other comparable countries such as Spain and Sweden.
> 
> If a mother decides that staying at home with the help of tax credits is the best option for her children, then in the long run she is ensuring that they become productive and valuable members of society. Giving children a good start to the rest of their life more than pays for any benefits the mother claims for a few short years!
> 
> Our children are our future, so we should base our individual decisions on what is best for them (whenever we have that luxury, I understand that some people have little choice), rather than making people feel guilty about receiving tax credits.

Whilst i agree that the original poster is better of financially for not working i have to say that some of your comments are very discriminatory towards working mothers "then in the long run she is ensuring that they become productive and valuable members of society. Giving children a good start to the rest of their life more than pays for any benefits the mother claims for a few short years"

I work full time as a nurse, caring for other peoples sick children whilst working unsocial hours around my partners hours so my child doesnt have to go to nursery. The majority of my nursing colleagues are working mothers, are we raising our children to be invaluable members of society and giving them a bad start?? 
Just remember when your loved ones are in poor health they are probably being cared for my some mother missing her children so i'd think carefully before you write some comments, they are very insulting!!


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Freckle's comments are true though. From a child development standpoint, the first five years are crucial to a child's overall development.

I'm not insensitive though. My mom and dad did the whole hand over thing. My mom worked until 1 and then my dad went to work. We always had a parent home. However, that's not how it always works out.


----------



## freckleonear

I think there's a lot of double standards going on in this thread. Apparently it's fine to imply that it's wrong for women to stay at home with children if they are on benefits, but if I said I think it's wrong for parents to send young children to childcare then there would be an outroar.

I don't understand the "it's not fair" thing either. The "squeezed middle" would still be earning more on one income and no benefits than the average family on tax credits to top up a low wage. The difference is that they tend to have higher outgoings, with cars and mortgages and a more expensive lifestyle. Why should the government fund that? Of course they shouldn't, so it's a choice between lifestyle or living on one income. Anyone who wants to stay home with their children is going to have to make sacrifices.


----------



## freckleonear

Jazzy-NICU said:


> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I strongly disagree with guilt-tripping mothers into working rather than staying at home with their children for the first few years.
> 
> If the government invested in improving childhood rather than in stocks and shares, they would get almost double the yearly return for their money than they currently do. In fact, to see long-term social and economic benefits, the government should be investing MORE money into family benefits such as tax credits.
> 
> The first five years of life are crucial and all the evidence shows that the UK is failing children on a huge scale compared to other comparable countries such as Spain and Sweden.
> 
> If a mother decides that staying at home with the help of tax credits is the best option for her children, then in the long run she is ensuring that they become productive and valuable members of society. Giving children a good start to the rest of their life more than pays for any benefits the mother claims for a few short years!
> 
> Our children are our future, so we should base our individual decisions on what is best for them (whenever we have that luxury, I understand that some people have little choice), rather than making people feel guilty about receiving tax credits.
> 
> Whilst i agree that the original poster is better of financially for not working i have to say that some of your comments are very discriminatory towards working mothers "then in the long run she is ensuring that they become productive and valuable members of society. Giving children a good start to the rest of their life more than pays for any benefits the mother claims for a few short years"
> 
> I work full time as a nurse, caring for other peoples sick children whilst working unsocial hours around my partners hours so my child doesnt have to go to nursery. The majority of my nursing colleagues are working mothers, are we raising our children to be invaluable members of society and giving them a bad start??
> Just remember when your loved ones are in poor health they are probably being cared for my some mother missing her children so i'd think carefully before you write some comments, they are very insulting!!Click to expand...

I made no judgement about what the best start is. For some families, a good start means high quality childcare. For others, either by choice or because of poor quality childcare, the best start is at home.

I simply meant that from an economical perspective, if the OP needs to rely on tax credits for a few years, the cost will be more than repaid when her children grow up and are statistically less likely (because they've had a good start to life, regardless of what that start may be) to be a drain on society.


----------



## Jazzy-NICU

To me personally people who claim benefits because they are better off than working are only better off because they are only being paid lower waged jobs?? Yes if i hadn't worked damn hard to get to where i am and provide everything my family own out of my own pocket i might be better off on benefits but thats not the case. I work hard for the things i have, its simple, i have a mortgage because i can afford one because i have a good job. I didn't just get given a good job i earnt it.
There are people who earn a good wage who have given up jobs to raise there children, but they probably aren't claiming benefits.


----------



## mummyclo

Jazzy-NICU said:


> To me personally people who claim benefits because they are better off than working are only better off because they are only being paid lower waged jobs?? Yes if i hadn't worked damn hard to get to where i am and provide everything my family own out of my own pocket i might be better off on benefits but thats not the case. I work hard for the things i have, its simple, i have a mortgage because i can afford one because i have a good job. I didn't just get given a good job i earnt it.
> There are people who earn a good wage who have given up jobs to raise there children, but they probably aren't claiming benefits.

So people on a low wage don't work as hard?
This is just stupid now to be honest! 
I understand some anger in people totally scrounging who have never worked a day in their life and get everything handed to them. I don't think that's right.
It's saying that people who do work or their other half anyway shouldn't be entitled to 'help' that's a bit off to me!


----------



## Jazzy-NICU

No i'm saying people who don't work, don't work hard! And before i get the whole looking after your children is work and is hard i'm sorry but that may be the case for some people but not for me. Looking after my child is a pleasure, its a darn site easier than being on my feet on a ward for 12 hours, with no break whilst worrying about what i'm missing at home!


----------



## TennisGal

Surely it's about living within your means? The government isn't expected to 'top up' salary to a desired level. Isn't that the point of working harder? (therefore paying more tax as a consequence!) to try and improve lifestyle and provide a better future?

My husband earns a good salary - but as a consequence doesn't see as much of the girls during the week as we'd all like. However, this allows me to stay at home...and provides the girls with opportunity for the future, and a good lifestyle.


----------



## hattiehippo

I totally agree with the fact that the 1st 5 yrs of a child's life are crucial in terms of development but that doesn't mean that staying home with mum is some kind of golden standard that means they will automatically turn out well and meet their potential. Only this morning I sat in a meeting discussing a 5 yr old with global developmental delay largely because he spent the years at home sat in front the TV with very little interaction from anyone but hey he was at home with his mum so that's got to be good...another one whose mum fed him maltesers to get him to do anything so he weighed 5 stone by the time he was 3!

I'm not implying anyone on here is anything other than a fantastic mum whether they work or not but I can't support this idea that only mum's care will ever do and anything else is second best. 

I work 3 days a week and my LO goes to nursery those days. He has high quality and consistent care and does way more than I do with him at home. The nursery moves the ladies round so the children have the same ones as they move up in age, it has a huge outside area and good home cooking. He has friends who he has been with for 2 yrs now and is very happy there. Not all nurseries or child are givers are equal but then nor are all mothers in the care they give either.


----------



## indy and lara

.


----------



## hattiehippo

indy and lara said:


> TennisGal said:
> 
> 
> My husband earns a good salary - but as a consequence doesn't see as much of the girls during the week as we'd all like. However, this allows me to stay at home...and provides the girls with opportunity for the future, and a good lifestyle.
> 
> I think this is often overlooked or disregarded. JObs with high salaries do not come without sacrifice- whether that is the sheer amount of hours worked or time away from loved ones.Click to expand...

So true...I'm lucky that DH is home at a reasonable time although he often works more in the evening but many dads are out for 12+ hours in order to earn the money.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

I'm glad I don't work hard :thumbup: Thanks for that. :roll:


----------



## TennisGal

No one has said that?! Purely that everyone has to make sacrifices for the decisions they make.


----------



## freckleonear

You have a 1 year old? It will get harder, trust me! And regardless of whether it is "hard" or not, I'm sure everyone would agree that caring for children in the first five years of life is one of the most important jobs in the world. After all, they are our future. Which is also why childcare professionals should be much more highly qualified and better paid than they are currently, but that's another subject.

As for the idea that if you work harder you earn more, I think people are out of touch with the real world. There is also a large chunk of luck and circumstances involved! Otherwise my husband would be a millionaire... It's no wonder the UK has such a problem with social mobility if people honestly believe it's that simple. But regardless of that, I don't buy into the capitalist idea that money is the measure of success in life. My children are far more important than money and I'd happily be poor forever if I knew I'd done my best for them.


----------



## katieandfras

Ozzieshunni said:


> I'm glad I don't work hard :thumbup: Thanks for that. :roll:

When did someone say YOU don't work hard??

To be honest Ozzie I think you are just looking for an argument here


----------



## hattiehippo

Ozzieshunni said:


> I'm glad I don't work hard :thumbup: Thanks for that. :roll:

Good sarcasm there! I take my hat off to mums who choose to stay at home for whatever reason. I'll be the first to admit that financially its good for me to work but I also would not want to be a stay at home mum. Tom would drive me potty and I would be less of a good mum than I am working 3 days.

And the 3 days I work are easier than the other 4 with a stroppy nearly 3 yr old sometimes.


----------



## TennisGal

So it's purely capitalist that my husband and I want to provide certain things for our children? I don't think that's true?

Of course, we do agree on the main thrust of this thread - as I'm a Sahm. However, my husband not seeing as much as he'd like of the girls (long hours, long commute - and if shorter hours, frequently some work at home) isn't borne out of some capitalist notion of keeping up with the Joneses. It's to give our girls opportunity, and as stress free future as possible.

I don't think anyone is insinuating that people with lower paid salaries work any less hard or long hours. Purely that big salaries almost always involve this!

Money is by no means a measure of success, but it goes without saying that it makes life a lot easier in many ways.


----------



## Jazzy-NICU

Well i'll just be happy with the fact that i have given other families the opportunity to have those 5 most important years with their children, afterall if people like me weren't saving their childrens lives at birth and in the early months they wouldnt get that opportunity!!!! 
Believe me i'm sure parenting will get harder but i'm sure i've had to do harder as a part of my job, which believe me there was no luck in getting!


----------



## vaniilla

indy and lara said:


> TennisGal said:
> 
> 
> My husband earns a good salary - but as a consequence doesn't see as much of the girls during the week as we'd all like. However, this allows me to stay at home...and provides the girls with opportunity for the future, and a good lifestyle.
> 
> I think this is often overlooked or disregarded. JObs with high salaries do not come without sacrifice- whether that is the sheer amount of hours worked or time away from loved ones.Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, DH works 60+ hours a week and lo barely sees him on weekdays, He doesn't "have" to work those hours, his official hours are 40 but he does overtime so that we can afford to live without struggling.

I don't really like this 2d image of life, providing for your children goes beyond staying at home or not, and it takes money, quite a lot of it, by the happy and poor theory people wouldn't need benefits or top ups on their wages, they'd just happily live with very little and not struggle, doing what's right is clearly a very subjective thing.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

katieandfras said:


> Ozzieshunni said:
> 
> 
> I'm glad I don't work hard :thumbup: Thanks for that. :roll:
> 
> When did someone say YOU don't work hard??
> 
> To be honest Ozzie I think you are just looking for an argument hereClick to expand...

Nope, and if you have an issue with me, there's a lovely little ignore function :)


----------



## indy and lara

.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Jazzy-NICU said:


> *No i'm saying people who don't work, don't work hard! And before i get the whole looking after your children is work and is hard i'm sorry but that may be the case for some people but not for me. Looking after my child is a pleasure, its a darn site easier than being on my feet on a ward for 12 hours, with no break whilst worrying about what i'm missing at home*!

And for the record....this is the post I was referring to. So before jumping on someone, read the thread posts.


----------



## indy and lara

.


----------



## Jazzy-NICU

So would you say staying at home looking after your child was hard work? Harder than working and looking after your child?


----------



## RebeccaG

mummyclo said:


> Jazzy-NICU said:
> 
> 
> To me personally people who claim benefits because they are better off than working are only better off because they are only being paid lower waged jobs?? Yes if i hadn't worked damn hard to get to where i am and provide everything my family own out of my own pocket i might be better off on benefits but thats not the case. I work hard for the things i have, its simple, i have a mortgage because i can afford one because i have a good job. I didn't just get given a good job i earnt it.
> There are people who earn a good wage who have given up jobs to raise there children, but they probably aren't claiming benefits.
> 
> So people on a low wage don't work as hard?
> This is just stupid now to be honest!
> I understand some anger in people totally scrounging who have never worked a day in their life and get everything handed to them. I don't think that's right.
> It's saying that people who do work or their other half anyway shouldn't be entitled to 'help' that's a bit off to me!Click to expand...


I don't think jazzy nicu meant that. I think the point she was making was that she has worked really hard to get where she is and at a good point in her life to have a family and support it. 
I feel really lucky that I've been able to give up my teaching job to look after our son but I feel it's a choice that we have made as a family and I don't expect the state to financially support that choice. Child benefit is for all (at the moment anyway!) and I think that's brilliant. Not sure of any other countries that have this?!


----------



## freckleonear

TennisGal said:


> So it's purely capitalist that my husband and I want to provide certain things for our children? I don't think that's true?
> 
> Of course, we do agree on the main thrust of this thread - as I'm a Sahm. However, my husband not seeing as much as he'd like of the girls (long hours, long commute - and if shorter hours, frequently some work at home) isn't borne out of some capitalist notion of keeping up with the Joneses. It's to give our girls opportunity, and as stress free future as possible.
> 
> I don't think anyone is insinuating that people with lower paid salaries work any less hard or long hours. Purely that big salaries almost always involve this!
> 
> Money is by no means a measure of success, but it goes without saying that it makes life a lot easier in many ways.

To completely overgeneralise it...

Your family has chosen to give your children opportunities, so you sacrifice time with them.

Our family has chosen to give our children time, so we sacrifice material possessions.

As you said before, everyone has to make sacrifices for the decisions they make. I'm just fed up of people (not you) attacking low-earning families for having a stay-at-home parent.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

No one is going to agree.


----------



## TennisGal

freckleonear said:


> TennisGal said:
> 
> 
> So it's purely capitalist that my husband and I want to provide certain things for our children? I don't think that's true?
> 
> Of course, we do agree on the main thrust of this thread - as I'm a Sahm. However, my husband not seeing as much as he'd like of the girls (long hours, long commute - and if shorter hours, frequently some work at home) isn't borne out of some capitalist notion of keeping up with the Joneses. It's to give our girls opportunity, and as stress free future as possible.
> 
> I don't think anyone is insinuating that people with lower paid salaries work any less hard or long hours. Purely that big salaries almost always involve this!
> 
> Money is by no means a measure of success, but it goes without saying that it makes life a lot easier in many ways.
> 
> To completely overgeneralise it...
> 
> Your family has chosen to give your children opportunities, so you sacrifice time with them.
> 
> Our family has chosen to give our children time, so we sacrifice material possessions.
> 
> As you said before, everyone has to make sacrifices for the decisions they make. I'm just fed up of people (not you) attacking low-earning families for having a stay-at-home parent.Click to expand...

I like to think their time isn't too at a premium ;)...as they have me all day, everyday...extended family close by. And daddy all weekend...and often in time for bath and story.

It is like I was saying, we all have to sacrifice something...


----------



## Jazzy-NICU

So do you think that you'll return into work when your children are at school? Because for me that wouldnt be a possibility, i would lose my nursing registration and have to retrain, is that a sacrifice i should make?
I want to raise my children so they realise they have to work hard to get the things that they want in life and not just have them handed out. You say you sacrifice material things but you can't have nothing?


----------



## LPF

freckleonear said:


> TennisGal said:
> 
> 
> So it's purely capitalist that my husband and I want to provide certain things for our children? I don't think that's true?
> 
> Of course, we do agree on the main thrust of this thread - as I'm a Sahm. However, my husband not seeing as much as he'd like of the girls (long hours, long commute - and if shorter hours, frequently some work at home) isn't borne out of some capitalist notion of keeping up with the Joneses. It's to give our girls opportunity, and as stress free future as possible.
> 
> I don't think anyone is insinuating that people with lower paid salaries work any less hard or long hours. Purely that big salaries almost always involve this!
> 
> Money is by no means a measure of success, but it goes without saying that it makes life a lot easier in many ways.
> 
> To completely overgeneralise it...
> 
> Your family has chosen to give your children opportunities, so you sacrifice time with them.
> 
> Our family has chosen to give our children time, so we sacrifice material possessions.
> 
> As you said before, everyone has to make sacrifices for the decisions they make. I'm just fed up of people (not you) attacking low-earning families for having a stay-at-home parent.Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is attacking the choice to have a stay at home parent more the fact people choose this over employment and expect the government to fund it. That's not what benefits are for. 

I'd love to be a sahm but if I did I wouldn't expect handouts for my choices in bringing up my children, therefore I can't afford it, therefore I work. 

The ethos in this country is all wrong. No one should be paid by the governemnt for their lifestyle choices just the times when it all goes wrong.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Sure, when Alex goes to school, I'll go back to work. I already have a nice foothold in the organization I volunteer with.


----------



## mummyclo

RebeccaG said:


> mummyclo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jazzy-NICU said:
> 
> 
> To me personally people who claim benefits because they are better off than working are only better off because they are only being paid lower waged jobs?? Yes if i hadn't worked damn hard to get to where i am and provide everything my family own out of my own pocket i might be better off on benefits but thats not the case. I work hard for the things i have, its simple, i have a mortgage because i can afford one because i have a good job. I didn't just get given a good job i earnt it.
> There are people who earn a good wage who have given up jobs to raise there children, but they probably aren't claiming benefits.
> 
> So people on a low wage don't work as hard?
> This is just stupid now to be honest!
> I understand some anger in people totally scrounging who have never worked a day in their life and get everything handed to them. I don't think that's right.
> It's saying that people who do work or their other half anyway shouldn't be entitled to 'help' that's a bit off to me!Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think jazzy nicu meant that. I think the point she was making was that she has worked really hard to get where she is and at a good point in her life to have a family and support it.
> I feel really lucky that I've been able to give up my teaching job to look after our son but I feel it's a choice that we have made as a family and I don't expect the state to financially support that choice. Child benefit is for all (at the moment anyway!) and I think that's brilliant. Not sure of any other countries that have this?!Click to expand...

Yes, sorry got the wrong end of the stick there!
Don't mix First tri pregnancy + exhaustion + sickness with debate thread!


----------



## chell5544

freckleonear said:


> I think there's a lot of double standards going on in this thread. Apparently it's fine to imply that it's wrong for women to stay at home with children if they are on benefits, but if I said I think it's wrong for parents to send young children to childcare then there would be an outroar.
> 
> I don't understand the "it's not fair" thing either. The "squeezed middle" would still be earning more on one income and no benefits than the average family on tax credits to top up a low wage. The difference is that they tend to have higher outgoings, with cars and mortgages and a more expensive lifestyle. Why should the government fund that? Of course they shouldn't, so it's a choice between lifestyle or living on one income. Anyone who wants to stay home with their children is going to have to make sacrifices.

i dont think its double standards as there is a big difference in the two because some people believe they have the "right" to stay at home with their children unfortunatly we lost the "right" when women fought for equal rights and pay in the workforce we cant have both im affaid.
and the fact of the matter is the women putting their young kids in childcare are working, are paying taxes, are helping the econemey move forward and if every women stayed at home with their kids then there wouldnt be enough money for tax credits so yes you would get an outroar because the women working are helping fund others to stay at home with their kids.
some women choose to go to work which is fine and they shouldn be made to feel bad either, some women feel as if they dont have a choice ive said we couldn get much help if i stayed at home and the only "lifestyle" change we could make to get by would be no christmas/birthday presents and the difference between fresh food on the table each week and frozen food. 
some women have the choice to stay at home as there partner earns enough, some women stay at home because they can claim benifits.
but the fact of the matter is what if that benifit wasnt there im sure alot of women who can claim it now would say "its not fair to make me work" so the women who feel as if they dont have a choice because they have more outgoings then others or live in a more expensive area are going to feel as if 'its not fair'


----------



## mummyclo

Life isn't fair people!


----------



## freckleonear

LPF said:


> I don't think anyone is attacking the choice to have a stay at home parent more the fact people choose this over employment and expect the government to fund it. That's not what benefits are for.
> 
> I'd love to be a sahm but if I did I wouldn't expect handouts for my choices in bringing up my children, therefore I can't afford it, therefore I work.
> 
> The ethos in this country is all wrong. No one should be paid by the governemnt for their lifestyle choices just the times when it all goes wrong.

Whether or not I work actually makes very little difference to the taxpayer. If I didn't work, our family would receive some tax credits. If I did go out to work, 70% of my childcare costs would be paid by the government. So the issue really isn't as simple as working/not working, and I wish people would stop judging mothers who do rely on some government assistance in the short term.



Jazzy-NICU said:


> So do you think that you'll return into work when your children are at school? Because for me that wouldnt be a possibility, i would lose my nursing registration and have to retrain, is that a sacrifice i should make?
> I want to raise my children so they realise they have to work hard to get the things that they want in life and not just have them handed out. You say you sacrifice material things but you can't have nothing?

I'm now going to confused the issue by saying that I already work. :lol: I'm a childminder and web designer, which means I can work from home and not have to put my children into childcare.

I'm not saying that all mothers should stay at home and not work. I'm simply saying that it is a valid choice and mothers shouldn't be made to feel guilty for it.


----------



## LPF

freckleonear said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is attacking the choice to have a stay at home parent more the fact people choose this over employment and expect the government to fund it. That's not what benefits are for.
> 
> I'd love to be a sahm but if I did I wouldn't expect handouts for my choices in bringing up my children, therefore I can't afford it, therefore I work.
> 
> The ethos in this country is all wrong. No one should be paid by the governemnt for their lifestyle choices just the times when it all goes wrong.
> 
> *Whether or not I work actually makes very little difference to the taxpayer. If I didn't work, our family would receive some tax credits. If I did go out to work, 70% of my childcare costs would be paid by the government. So the issue really isn't as simple as working/not working, and I wish people would stop judging mothers who do rely on some government assistance in the short term.*
> 
> 
> 
> Jazzy-NICU said:
> 
> 
> So do you think that you'll return into work when your children are at school? Because for me that wouldnt be a possibility, i would lose my nursing registration and have to retrain, is that a sacrifice i should make?
> I want to raise my children so they realise they have to work hard to get the things that they want in life and not just have them handed out. You say you sacrifice material things but you can't have nothing?Click to expand...
> 
> I'm now going to confused the issue by saying that I already work. :lol: I'm a childminder and web designer, which means I can work from home and not have to put my children into childcare.
> 
> I'm not saying that all mothers should stay at home and not work. I'm simply saying that it is a valid choice and mothers shouldn't be made to feel guilty for it.Click to expand...

But you would be contributing to the economy, paying into a pension to contribute to a more independent retirement, creating experience and opportunities to ensure you don't claim benefits long term - a more positive picture.


----------



## freckleonear

LPF said:


> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is attacking the choice to have a stay at home parent more the fact people choose this over employment and expect the government to fund it. That's not what benefits are for.
> 
> I'd love to be a sahm but if I did I wouldn't expect handouts for my choices in bringing up my children, therefore I can't afford it, therefore I work.
> 
> The ethos in this country is all wrong. No one should be paid by the governemnt for their lifestyle choices just the times when it all goes wrong.
> 
> *Whether or not I work actually makes very little difference to the taxpayer. If I didn't work, our family would receive some tax credits. If I did go out to work, 70% of my childcare costs would be paid by the government. So the issue really isn't as simple as working/not working, and I wish people would stop judging mothers who do rely on some government assistance in the short term.*
> 
> 
> 
> Jazzy-NICU said:
> 
> 
> So do you think that you'll return into work when your children are at school? Because for me that wouldnt be a possibility, i would lose my nursing registration and have to retrain, is that a sacrifice i should make?
> I want to raise my children so they realise they have to work hard to get the things that they want in life and not just have them handed out. You say you sacrifice material things but you can't have nothing?Click to expand...
> 
> I'm now going to confused the issue by saying that I already work. :lol: I'm a childminder and web designer, which means I can work from home and not have to put my children into childcare.
> 
> I'm not saying that all mothers should stay at home and not work. I'm simply saying that it is a valid choice and mothers shouldn't be made to feel guilty for it.Click to expand...
> 
> But you would be contributing to the economy, paying into a pension to contribute to a more independent retirement, creating experience and opportunities to ensure you don't claim benefits long term - a more positive picture.Click to expand...

If it meant placing my children in poor quality childcare, then I would also be reducing the statistical chances of them being successful and contributing members of society. On a purely economical level, investing in a good start for children far outweighs all the associated costs.


----------



## hattiehippo

freckleonear said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is attacking the choice to have a stay at home parent more the fact people choose this over employment and expect the government to fund it. That's not what benefits are for.
> 
> I'd love to be a sahm but if I did I wouldn't expect handouts for my choices in bringing up my children, therefore I can't afford it, therefore I work.
> 
> The ethos in this country is all wrong. No one should be paid by the governemnt for their lifestyle choices just the times when it all goes wrong.
> 
> Whether or not I work actually makes very little difference to the taxpayer. If I didn't work, our family would receive some tax credits. If I did go out to work, 70% of my childcare costs would be paid by the government. So the issue really isn't as simple as working/not working, and I wish people would stop judging mothers who do rely on some government assistance in the short term.
> 
> 
> 
> Jazzy-NICU said:
> 
> 
> So do you think that you'll return into work when your children are at school? Because for me that wouldnt be a possibility, i would lose my nursing registration and have to retrain, is that a sacrifice i should make?
> I want to raise my children so they realise they have to work hard to get the things that they want in life and not just have them handed out. You say you sacrifice material things but you can't have nothing?Click to expand...
> 
> I'm now going to confused the issue by saying that I already work. :lol: I'm a childminder and web designer, which means I can work from home and not have to put my children into childcare.
> 
> I'm not saying that all mothers should stay at home and not work. I'm simply saying that it is a valid choice and mothers shouldn't be made to feel guilty for it.Click to expand...

Any equally mothers shouldn't be made to feel guilty for working outside the home through choice or because financially they have to.

At the end of the day we all are just doing the best we can within our own beliefs on child raising and financial constraints.


----------



## indy and lara

Why would you choose poor quality childcare? Choosing Nursery does not automatically mean you are resigning your child to a poor pre5 experience.


----------



## Septie

Many people simply don't understand the costs they are imposing on society by choosing to claim benefits (and to be fair, it's the government's fault for wrongly incentivizing the system - one can't expect people to take into account the externalities their choices impose on the rest of the system!).
When I was young, my home country's system paid for new glasses every two years. So EVERYBODY bought new glasses every two years, whether they needed them or not. Now, one can get a small contribution to (very very basic and typically ugly) new glasses when they are needed. 
Chances are your daughters won't have the choice to claim benefits and be a sahm. Because we'll have bankrupted the system by then. And the truly sad part is that if they are truly disabled and unable to work, they will really suffer from this reduction in benefits. Our lifestyle choices now will hurt us when we are old, and our children (that we all claim we love so much!) when they are our age. Period.
Oh, and full time working moms are typically the most stressed and overworked part of society according to surveys - working, commuting, household chores and parenting take their toll.


----------



## RedRose

Such a difficult thing to discuss- it's so understandable that we would all want to justify our family choices. There is nothing more important to us.

It doesn't seem like anyone is fundamentally disagreeing either, not completely anyway.

I don't really know what the point of my post is, just want to keep up with the thread so I can come back to it later!


----------



## LPF

freckleonear said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is attacking the choice to have a stay at home parent more the fact people choose this over employment and expect the government to fund it. That's not what benefits are for.
> 
> I'd love to be a sahm but if I did I wouldn't expect handouts for my choices in bringing up my children, therefore I can't afford it, therefore I work.
> 
> The ethos in this country is all wrong. No one should be paid by the governemnt for their lifestyle choices just the times when it all goes wrong.
> 
> *Whether or not I work actually makes very little difference to the taxpayer. If I didn't work, our family would receive some tax credits. If I did go out to work, 70% of my childcare costs would be paid by the government. So the issue really isn't as simple as working/not working, and I wish people would stop judging mothers who do rely on some government assistance in the short term.*
> 
> 
> 
> Jazzy-NICU said:
> 
> 
> So do you think that you'll return into work when your children are at school? Because for me that wouldnt be a possibility, i would lose my nursing registration and have to retrain, is that a sacrifice i should make?
> I want to raise my children so they realise they have to work hard to get the things that they want in life and not just have them handed out. You say you sacrifice material things but you can't have nothing?Click to expand...
> 
> I'm now going to confused the issue by saying that I already work. :lol: I'm a childminder and web designer, which means I can work from home and not have to put my children into childcare.
> 
> I'm not saying that all mothers should stay at home and not work. I'm simply saying that it is a valid choice and mothers shouldn't be made to feel guilty for it.Click to expand...
> 
> But you would be contributing to the economy, paying into a pension to contribute to a more independent retirement, creating experience and opportunities to ensure you don't claim benefits long term - a more positive picture.Click to expand...
> 
> If it meant placing my children in poor quality childcare, then I would also be reducing the statistical chances of them being successful and contributing members of society. On a purely economical level, investing in a good start for children far outweighs all the associated costs.Click to expand...

Well that's your choice if you wanted to put your child in poor quality childcare - although I don't know why you would. There are plenty of excellent childcare establishments. 

My child goes to an excellent nursery where they enrich his life 3 days a week. There is also a lot of research to say that children born to higher socio economic families are more likely to succeed. 

So horses for courses.


----------



## LPF

Septie said:


> Many people simply don't understand the costs they are imposing on society by choosing to claim benefits (and to be fair, it's the government's fault for wrongly incentivizing the system - one can't expect people to take into account the externalities their choices impose on the rest of the system!).
> When I was young, my home country's system paid for new glasses every two years. So EVERYBODY bought new glasses every two years, whether they needed them or not. Now, one can get a small contribution to (very very basic and typically ugly) new glasses when they are needed.
> Chances are your daughters won't have the choice to claim benefits and be a sahm. Because we'll have bankrupted the system by then. And the truly sad part is that if they are truly disabled and unable to work, they will really suffer from this reduction in benefits. Our lifestyle choices now will hurt us when we are old, and our children (that we all claim we love so much!) when they are our age. Period.
> Oh, and full time working moms are typically the most stressed and overworked part of society according to surveys - working, commuting, household chores and parenting take their toll.

I agree

As I said earlier - the benefits culture as it is now and the lack of people working means the system will eventually implode and our children will have poor economical stability across all avenues of the public sector. our own retirements will be horrendous unless you have a decent personal pension. 

Out of interest - those who are sahm and claim benefits - if the whole system stopped tomorrow and there were no benefits, would you look for employment or would you cut your cloth accordingly? Not being funny, I'm genuinely interested in other peoples choices.


----------



## Jazzy-NICU

Why would anyone choose to put their child into poor quality childcare? There are plenty of fantastic childcare options available, surely as a childcare provider yourself you wouldnt class yourself as poor? 
People shouldn't be "guilt tripped" into working no but maybe if there was more job satisfaction involved people would be more inclined to work. I know i wouldnt want to work for minimum wage in a job that bored me and took home pennies after childcare costs but thats why i ensured i wasnt in that position!


----------



## mistyscott

Very interesting thread with some thought provoking contributions.

For those interested, I read a very interesting book about these very subjects - 'shattered: modern motherhood and the illusion of equality' by Rebecca Asher. Thought provoking indeed. 

As for us, so far I'm a sahm as my oh earns enough to support us...just. That may change if utilities and food etc continue to rise in cost as they currently are. I also haven't worked since qualifying in my profession, so may need to at least get a foot on the ladder before too long, else I'd have to do catch up training and the like.

I think we're all faced with tough decisions when children come along, and all we can do is consider our options and hope we make the right choices for ourselves and our families; both in the short and long term.


----------



## LPF

mistyscott said:


> Very interesting thread with some thought provoking contributions.
> 
> For those interested, I read a very interesting book about these very subjects - 'shattered: modern motherhood and the illusion of equality' by Rebecca Asher. Thought provoking indeed.
> 
> As for us, so far I'm a sahm as my oh earns enough to support us...just. That may change if utilities and food etc continue to rise in cost as they currently are. I also haven't worked since qualifying in my profession, so may need to at least get a foot on the ladder before too long, else I'd have to do catch up training and the like.
> 
> I think we're all faced with tough decisions when children come along, and all we can do is consider our options and hope we make the right choices for ourselves and our families; both in the short and long term.

I agree, very interesting debate and nice that it hasn't descended into chaos.


----------



## RachA

Jazzy-NICU said:


> So do you think that you'll return into work when your children are at school? Because for me that wouldnt be a possibility, i would lose my nursing registration and have to retrain, is that a sacrifice i should make?
> I want to raise my children so they realise they have to work hard to get the things that they want in life and not just have them handed out. You say you sacrifice material things but you can't have nothing?


Jobs like yours are definitely very hard to give up when you have children. I think that if you plan to go back to the same type of job then its very important to keep the registration etc going. Most of the people i know who are in nursing tend to work one night a week once they have children so that they can be with their children during the day but work enough to keep registration etc going :thumbup:



Jazzy-NICU said:


> Why would anyone choose to put their child into poor quality childcare? There are plenty of fantastic childcare options available, surely as a childcare provider yourself you wouldnt class yourself as poor?
> People shouldn't be "guilt tripped" into working no but maybe if there was more job satisfaction involved people would be more inclined to work. I know i wouldnt want to work for minimum wage in a job that bored me and took home pennies after childcare costs but thats why i ensured i wasnt in that position!

I think the point being made is that not everyone is near to pre-schools etc that are the standard they like. We are very fortunate that we live right round the corner from an excellent pre-school. If we didn't i'm not sure what we'd do. We only have 1 car (a sacrifice we've had to make as i am not working at the moment!) and OH uses it some but not all days. If the pre-schools in our area weren't good i wouldn't be in a position to be able to go further afield as i cannot rely in my OH not needing the car on pre-school days.




As others have said - this is a good thread and i'm glad it hasn't degenerated into a slanging match :thumb up:

I do firmly believe that if a parent wants to stay at home and look after their children then they should be able to regardless of if their OH earns a big wage or not. I do however also believe that the people in question should look at their circumstances before trying to claim they are entitled to benefits. Some people obviously can't cut back on things but others can and if they choose to stay at home then they have to realise that they will have to make sacrifices in order to stay at home. Some people are lucky enough that they don't have to sacrifice things but the 'middle income' people tend to be those ones who are affected.
The thing that i tend not to understand (and someone on her said, or seemed to imply, that they do it) is those people who say 'i need to go back to work for financial reasons' but then say 'all my wage goes on childcare'. If their whole wage is going on childcare then how are they better off than not working and not having to pay childcare?

Someone mentioned that one of the positives of working is that a pension is then paid into which in turn means that the gov pension isn't needed as much. Actually a heck of a lot of companies don't offer any pension provisions. Yes this is being looked at but it will actually be a while before its open to everyone. My OH is someone who doesn't have a company that pays into a pension. At present he can't pay into a private pension as we don't have the spare cash but once i am earning again he will do so (he's actually paid into a pension at his previous firm for 10/12 years so its not like we are planning on him getting a state pension so we aren't bothered).


----------



## Sarahwoo

What happened to pre planning though? Obviously some babies take us by surprise but so many people seem to plan and have babies without any financial pre planning or thought. We planned for years so that I could stay home and be a full time mummy - I changed my career and we made sacrifices well before we started ttc. It's not just about your oh having a good job - it's about planning. It does annoy me that someone on a lower income wouldn't have to have done all that pre planning, and that they could go on and have baby number 2 etc without worrying about the cost.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

I don't think anyone should have to justify their reasons for TTC.


----------



## freckleonear

Sarahwoo said:


> What happened to pre planning though? Obviously some babies take us by surprise but so many people seem to plan and have babies without any financial pre planning or thought. We planned for years so that I could stay home and be a full time mummy - I changed my career and we made sacrifices well before we started ttc. It's not just about your oh having a good job - it's about planning. It does annoy me that someone on a lower income wouldn't have to have done all that pre planning, and that they could go on and have baby number 2 etc without worrying about the cost.

When we got married we made the decision not to buy a house yet, as mortgages are usually based on two incomes and we always knew that we would want one of us to be stay-at-home parent. Whereas a mortgage is often the main reason many "middle income" mothers feel they have no choice but to go back to work.


----------



## RachA

Planning is good but where do you stop? Do you make sure you have enough to see you through the first 5 years? 10 years? Or right through til they have finished Uni? Also the more people earn the more they tend to live to and beyond their means. I know a number of people who left it 10 years before having children because 'they couldn't afford them' but when they finally did have they still said 'i have to return to work because we can't afford for me not too' when actually they were so used to having that 2nd wage earners income that they didn't want to loose it.
I also know people who chose to have families - my sister is one of them - when neither were in paid work, OH was at uni/college. The 2 particular couples i'm thinking of didn't actually claim benefits but lived on the grant they were as the husband was at uni. They both lived very frugally for a few years and then once hubby finished at uni and started earning they felt very rich lol. If they were people who should of waited until they could afford it then there is a chance that they would of ended up with no children at all.


----------



## girlygirl:)

I'm sorry but I'm fed up of middle class earners complaining about people on benefits or stay at home mothers relying on tax credits, they are no better off than you financially they just organize their money better!

I'm a SAHM but I've had to make sure our outgoings are minimal, I don't have SKY, we only have 1 car to share with cheap insurance, we don't buy anything for ourselves only our daughter, we don't often go on a day out where we need to spend money, I research everything to get the best price.

The people around me complaining that people on benefits are better off then them are ridiculous, they own a good new car or have finance on one, have a mortgage, shop for their childrens clothes in mamas and papas and for their own from next, go on holidays 3+ a year, dont pay for their childcare because grandmothers takes them, and they really think they would be better off on benefits?! 

Feminism was about the right to choose to be a SAHM or to be a career woman.


----------



## RachA

^^ that does depend on circumstances tbh. We are a middle income family. I stay at home and OH works full time. We only run one car - which we paid for outright having saved up for it for nearly 5 years - we go on holiday once every 18months and then its as cheap as i can get it, we buy clothes from Next BUT only during the sales, we buy shoes for ourselves only when our existing shoes are broken, we don't have sky and only have broadband because its actually really cheap and DS needs to have access for school, we don't have fancy mobile phone contracts - OH actually pays something like £3.99 per month for his - we rarely go out and if we do we try to use things like the TESCO vouchers to pay for it, our house is in desperate need of new carpets but we can't afford to replace them until we have saved up for them...........etc. So yes there are people i know who are on benefits that actually have more disposable income than us.


You (not you personally) can't generalise - there are those on benefits that are getting more money than other people who have both partners working. But there are also those who both work, or one works, who earn more than people on benefits but then complain about people on benefits.


----------



## chell5544

girlygirl:) said:


> I'm sorry but I'm fed up of middle class earners complaining about people on benefits or stay at home mothers relying on tax credits, they are no better off than you financially they just organize their money better!
> 
> *I'm a SAHM but I've had to make sure our outgoings are minimal, I don't have SKY, we only have 1 car to share with cheap insurance, we don't buy anything for ourselves only our daughter, we don't often go on a day out where we need to spend money, I research everything to get the best price.
> *
> The people around me complaining that people on benefits are better off then them are ridiculous, they own a good new car or have finance on one, have a mortgage, shop for their childrens clothes in mamas and papas and for their own from next, go on holidays 3+ a year, dont pay for their childcare because grandmothers takes them, and they really think they would be better off on benefits?!
> 
> Feminism was about the right to choose to be a SAHM or to be a career woman.

Everything you have said in bold is us apart from I work as we have a mortgage to pay I know how to organise my money we do not go on holiday or out for dinner I pay childcare as our parents both work most of my kids clothes and ours come from charity shops occasionally we can buy some bits new but never from next
I don't think anyone has said well I certainly haven't said that sahm on benifits have more money then us just that I do not feel I have the option to be a sahm not matter how much I squeeze our outgoings 

Yes feminism was the about the right to choose either but it is no longer a right when you have to rely on benifits to be a sahm it is a privilege that the system allows you to be


----------



## girlygirl:)

chell5544 said:


> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I'm fed up of middle class earners complaining about people on benefits or stay at home mothers relying on tax credits, they are no better off than you financially they just organize their money better!
> 
> *I'm a SAHM but I've had to make sure our outgoings are minimal, I don't have SKY, we only have 1 car to share with cheap insurance, we don't buy anything for ourselves only our daughter, we don't often go on a day out where we need to spend money, I research everything to get the best price.
> *
> The people around me complaining that people on benefits are better off then them are ridiculous, they own a good new car or have finance on one, have a mortgage, shop for their childrens clothes in mamas and papas and for their own from next, go on holidays 3+ a year, dont pay for their childcare because grandmothers takes them, and they really think they would be better off on benefits?!
> 
> Feminism was about the right to choose to be a SAHM or to be a career woman.
> 
> Everything you have said in bold is us apart from I work as we have a mortgage to pay I know how to organise my money we do not go on holiday or out for dinner I pay childcare as our parents both work most of my kids clothes and ours come from charity shops occasionally we can buy some bits new but never from next
> I don't think anyone has said well I certainly haven't said that sahm on benifits have more money then us just that I do not feel I have the option to be a sahm not matter how much I squeeze our outgoings
> 
> Yes feminism was the about the right to choose either but it is no longer a right when you have to rely on benifits to be a sahm it is a privilege that the system allows you to beClick to expand...

IMO a man or woman's wage should be able to support of family of 4 without the need for tax credits (it's barely enough to support one person) and IMO I think it should be a right for a woman to stay at home. Tax credits in our case is fair, I've worked since I was 14 and have paid my share of tax to be able to stay at home with my daughter until she is eligible for free child care.


----------



## girlygirl:)

RachA said:


> ^^ that does depend on circumstances tbh. We are a middle income family. I stay at home and OH works full time. We only run one car - which we paid for outright having saved up for it for nearly 5 years - we go on holiday once every 18months and then its as cheap as i can get it, we buy clothes from Next BUT only during the sales, we buy shoes for ourselves only when our existing shoes are broken, we don't have sky and only have broadband because its actually really cheap and DS needs to have access for school, we don't have fancy mobile phone contracts - OH actually pays something like £3.99 per month for his - we rarely go out and if we do we try to use things like the TESCO vouchers to pay for it, our house is in desperate need of new carpets but we can't afford to replace them until we have saved up for them...........etc. So yes there are people i know who are on benefits that actually have more disposable income than us.
> 
> 
> You (not you personally) can't generalise - there are those on benefits that are getting more money than other people who have both partners working. But there are also those who both work, or one works, who earn more than people on benefits but then complain about people on benefits.

My comment is from what I've experienced from people I know, none of these people I have come across that have the opinion that they would be better off on benefits actually would be and I've talked to a LOT of people about it.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

My DH worked from the age of 16 and has never been on the dole. I've worked since I was 17. I think women should be able to choose too! Not just women though. Dads should have the option as well!


----------



## girlygirl:)

A different matter but I have experienced a negative attitude in regards of being a SAHM without disclosing whether me and my partner were claiming tax credits, for all they could know my partner could be earning a really good wage to support us and we would not be eligible for anything but still they seem to have the attitude as if I'm a benefit scrounger that sits on my arse all day drinking tea and smoking fags?! The propaganda against the poor is affecting every aspect of society and targeting any person that is not 'working hard bringing in a wage'


----------



## girlygirl:)

Ozzieshunni said:


> My DH worked from the age of 16 and has never been on the dole. I've worked since I was 17. I think women should be able to choose too! Not just women though. Dads should have the option as well!

exactly that why I say a mans or womans minimum wage should ideally be able to support a family of 4 without the need for tax credits.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

All the people I've ever talked to say that I shouldn't work. My grandma says my job is to raise my son. On the flip side, she wouldn't begrudge me for working if I could.


----------



## chell5544

girlygirl:) said:


> A different matter but I have experienced a negative attitude in regards of being a SAHM without disclosing whether me and my partner were claiming tax credits, for all they could know my partner could be earning a really good wage to support us and we would not be eligible for anything but still they seem to have the attitude as if I'm a benefit scrounger that sits on my arse all day drinking tea and smoking fags?! The propaganda against the poor is affecting every aspect of society and targeting any person that is not 'working hard bringing in a wage'

I think you got a negative attuidude because you said you were sick of middle class earners moaning about people on benifits


----------



## Ozzieshunni

I think she was meaning in general.....correct me if I'm wrong girlygirl


----------



## girlygirl:)

No in general as Ozzieshunni said.


----------



## chell5544

girlygirl:) said:


> No in general as Ozzieshunni said.

Ok I apologise :thumbup: I defferently know that looking after kids does not involve sitting on the sofa drinking tea and watching Jemery Kyle all day lol


----------



## Ozzieshunni

I wish I could sit and drink tea! Lol! I'm chasing, entertaining, going to this park, cooking meals, cleaning, and rocking and cuddling!


----------



## MrsHedgehog

This has been an interesting read. 

Most people seem to be complaining about how 'unfair' the system is. I have to disagree. 'Unfair' is women being stoned to death for not behaving in the correct way or children starving to death in Africa. Most people in the UK have pretty comfortable lives wether they work or claim benefits. Most people have choices, we're free to choose what we do. People who say 'I have to go back to work, I have no choice' are not being entirely honest. They might not have an easy choice but usually alternatives could be worked out if they really thought that was what was best for their family.

Before having LO I saved money so that I could stay at home with LO. We did this by moving in with my in-laws which was a huge sacrifice. Now I work just a few hours a week and we get by on DHs low salary as we're really careful with our money. We don't get any benefits but we have been helped out a lot by family. Here in Italy that's usually how it's done, you're supported by your family rather than the govt. The UK has lost that family unit.


----------



## RachA

MrsHedgehog said:


> This has been an interesting read.
> 
> Most people seem to be complaining about how 'unfair' the system is. I have to disagree. 'Unfair' is women being stoned to death for not behaving in the correct way or children starving to death in Africa. Most people in the UK have pretty comfortable lives wether they work or claim benefits. Most people have choices, we're free to choose what we do. People who say 'I have to go back to work, I have no choice' are not being entirely honest. They might not have an easy choice but usually alternatives could be worked out if they really thought that was what was best for their family.
> 
> Before having LO I saved money so that I could stay at home with LO. We did this by moving in with my in-laws which was a huge sacrifice. Now I work just a few hours a week and we get by on DHs low salary as we're really careful with our money. We don't get any benefits but we have been helped out a lot by family. Here in Italy that's usually how it's done, you're supported by your family rather than the govt. The UK has lost that family unit.


I agree. Lots are people are saying about how hard things are in this recession we are in. We aren't actually in one and haven't been for the last x number of years as we keep being told. Recession is where the lower and middle (because lets face it the upper class are always going to be ok) are actually unable to afford to put food on the table every day and they have to give up not one but two of the household cars an use public transport or walk to places. And not be able to go out to eat at all. Etc.
We are so well off in the UK. We do have a choice.


----------



## MrsHedgehog

RachA said:


> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting read.
> 
> Most people seem to be complaining about how 'unfair' the system is. I have to disagree. 'Unfair' is women being stoned to death for not behaving in the correct way or children starving to death in Africa. Most people in the UK have pretty comfortable lives wether they work or claim benefits. Most people have choices, we're free to choose what we do. People who say 'I have to go back to work, I have no choice' are not being entirely honest. They might not have an easy choice but usually alternatives could be worked out if they really thought that was what was best for their family.
> 
> Before having LO I saved money so that I could stay at home with LO. We did this by moving in with my in-laws which was a huge sacrifice. Now I work just a few hours a week and we get by on DHs low salary as we're really careful with our money. We don't get any benefits but we have been helped out a lot by family. Here in Italy that's usually how it's done, you're supported by your family rather than the govt. The UK has lost that family unit.
> 
> 
> I agree. Lots are people are saying about how hard things are in this recession we are in. We aren't actually in one and haven't been for the last x number of years as we keep being told. Recession is where the lower and middle (because lets face it the upper class are always going to be ok) are actually unable to afford to put food on the table every day and they have to give up not one but two of the household cars an use public transport or walk to places. And not be able to go out to eat at all. Etc.
> We are so well off in the UK. We do have a choice.Click to expand...

I think many people now confuse the things that they want with the things they need. Our expectations are higher. Things like tvs, mobiles and laptops are seen as necessities rather than luxuries we could live without. IMO if you have a roof over your head, 3 meals a day and clothes on your back then your doing ok. For many people in the world even these things would be a luxury.


----------



## chell5544

RachA said:


> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting read.
> 
> Most people seem to be complaining about how 'unfair' the system is. I have to disagree. 'Unfair' is women being stoned to death for not behaving in the correct way or children starving to death in Africa. Most people in the UK have pretty comfortable lives wether they work or claim benefits. Most people have choices, we're free to choose what we do. People who say 'I have to go back to work, I have no choice' are not being entirely honest. They might not have an easy choice but usually alternatives could be worked out if they really thought that was what was best for their family.
> 
> Before having LO I saved money so that I could stay at home with LO. We did this by moving in with my in-laws which was a huge sacrifice. Now I work just a few hours a week and we get by on DHs low salary as we're really careful with our money. We don't get any benefits but we have been helped out a lot by family. Here in Italy that's usually how it's done, you're supported by your family rather than the govt. The UK has lost that family unit.
> 
> 
> I agree. Lots are people are saying about how hard things are in this recession we are in. We aren't actually in one and haven't been for the last x number of years as we keep being told. Recession is where the lower and middle (because lets face it the upper class are always going to be ok) are actually unable to afford to put food on the table every day and they have to give up not one but two of the household cars an use public transport or walk to places. And not be able to go out to eat at all. Etc.
> We are so well off in the UK. We do have a choice.Click to expand...

This isn't actually true a recession is where the economy stops growing and in England's case actually shrank this is due to a number of things first of all banks get themselves into trouble by over lending then in return stop lending so people can no longer buy properties and companies start to go bankrupt this has a knock on effect on building trades and unemployment rises which then creates more money being spent on benifits and less money being paid on taxes 
Inflation then goes through the roof due to prices rises from companies trying to keep themselves afloat this also means that wages stop growing which has a knock on effect to disposable income 
Even though the country is no longer in recession the knock on effects of it will last for many years to come if more able people who can work do so it will help drive the economy forward as the luxurys being brought is part of of helping the economy grow which yes we are lucky compared to other countries but our ancestitors have worked hard a fought to give us the benifits which we receive now in order to give job opportunities and benifits and insure that the pension is still their for our children and grandchildren we need to do the same


----------



## Sarahwoo

MrsHedgehog said:


> RachA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting read.
> 
> Most people seem to be complaining about how 'unfair' the system is. I have to disagree. 'Unfair' is women being stoned to death for not behaving in the correct way or children starving to death in Africa. Most people in the UK have pretty comfortable lives wether they work or claim benefits. Most people have choices, we're free to choose what we do. People who say 'I have to go back to work, I have no choice' are not being entirely honest. They might not have an easy choice but usually alternatives could be worked out if they really thought that was what was best for their family.
> 
> Before having LO I saved money so that I could stay at home with LO. We did this by moving in with my in-laws which was a huge sacrifice. Now I work just a few hours a week and we get by on DHs low salary as we're really careful with our money. We don't get any benefits but we have been helped out a lot by family. Here in Italy that's usually how it's done, you're supported by your family rather than the govt. The UK has lost that family unit.
> 
> 
> I agree. Lots are people are saying about how hard things are in this recession we are in. We aren't actually in one and haven't been for the last x number of years as we keep being told. Recession is where the lower and middle (because lets face it the upper class are always going to be ok) are actually unable to afford to put food on the table every day and they have to give up not one but two of the household cars an use public transport or walk to places. And not be able to go out to eat at all. Etc.
> We are so well off in the UK. We do have a choice.Click to expand...
> 
> I think many people now confuse the things that they want with the things they need. Our expectations are higher. Things like tvs, mobiles and laptops are seen as necessities rather than luxuries we could live without. IMO if you have a roof over your head, 3 meals a day and clothes on your back then your doing ok. For many people in the world even these things would be a luxury.Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with this, which is why I think a lot of people find it frustrating that benefits sometimes end up paying for those luxuries. Benefits - and I include tax credits - should pay for essentials.

Also just to add that paying into the system doesn't mean you should have a right to take money out. My husband pays an absolute fortune in tax, if you say 'we'll I've paid in so I can take out' what about us? We get no tax credits, where is our 'getting it back?' It just doesn't work like that! We all use services like police / NHS / etc etc, no matter what we pay in. If you are currently entitled to claim tax credits / benefits then fine, but please don't say that you can claim it back because you've paid it in.


----------



## mummyclo

Sarahwoo said:


> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RachA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting read.
> 
> Most people seem to be complaining about how 'unfair' the system is. I have to disagree. 'Unfair' is women being stoned to death for not behaving in the correct way or children starving to death in Africa. Most people in the UK have pretty comfortable lives wether they work or claim benefits. Most people have choices, we're free to choose what we do. People who say 'I have to go back to work, I have no choice' are not being entirely honest. They might not have an easy choice but usually alternatives could be worked out if they really thought that was what was best for their family.
> 
> Before having LO I saved money so that I could stay at home with LO. We did this by moving in with my in-laws which was a huge sacrifice. Now I work just a few hours a week and we get by on DHs low salary as we're really careful with our money. We don't get any benefits but we have been helped out a lot by family. Here in Italy that's usually how it's done, you're supported by your family rather than the govt. The UK has lost that family unit.
> 
> 
> I agree. Lots are people are saying about how hard things are in this recession we are in. We aren't actually in one and haven't been for the last x number of years as we keep being told. Recession is where the lower and middle (because lets face it the upper class are always going to be ok) are actually unable to afford to put food on the table every day and they have to give up not one but two of the household cars an use public transport or walk to places. And not be able to go out to eat at all. Etc.
> We are so well off in the UK. We do have a choice.Click to expand...
> 
> I think many people now confuse the things that they want with the things they need. Our expectations are higher. Things like tvs, mobiles and laptops are seen as necessities rather than luxuries we could live without. IMO if you have a roof over your head, 3 meals a day and clothes on your back then your doing ok. For many people in the world even these things would be a luxury.Click to expand...
> 
> I absolutely agree with this, which is why I think a lot of people find it frustrating that benefits sometimes end up paying for those luxuries. Benefits - and I include tax credits - should pay for essentials.
> 
> Also just to add that paying into the system doesn't mean you should have a right to take money out. My husband pays an absolute fortune in tax, if you say 'we'll I've paid in so I can take out' what about us? We get no tax credits, where is our 'getting it back?' It just doesn't work like that! We all use services like police / NHS / etc etc, no matter what we pay in. If you are currently entitled to claim tax credits / benefits then fine, but please don't say that you can claim it back because you've paid it in.Click to expand...

I don't think tax credits is classed as a benefit though is it?
I think for the majority of people tax credits does pay for essentials. Ours pays for our food and council tax! 
I think people have a wrong view of low income families tbh. It's really only certain people who usually are fiddling the system or having lots of kids for the money that are very well off.
We certainly are not!
We didn't invent the system and if I was better off working I would have a job.....


----------



## Sarahwoo

I have no problem with that mummyclo, but I do personally know of -for example - a family where the husband doesn't work, the mother works part time, they have a huge council house with an enormous garden (landscaped - the husband is a landscape gardener and does work cash in hand :dohh:) they have a brand new car, four kids, holidays abroad, sky tv, etc.


----------



## chell5544

mummyclo said:


> Sarahwoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RachA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting read.
> 
> Most people seem to be complaining about how 'unfair' the system is. I have to disagree. 'Unfair' is women being stoned to death for not behaving in the correct way or children starving to death in Africa. Most people in the UK have pretty comfortable lives wether they work or claim benefits. Most people have choices, we're free to choose what we do. People who say 'I have to go back to work, I have no choice' are not being entirely honest. They might not have an easy choice but usually alternatives could be worked out if they really thought that was what was best for their family.
> 
> Before having LO I saved money so that I could stay at home with LO. We did this by moving in with my in-laws which was a huge sacrifice. Now I work just a few hours a week and we get by on DHs low salary as we're really careful with our money. We don't get any benefits but we have been helped out a lot by family. Here in Italy that's usually how it's done, you're supported by your family rather than the govt. The UK has lost that family unit.
> 
> 
> I agree. Lots are people are saying about how hard things are in this recession we are in. We aren't actually in one and haven't been for the last x number of years as we keep being told. Recession is where the lower and middle (because lets face it the upper class are always going to be ok) are actually unable to afford to put food on the table every day and they have to give up not one but two of the household cars an use public transport or walk to places. And not be able to go out to eat at all. Etc.
> We are so well off in the UK. We do have a choice.Click to expand...
> 
> I think many people now confuse the things that they want with the things they need. Our expectations are higher. Things like tvs, mobiles and laptops are seen as necessities rather than luxuries we could live without. IMO if you have a roof over your head, 3 meals a day and clothes on your back then your doing ok. For many people in the world even these things would be a luxury.Click to expand...
> 
> I absolutely agree with this, which is why I think a lot of people find it frustrating that benefits sometimes end up paying for those luxuries. Benefits - and I include tax credits - should pay for essentials.
> 
> Also just to add that paying into the system doesn't mean you should have a right to take money out. My husband pays an absolute fortune in tax, if you say 'we'll I've paid in so I can take out' what about us? We get no tax credits, where is our 'getting it back?' It just doesn't work like that! We all use services like police / NHS / etc etc, no matter what we pay in. If you are currently entitled to claim tax credits / benefits then fine, but please don't say that you can claim it back because you've paid it in.Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think tax credits is classed as a benefit though is it?
> I think for the majority of people tax credits does pay for essentials. Ours pays for our food and council tax!
> I think people have a wrong view of low income families tbh. It's really only certain people who usually are fiddling the system or having lots of kids for the money that are very well off.
> We certainly are not!
> We didn't invent the system and if I was better off working I would have a job.....Click to expand...

It is a benifit its is their to help people on low income to pay bills and put food on the table
I don't think anyone here is fiddling the system and I know what it's like to be on a low income it is hard but you said yourself you are better off on benifits then working this is the problem with the system some people are better off not working so why will they work? where it should be the other way round you should be better off working its no ones fault but the governments


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Our tax credits just cycle around back to the government, lol. They pay our rent and council tax!


----------



## RachA

chell5544 said:


> RachA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> This has been an interesting read.
> 
> Most people seem to be complaining about how 'unfair' the system is. I have to disagree. 'Unfair' is women being stoned to death for not behaving in the correct way or children starving to death in Africa. Most people in the UK have pretty comfortable lives wether they work or claim benefits. Most people have choices, we're free to choose what we do. People who say 'I have to go back to work, I have no choice' are not being entirely honest. They might not have an easy choice but usually alternatives could be worked out if they really thought that was what was best for their family.
> 
> Before having LO I saved money so that I could stay at home with LO. We did this by moving in with my in-laws which was a huge sacrifice. Now I work just a few hours a week and we get by on DHs low salary as we're really careful with our money. We don't get any benefits but we have been helped out a lot by family. Here in Italy that's usually how it's done, you're supported by your family rather than the govt. The UK has lost that family unit.
> 
> 
> I agree. Lots are people are saying about how hard things are in this recession we are in. We aren't actually in one and haven't been for the last x number of years as we keep being told. Recession is where the lower and middle (because lets face it the upper class are always going to be ok) are actually unable to afford to put food on the table every day and they have to give up not one but two of the household cars an use public transport or walk to places. And not be able to go out to eat at all. Etc.
> We are so well off in the UK. We do have a choice.Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't actually true a recession is where the economy stops growing and in England's case actually shrank this is due to a number of things first of all banks get themselves into trouble by over lending then in return stop lending so people can no longer buy properties and companies start to go bankrupt this has a knock on effect on building trades and unemployment rises which then creates more money being spent on benifits and less money being paid on taxes
> Inflation then goes through the roof due to prices rises from companies trying to keep themselves afloat this also means that wages stop growing which has a knock on effect to disposable income
> Even though the country is no longer in recession the knock on effects of it will last for many years to come if more able people who can work do so it will help drive the economy forward as the luxurys being brought is part of of helping the economy grow which yes we are lucky compared to other countries but our ancestitors have worked hard a fought to give us the benifits which we receive now in order to give job opportunities and benifits and insure that the pension is still their for our children and grandchildren we need to do the sameClick to expand...

I understand what you are saying here but i don't actually think things are like this 100%. People do seem to be having work done so tradesmen aren't as affected by things as they would of been back in the recession in the 70 i think it was. Most, if not all, of the builders etc that i know have been busier in the last few years than they were for a number of years before the recession started. Many houses in my local area have had massive extensions etc. 
Also the figures given by the gov in relation to unemployment etc just aren't accurate - i know because i worked in benefits for 8 + years. Basically the gov started an initiative which shifts the sick onto jobseekers. Then the unemployment figures look awful. Then all of a sudden things change and unemployment is so much better but what's actually happened is that the vast majority of the people have re-claimed incapacity benefit rather than getting a job, or else those that did find work give it up after x number of weeks and claim incapacity benefit. Quite a number of times we'd find on the section that i worked on (in cap) that we'd of have a mass influx of claims, so much so that we'd have to employ a load of new staff to deal with the claims, directly before the gov announced the unemployed had fallen by x%


----------



## indy and lara

.


----------



## RachA

indy and lara said:


> I think that your experience is quite different to many parts of the country. Construction in Scotland has been absolutely hammered by all that has happened in the last 3 years. Not only are tradesmen struggling but the building trade itself is hugely in the doldrums. All associated parts are struggling too. Sectors such as engineering consultancies and architects have made an enormous number of people unemployed. Many people my husband works with have relocated to the Middle East as this is the only place where there are jobs. I do wonder what will happen to their industry as a whole in the next 5 years as the have lost so many experienced and talanted people.



It's interesting to see the difference in different areas :thumbup:


----------



## LPF

I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in. 

Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!


----------



## mummyclo

LPF said:


> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!

You sound like such a lovely person! 
So closed minded. A benefit is a benefit and all....


----------



## girlygirl:)

LPF said:


> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!

You make it sound as if my comment was 'well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.


----------



## chell5544

girlygirl:) said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You make it sound as if my comment was 'well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.Click to expand...

i dont think anyone has said that being on a low income means your second class and mininal wage is no where near enough to support a family we all know that and low income families do need help but you gotta see it from another way round if two parents worked there is less chance of being a low income family


----------



## LannieDuck

I haven't read through the whole thread, but it sounds as if you're temping at the moment with the view to being permanent in Jan - would that better hours? If your hours become more routine, childcare will be easier, and when you're permanent would you be working more, i.e. getting paid for more hours? 

I agree that it's not really worth being away from your children for an extra £19/mth, but what would the situation be from January? As a means to an end (i.e. the permanent job), it might very well be worth hanging in there...


----------



## girlygirl:)

chell5544 said:


> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You make it sound as if my comment was 'well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.Click to expand...
> 
> i dont think anyone has said that being on a low income means your second class and mininal wage is no where near enough to support a family we all know that and low income families do need help but you gotta see it from another way round if two parents worked there is less chance of being a low income familyClick to expand...

It would cost more for the government more to pay for my daughters Childcare if I were to go back to work than it does with us claiming tax credits and me being a SAHM!


----------



## LPF

mummyclo said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You sound like such a lovely person!
> So closed minded. A benefit is a benefit and all....Click to expand...

You don't know anything about me and I have a right to my opinion without being sarcastically put down. I would never dream of singling peoplemon this thread and calling names in such a back handed way.


----------



## LPF

girlygirl:) said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You make it sound as if my comment was '*well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!*? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.Click to expand...

where did I say that?

I, like others on this thread merely feel that some people who have said they feel it ok to claim _because_ they've put money in are well within their rights to but those of us who can't still have to put in - when do we get it back as it were?


----------



## LPF

girlygirl:) said:


> chell5544 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You make it sound as if my comment was 'well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.Click to expand...
> 
> i dont think anyone has said that being on a low income means your second class and mininal wage is no where near enough to support a family we all know that and low income families do need help but you gotta see it from another way round if two parents worked there is less chance of being a low income familyClick to expand...
> 
> It would cost more for the government more to pay for my daughters Childcare if I were to go back to work than it does with us claiming tax credits and me being a SAHM!Click to expand...

In the short term yes but as a long term investment it is much more profitable.


----------



## indy and lara

.


----------



## girlygirl:)

LPF said:


> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You make it sound as if my comment was '*well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!*? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.Click to expand...
> 
> where did I say that?
> 
> I, like others on this thread merely feel that some people who have said they feel it ok to claim _because_ they've put money in are well within their rights to but those of us who can't still have to put in - when do we get it back as it were?Click to expand...

If you ever fall on hard times the option is there for any one. If I was in a position where me and my partner working would bring in a good wage I would be grateful for being able to support our family without having help.


----------



## girlygirl:)

LPF said:


> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chell5544 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You make it sound as if my comment was 'well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.Click to expand...
> 
> i dont think anyone has said that being on a low income means your second class and mininal wage is no where near enough to support a family we all know that and low income families do need help but you gotta see it from another way round if two parents worked there is less chance of being a low income familyClick to expand...
> 
> It would cost more for the government more to pay for my daughters Childcare if I were to go back to work than it does with us claiming tax credits and me being a SAHM!Click to expand...
> 
> In the short term yes but as a long term investment it is much more profitable.Click to expand...

How?!


----------



## girlygirl:)

indy and lara said:


> RachA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indy and lara said:
> 
> 
> I think that your experience is quite different to many parts of the country. Construction in Scotland has been absolutely hammered by all that has happened in the last 3 years. Not only are tradesmen struggling but the building trade itself is hugely in the doldrums. All associated parts are struggling too. Sectors such as engineering consultancies and architects have made an enormous number of people unemployed. Many people my husband works with have relocated to the Middle East as this is the only place where there are jobs. I do wonder what will happen to their industry as a whole in the next 5 years as the have lost so many experienced and talanted people.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting to see the difference in different areas :thumbup:Click to expand...
> 
> It's an area close to my heart! :flower: My husband is a structural engineer and over the last 2 years there have been times when we have been able to stay in the UK by the skin of our fingers!
> 
> 
> 
> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!Click to expand...
> 
> You make it sound as if my comment was 'well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.Click to expand...
> 
> For me any money which comes from the Government is a benefit, whether that is a tax credit, CB, Winter Fuel Allowance, etc. The living wage is a long way off sadly so tax credits are needed by lots of people. I think the difference is that some people on the thread feel that if you need benefits to manage then both adults in the household (in 2 people households obviously) should work, even if this is initially only for a small financial gain. It must be very hard for women who have gone back at work in order to help their families to survive, to be paying tax which allows other women to stay at home when they cannot themselves.Click to expand...

But as in my case it would actually cost the government more for me me to go back to work.


----------



## Sarahwoo

mummyclo said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You sound like such a lovely person!
> So closed minded. A benefit is a benefit and all....Click to expand...

That was really uncalled for - this lady was basically agreeing with what I already posted - why single her out? And in such a nasty way! A lot of people on this thread disagree with each other but no one else has stooped as low as that, it was really unnecessary.


----------



## girlygirl:)

Why blame low income families for having to claim tax credits even though they work hard for their low income when actually it's the governments fault for having wages so ridiculously low that people can't even support their own families? Punishing the poor for being poor? This would be no difference if I was working too, we would still need tax credits to live and for the government to pay for Childcare.


----------



## Jchihuahua

I had somehow missed this thread until now and it has been a very interesting read. Everyone has their reasons for the choices they make, we all do our best for our children and none of us walk in anyone elses shoes but I really agree with Tennis Gal's comment



TennisGal said:
 

> I *do* think it's unfair that the 'squeezed' middle have no choice but to work - and yet others who can claim benefits, get the choice to stay at home. There needs to be a different approach. Those mothers also feel that it would be best to stay at home with their babies...but because of the way the benefit cookie crumbles, their choices are taken away.

My children get the best of both worlds in my opinion. My husband is a brill SAHD and they have amazing care from him. He goes to work in the evenings though as we couldn't afford to lose his wage completely. I earn a decent wage so can afford some little luxuries for them. (We don't spend anything on ourselves though, it all goes on them). I like the fact that we are providing for them completely on our own. They have the best of both worlds but I don't feel that I do. had no choice to go back to work full time when Tommy was only 3 months (couldn't afford to pay my mortgage for the next month if I didn't). I would have loved to stay at home longer but I had no choice in my decison. My husband cares for them brilliantly but I wish we could have both gone part time and split the childcare.


----------



## chell5544

girlygirl:) said:


> Why blame low income families for having to claim tax credits even though they work hard for their low income when actually it's the governments fault for having wages so ridiculously low that people can't even support their own families? Punishing the poor for being poor? This would be no difference if I was working too, we would still need tax credits to live and for the government to pay for Childcare.

no one is blaming low income families for being on a low income we have been there too and have recieved tax credits and childcare help me and my partner have slowly worked our way up where we no longer qualify for any help. if you were working and still getting tax credits wouldnt you finacially be better off tho?


----------



## LPF

girlygirl:) said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chell5544 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You make it sound as if my comment was 'well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.Click to expand...
> 
> i dont think anyone has said that being on a low income means your second class and mininal wage is no where near enough to support a family we all know that and low income families do need help but you gotta see it from another way round if two parents worked there is less chance of being a low income familyClick to expand...
> 
> It would cost more for the government more to pay for my daughters Childcare if I were to go back to work than it does with us claiming tax credits and me being a SAHM!Click to expand...
> 
> In the short term yes but as a long term investment it is much more profitable.Click to expand...
> 
> How?!Click to expand...

Because 5 years per child at home claiming benefits costs a lot of money but by paying money to support you at work means you are more likely to stay in employment long term, you have better prospects/experience from continual working and less likely to be a lower earner in the future which in term costs less in longer sustained benefits. 

You are likely to be paying into a work based pension which is less of a drain on the system in your retirement. You are paying NI contributions. If your child goes to childcare you are supporting other business and paying for other people to also have employment. 

Children of parents who work and are in a higher socio economical group statistically do better at school reducing the need for them to claim in the future which in continued working you are more likely to be in that group. People on benefits are statistically more likely to access health care services and have then recieve free prescriptions/glasses/dental work etc. 

The list goes on. It's a bigger picture that what you give vs receive in the short term.


----------



## girlygirl:)

chell5544 said:


> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> Why blame low income families for having to claim tax credits even though they work hard for their low income when actually it's the governments fault for having wages so ridiculously low that people can't even support their own families? Punishing the poor for being poor? This would be no difference if I was working too, we would still need tax credits to live and for the government to pay for Childcare.
> 
> no one is blaming low income families for being on a low income we have been there too and have recieved tax credits and childcare help me and my partner have slowly worked our way up where we no longer qualify for any help. if you were working and still getting tax credits wouldnt you finacially be better off tho?Click to expand...

If you look back at the recent comments there is a negative tendency towards claiming tax credits although to be fair people to realize that the working class wage doesn't go far. We would be £20 a week better off if I was working, We live in a rural area so after paying petrol we would actually be worse off in the end. Impossible to even find a job anyway, I would have to go work as a temp, that would be impossible as nurseries around here need a notice of a month for when your child goes in, but you would only find out that your working through the agency day before or on that day. There is only something like 5 jobs in my area on the jobcentre website.


----------



## girlygirl:)

LPF said:


> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chell5544 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You make it sound as if my comment was 'well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.Click to expand...
> 
> i dont think anyone has said that being on a low income means your second class and mininal wage is no where near enough to support a family we all know that and low income families do need help but you gotta see it from another way round if two parents worked there is less chance of being a low income familyClick to expand...
> 
> It would cost more for the government more to pay for my daughters Childcare if I were to go back to work than it does with us claiming tax credits and me being a SAHM!Click to expand...
> 
> In the short term yes but as a long term investment it is much more profitable.Click to expand...
> 
> How?!Click to expand...
> 
> Because 5 years per child at home claiming benefits costs a lot of money but by paying money to support you at work means you are more likely to stay in employment long term, you have better prospects/experience from continual working and less likely to be a lower earner in the future which in term costs less in longer sustained benefits.
> 
> You are likely to be paying into a work based pension which is less of a drain on the system in your retirement. You are paying NI contributions. If your child goes to childcare you are supporting other business and paying for other people to also have employment.
> 
> Children of parents who work and are in a higher socio economical group statistically do better at school reducing the need for them to claim in the future which in continued working you are more likely to be in that group. People on benefits are statistically more likely to access health care services and have then recieve free prescriptions/glasses/dental work etc.
> 
> The list goes on. It's a bigger picture that what you give vs receive in the short term.Click to expand...

I wouldn't be paying for my child to go to nursery, the government would be. What about the fact my plan is actually to start a degree next September, I will be out of employment for 5 years in total but I am actually working at gaining a long term employment through the public sector as a social worker? I've never payed a pension in any job i have worked in, nor does any one that I know that earns under £500 a week.
Prescription is free for any one in wales anyway. I am gaining more relevant experience/skills for my career path by being a SAHM volunteering in care sector, running play groups etc than I would be doing a shitty secreterial/admin temp job that I would be even lucky to have.


----------



## MrsT&Ben

What i'd like to know is how on earth people afford to be SAHM's. We simply can't afford for me to stay at home. We pay out nearly £300 a month on childcare, which is a 1/3 of what I earn per month. But I have to go to work we need the other 2/3's of my earnings to pay for necessities like food! Even then most months we are in our overdraft. We wouldnt be entitled to any benefits if i was a SAHM so we couldnt live. I dont think we earn a decent wage, but apparently this government does! I think I must be making some really poor decisions.....


----------



## LPF

girlygirl:) said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chell5544 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LPF said:
> 
> 
> I also agree that the tax system is not one that 'if you've paid into you can take out of'. We've paid literally thousands and thousands in tax and will never see any of it back except when we access nhs or police etc like anyone else. We ALL pay in to ensure that public sector services can continue to function, NOT so people can claim benefits if theyve paid enough in.
> 
> Tax credits are definitely a benefit in my eyes - it doesn't matter what it's called our what it's for - if you receive money off the government to help you live - its a benefit!
> 
> You make it sound as if my comment was 'well I've been working some I was 14 so I decided I wanted a break from it and start claiming'!? If the minimum wage was enough to support a family then there would be no need for tax credits. My partner works hard for his low income just to be treated as second class citizens by people who are well to do that think they have some sort of moral high ground.Click to expand...
> 
> i dont think anyone has said that being on a low income means your second class and mininal wage is no where near enough to support a family we all know that and low income families do need help but you gotta see it from another way round if two parents worked there is less chance of being a low income familyClick to expand...
> 
> It would cost more for the government more to pay for my daughters Childcare if I were to go back to work than it does with us claiming tax credits and me being a SAHM!Click to expand...
> 
> In the short term yes but as a long term investment it is much more profitable.Click to expand...
> 
> How?!Click to expand...
> 
> Because 5 years per child at home claiming benefits costs a lot of money but by paying money to support you at work means you are more likely to stay in employment long term, you have better prospects/experience from continual working and less likely to be a lower earner in the future which in term costs less in longer sustained benefits.
> 
> You are likely to be paying into a work based pension which is less of a drain on the system in your retirement. You are paying NI contributions. If your child goes to childcare you are supporting other business and paying for other people to also have employment.
> 
> Children of parents who work and are in a higher socio economical group statistically do better at school reducing the need for them to claim in the future which in continued working you are more likely to be in that group. People on benefits are statistically more likely to access health care services and have then recieve free prescriptions/glasses/dental work etc.
> 
> The list goes on. It's a bigger picture that what you give vs receive in the short term.Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't be paying for my child to go to nursery, the government would be. What about the fact my plan is actually to start a degree next September, I will be out of employment for 5 years in total but I am actually working at gaining a long term employment through the public sector as a social worker? I've never payed a pension in any job i have worked in, nor does any one that I know that earns under £500 a week.
> Prescription is free for any one in wales anyway. I am gaining more relevant experience/skills for my career path by being a SAHM volunteering in care sector, running play groups etc than I would be doing a shitty secreterial/admin temp job that I would be even lucky to have.Click to expand...

But you're talking about your own personal circumstances - I don't know what they are, I'm just generalising about why the government introduced tax credits to keep people in work even if they are only slightly better off. 

Also, it doesn't matter who pays for childcare, it still ensures a business keeps going which keeps people employed which keeps the economy going, that was my point.


----------



## MrsHedgehog

MrsT&Ben said:


> What i'd like to know is how on earth people afford to be SAHM's. We simply can't afford for me to stay at home. We pay out nearly £300 a month on childcare, which is a 1/3 of what I earn per month. But I have to go to work we need the other 2/3's of my earnings to pay for necessities like food! Even then most months we are in our overdraft. We wouldnt be entitled to any benefits if i was a SAHM so we couldnt live. I dont think we earn a decent wage, but apparently this government does! I think I must be making some really poor decisions.....

It's hard to make ends meet on one salary but it is possible, even on a low salary. You just have to cut out everything but the essentials.


----------



## freckleonear

MrsHedgehog said:


> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> What i'd like to know is how on earth people afford to be SAHM's. We simply can't afford for me to stay at home. We pay out nearly £300 a month on childcare, which is a 1/3 of what I earn per month. But I have to go to work we need the other 2/3's of my earnings to pay for necessities like food! Even then most months we are in our overdraft. We wouldnt be entitled to any benefits if i was a SAHM so we couldnt live. I dont think we earn a decent wage, but apparently this government does! I think I must be making some really poor decisions.....
> 
> It's hard to make ends meet on one salary but it is possible, even on a low salary. You just have to cut out everything but the essentials.Click to expand...

^^This! To be honest I don't understand the argument about the "squeezed middle" not being able to afford it. Plenty of families survive on much less than £20,000 including benefits. The middle income families must be earning more than that or they'd be entitled to tax credits too, so I don't understand what the problem is? Obviously costs are higher in some areas though.


----------



## Jchihuahua

freckleonear said:


> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> What i'd like to know is how on earth people afford to be SAHM's. We simply can't afford for me to stay at home. We pay out nearly £300 a month on childcare, which is a 1/3 of what I earn per month. But I have to go to work we need the other 2/3's of my earnings to pay for necessities like food! Even then most months we are in our overdraft. We wouldnt be entitled to any benefits if i was a SAHM so we couldnt live. I dont think we earn a decent wage, but apparently this government does! I think I must be making some really poor decisions.....
> 
> It's hard to make ends meet on one salary but it is possible, even on a low salary. You just have to cut out everything but the essentials.Click to expand...
> 
> ^^This! To be honest I don't understand the argument about the "squeezed middle" not being able to afford it. Plenty of families survive on much less than £20,000 including benefits. The middle income families must be earning more than that or they'd be entitled to tax credits too, so I don't understand what the problem is? Obviously costs are higher in some areas though.Click to expand...

But unless you're in that position you wouldn't know or understand, the same as I can't speak for people who are in a different position to me. I'm not walking in their shoes so I don't know. But what I do know is that I am that 'squeezed middle' and I can't afford not to work. My husband earns far too little for me not to work. We couldn't pay the mortgage, run a car (our car insurance is £2800 per year where we live!!!!!) without my wage. I have unavoidable debts that I have to pay that are from before I had children and I have children now but still have to pay the debts off. I have a very old dog that costs me almost £100 a month in insurance, another dog with serious allergies and needs loads of medication and a special prescription diet that costs a fortune and I can't claim for it on my insurance. I cannot afford not to work full time, even though I'd love to work part time. I have no left over money at the end of the month. I havent been on holiday in YEARS, can't remember the last time I bought clothes for myself but I am part of that 'squeezed middle'.


----------



## LPF

The squeezed middle often have higher salaries but greater deductions. 

Repayment mortgages, student debts/loans from university which allowed them to get into a higher paid job but is still something to pay back for years and years. We both work but 20 miles apart from each other and live in a rural area with no public transport so we have to have 2 cars and pay around £400-500 on petrol and parking a month. I'd love to move but we can't afford the costs incurred. Childcare is £500 per month. I have to maintain a certain level of presentation in my working wardrobe so that has to have a certain amount of money as does my husband who has to have business suits. We have no family nearby and it costs £100 petrol to visit (so we don't!). Life/buildings/car/contents/critical illness insurances. Pensions. We've just had to spend £500 on fixing some drains - I wish I rented sometimes so we wouldn't have to incur the costs of owning a house!

Sadly these are all things, depending on your circumstances, you can't get rid of.


----------



## girlygirl:)

Jchihuahua said:


> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> What i'd like to know is how on earth people afford to be SAHM's. We simply can't afford for me to stay at home. We pay out nearly £300 a month on childcare, which is a 1/3 of what I earn per month. But I have to go to work we need the other 2/3's of my earnings to pay for necessities like food! Even then most months we are in our overdraft. We wouldnt be entitled to any benefits if i was a SAHM so we couldnt live. I dont think we earn a decent wage, but apparently this government does! I think I must be making some really poor decisions.....
> 
> It's hard to make ends meet on one salary but it is possible, even on a low salary. You just have to cut out everything but the essentials.Click to expand...
> 
> ^^This! To be honest I don't understand the argument about the "squeezed middle" not being able to afford it. Plenty of families survive on much less than £20,000 including benefits. The middle income families must be earning more than that or they'd be entitled to tax credits too, so I don't understand what the problem is? Obviously costs are higher in some areas though.Click to expand...
> 
> But unless you're in that position you wouldn't know or understand, the same as I can't speak for people who are in a different position to me. I'm not walking in their shoes so I don't know. But what I do know is that I am that 'squeezed middle' and I can't afford not to work. My husband earns far too little for me not to work. We couldn't pay the mortgage, run a car (our car insurance is £2800 per year where we live!!!!!) without my wage. I have unavoidable debts that I have to pay that are from before I had children and I have children now but still have to pay the debts off. I have a very old dog that costs me almost £100 a month in insurance, another dog with serious allergies and needs loads of medication and a special prescription diet that costs a fortune and I can't claim for it on my insurance. I cannot afford not to work full time, even though I'd love to work part time. I have no left over money at the end of the month. I havent been on holiday in YEARS, can't remember the last time I bought clothes for myself but I am part of that 'squeezed middle'.Click to expand...

you can't afford not to work because you have high outgoings that are not living necessities, if you really wanted to you could make sacrifices that would probably lessen the need for you to work, £2800 for car insurance? Is that the cheapest on comparison sites? Or you must have a car with a big engine? I'm 22 and my partner is 24, he's only just passed his test and our insurance is only £600 a year.


----------



## freckleonear

Jchihuahua said:


> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> What i'd like to know is how on earth people afford to be SAHM's. We simply can't afford for me to stay at home. We pay out nearly £300 a month on childcare, which is a 1/3 of what I earn per month. But I have to go to work we need the other 2/3's of my earnings to pay for necessities like food! Even then most months we are in our overdraft. We wouldnt be entitled to any benefits if i was a SAHM so we couldnt live. I dont think we earn a decent wage, but apparently this government does! I think I must be making some really poor decisions.....
> 
> It's hard to make ends meet on one salary but it is possible, even on a low salary. You just have to cut out everything but the essentials.Click to expand...
> 
> ^^This! To be honest I don't understand the argument about the "squeezed middle" not being able to afford it. Plenty of families survive on much less than £20,000 including benefits. The middle income families must be earning more than that or they'd be entitled to tax credits too, so I don't understand what the problem is? Obviously costs are higher in some areas though.Click to expand...
> 
> But unless you're in that position you wouldn't know or understand, the same as I can't speak for people who are in a different position to me. I'm not walking in their shoes so I don't know. But what I do know is that I am that 'squeezed middle' and I can't afford not to work. My husband earns far too little for me not to work. We couldn't pay the mortgage, run a car (our car insurance is £2800 per year where we live!!!!!) without my wage. I have unavoidable debts that I have to pay that are from before I had children and I have children now but still have to pay the debts off. I have a very old dog that costs me almost £100 a month in insurance, another dog with serious allergies and needs loads of medication and a special prescription diet that costs a fortune and I can't claim for it on my insurance. I cannot afford not to work full time, even though I'd love to work part time. I have no left over money at the end of the month. I havent been on holiday in YEARS, can't remember the last time I bought clothes for myself but I am part of that 'squeezed middle'.Click to expand...

I guess I see mortgages, cars and pets as lifestyle choices, because they are unaffordable luxuries for us. But then I say that from the position of a SAHM, so I suppose a working mum might view it as the exact opposite and see staying at home/working part-time as the unaffordable luxury. :)


----------



## Jchihuahua

girlygirl:) said:


> Jchihuahua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> What i'd like to know is how on earth people afford to be SAHM's. We simply can't afford for me to stay at home. We pay out nearly £300 a month on childcare, which is a 1/3 of what I earn per month. But I have to go to work we need the other 2/3's of my earnings to pay for necessities like food! Even then most months we are in our overdraft. We wouldnt be entitled to any benefits if i was a SAHM so we couldnt live. I dont think we earn a decent wage, but apparently this government does! I think I must be making some really poor decisions.....
> 
> It's hard to make ends meet on one salary but it is possible, even on a low salary. You just have to cut out everything but the essentials.Click to expand...
> 
> ^^This! To be honest I don't understand the argument about the "squeezed middle" not being able to afford it. Plenty of families survive on much less than £20,000 including benefits. The middle income families must be earning more than that or they'd be entitled to tax credits too, so I don't understand what the problem is? Obviously costs are higher in some areas though.Click to expand...
> 
> But unless you're in that position you wouldn't know or understand, the same as I can't speak for people who are in a different position to me. I'm not walking in their shoes so I don't know. But what I do know is that I am that 'squeezed middle' and I can't afford not to work. My husband earns far too little for me not to work. We couldn't pay the mortgage, run a car (our car insurance is £2800 per year where we live!!!!!) without my wage. I have unavoidable debts that I have to pay that are from before I had children and I have children now but still have to pay the debts off. I have a very old dog that costs me almost £100 a month in insurance, another dog with serious allergies and needs loads of medication and a special prescription diet that costs a fortune and I can't claim for it on my insurance. I cannot afford not to work full time, even though I'd love to work part time. I have no left over money at the end of the month. I havent been on holiday in YEARS, can't remember the last time I bought clothes for myself but I am part of that 'squeezed middle'.Click to expand...
> 
> you can't afford not to work because you have high outgoings that are not living necessities, if you really wanted to you could make sacrifices that would probably lessen the need for you to work, £2800 for car insurance? Is that the cheapest on comparison sites? Or you must have a car with a big engine? I'm 22 and my partner is 24, he's only just passed his test and our insurance is only £600 a year.Click to expand...

Ah but you see, that's why people shouldn't make assumptions about other people's lifestyle choices. My husband works for a car insurance company. We got the cheapest policy available and purposely bought a car that was the cheapest to insure. My hubby had been driving less than a year and I can't drive. He only learned when tommy was born as we were really struggling. We live in a postcode black spot, lots of uninsured drivers. Nothing to do with expensive cars or not doing our homework!


----------



## Jchihuahua

freckleonear said:


> Jchihuahua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> What i'd like to know is how on earth people afford to be SAHM's. We simply can't afford for me to stay at home. We pay out nearly £300 a month on childcare, which is a 1/3 of what I earn per month. But I have to go to work we need the other 2/3's of my earnings to pay for necessities like food! Even then most months we are in our overdraft. We wouldnt be entitled to any benefits if i was a SAHM so we couldnt live. I dont think we earn a decent wage, but apparently this government does! I think I must be making some really poor decisions.....
> 
> It's hard to make ends meet on one salary but it is possible, even on a low salary. You just have to cut out everything but the essentials.Click to expand...
> 
> ^^This! To be honest I don't understand the argument about the "squeezed middle" not being able to afford it. Plenty of families survive on much less than £20,000 including benefits. The middle income families must be earning more than that or they'd be entitled to tax credits too, so I don't understand what the problem is? Obviously costs are higher in some areas though.Click to expand...
> 
> But unless you're in that position you wouldn't know or understand, the same as I can't speak for people who are in a different position to me. I'm not walking in their shoes so I don't know. But what I do know is that I am that 'squeezed middle' and I can't afford not to work. My husband earns far too little for me not to work. We couldn't pay the mortgage, run a car (our car insurance is £2800 per year where we live!!!!!) without my wage. I have unavoidable debts that I have to pay that are from before I had children and I have children now but still have to pay the debts off. I have a very old dog that costs me almost £100 a month in insurance, another dog with serious allergies and needs loads of medication and a special prescription diet that costs a fortune and I can't claim for it on my insurance. I cannot afford not to work full time, even though I'd love to work part time. I have no left over money at the end of the month. I havent been on holiday in YEARS, can't remember the last time I bought clothes for myself but I am part of that 'squeezed middle'.Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I see mortgages, cars and pets as lifestyle choices, because they are unaffordable luxuries for us. But then I say that from the position of a SAHM, so I suppose a working mum might view it as the exact opposite and see staying at home/working part-time as the unaffordable luxury. :)Click to expand...


I have had my old dog 17 years so he isn't
a luxury, he's a much loved and valued member of my family and his needs are important to me too. 

Sorry about the long quotes, I am on my phone:) .


----------



## girlygirl:)

Jchihuahua said:


> girlygirl:) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jchihuahua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> What i'd like to know is how on earth people afford to be SAHM's. We simply can't afford for me to stay at home. We pay out nearly £300 a month on childcare, which is a 1/3 of what I earn per month. But I have to go to work we need the other 2/3's of my earnings to pay for necessities like food! Even then most months we are in our overdraft. We wouldnt be entitled to any benefits if i was a SAHM so we couldnt live. I dont think we earn a decent wage, but apparently this government does! I think I must be making some really poor decisions.....
> 
> It's hard to make ends meet on one salary but it is possible, even on a low salary. You just have to cut out everything but the essentials.Click to expand...
> 
> ^^This! To be honest I don't understand the argument about the "squeezed middle" not being able to afford it. Plenty of families survive on much less than £20,000 including benefits. The middle income families must be earning more than that or they'd be entitled to tax credits too, so I don't understand what the problem is? Obviously costs are higher in some areas though.Click to expand...
> 
> But unless you're in that position you wouldn't know or understand, the same as I can't speak for people who are in a different position to me. I'm not walking in their shoes so I don't know. But what I do know is that I am that 'squeezed middle' and I can't afford not to work. My husband earns far too little for me not to work. We couldn't pay the mortgage, run a car (our car insurance is £2800 per year where we live!!!!!) without my wage. I have unavoidable debts that I have to pay that are from before I had children and I have children now but still have to pay the debts off. I have a very old dog that costs me almost £100 a month in insurance, another dog with serious allergies and needs loads of medication and a special prescription diet that costs a fortune and I can't claim for it on my insurance. I cannot afford not to work full time, even though I'd love to work part time. I have no left over money at the end of the month. I havent been on holiday in YEARS, can't remember the last time I bought clothes for myself but I am part of that 'squeezed middle'.Click to expand...
> 
> you can't afford not to work because you have high outgoings that are not living necessities, if you really wanted to you could make sacrifices that would probably lessen the need for you to work, £2800 for car insurance? Is that the cheapest on comparison sites? Or you must have a car with a big engine? I'm 22 and my partner is 24, he's only just passed his test and our insurance is only £600 a year.Click to expand...
> 
> Ah but you see, that's why people shouldn't make assumptions about other people's lifestyle choices. My husband works for a car insurance company. We got the cheapest policy available and purposely bought a car that was the cheapest to insure. My hubby had been driving less than a year and I can't drive. He only learned when tommy was born as we were really struggling. We live in a postcode black spot, lots of uninsured drivers. Nothing to so with expensive cars or not doing our homework!Click to expand...

I asked why it was high I didn't assume anything.


----------



## freckleonear

Jchihuahua said:


> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jchihuahua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freckleonear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsHedgehog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrsT&Ben said:
> 
> 
> What i'd like to know is how on earth people afford to be SAHM's. We simply can't afford for me to stay at home. We pay out nearly £300 a month on childcare, which is a 1/3 of what I earn per month. But I have to go to work we need the other 2/3's of my earnings to pay for necessities like food! Even then most months we are in our overdraft. We wouldnt be entitled to any benefits if i was a SAHM so we couldnt live. I dont think we earn a decent wage, but apparently this government does! I think I must be making some really poor decisions.....
> 
> It's hard to make ends meet on one salary but it is possible, even on a low salary. You just have to cut out everything but the essentials.Click to expand...
> 
> ^^This! To be honest I don't understand the argument about the "squeezed middle" not being able to afford it. Plenty of families survive on much less than £20,000 including benefits. The middle income families must be earning more than that or they'd be entitled to tax credits too, so I don't understand what the problem is? Obviously costs are higher in some areas though.Click to expand...
> 
> But unless you're in that position you wouldn't know or understand, the same as I can't speak for people who are in a different position to me. I'm not walking in their shoes so I don't know. But what I do know is that I am that 'squeezed middle' and I can't afford not to work. My husband earns far too little for me not to work. We couldn't pay the mortgage, run a car (our car insurance is £2800 per year where we live!!!!!) without my wage. I have unavoidable debts that I have to pay that are from before I had children and I have children now but still have to pay the debts off. I have a very old dog that costs me almost £100 a month in insurance, another dog with serious allergies and needs loads of medication and a special prescription diet that costs a fortune and I can't claim for it on my insurance. I cannot afford not to work full time, even though I'd love to work part time. I have no left over money at the end of the month. I havent been on holiday in YEARS, can't remember the last time I bought clothes for myself but I am part of that 'squeezed middle'.Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I see mortgages, cars and pets as lifestyle choices, because they are unaffordable luxuries for us. But then I say that from the position of a SAHM, so I suppose a working mum might view it as the exact opposite and see staying at home/working part-time as the unaffordable luxury. :)Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have had my old dog 17 years so he isn't
> a luxury, he's a much loved and valued member of my family and his needs are important to me too.
> 
> Sorry about the long quotes, I am on my phone:) .Click to expand...

I'm sure he is, and obviously the thought of getting rid of a pet is unthinkable. My point was that nobody can have everything (unless you're very rich of course :lol:) and the decisions we make often rule out other choices, so in effect your "choice" is to have those things and work full time. We would love to have a dog as hubby and I both grew up around dogs, but we chose for me to stay at home and so it simply isn't an option for us at the moment. At the end of the day I believe almost everything is a choice (which is why I don't like the expression "I had no choice"), but some things are much harder than others to choose between.


----------



## Jchihuahua

To me I had no choice though. Lets agree to disagree :).


----------



## Ozzieshunni

I love the comment about children of parents who work being being better educated. Yeah okay.....


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

Yeah Ozzie that kind of annoyed me too but I think those comments are more geared towards the stereotype of benefit claiming parents, which I know I do not fit.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

I was pissed off to read that! I have a degree thank you very much! Damn stereotypes!


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

I myself am from a 'higher socio economic background', have a degree etc so not sure why my children are suddenly dragged down by me claiming a bit of help so I can stay at home with them for a short period.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

Exactly. Hell, I'm a trained preschool teacher. Should I pay for someone else to teach him or watch him while I teach and watch other kids? Eh, no thanks!


----------



## Septie

Ozzieshunni said:


> Exactly. Hell, I'm a trained preschool teacher. Should I pay for someone else to teach him or watch him while I teach and watch other kids? Eh, no thanks!

Well, you could go out and get licensed and take in some other kid or kids to watch, while you also spend time with your own kid (and/or future kids). That way, you'd reduce benefits/credits claimed by your household, thereby helping the system, and also help another mother who needs to go to work. Plus, those kids might benefit from your education!
I think nobody here thinks that the posters on benefit here are the "typical" benefit scroungers (if you didn't care about your kids you wouldn't be on bnb lol), and I am not accusing anybody of taking advantage of the system, as I don't know your circumstances - but we all know people who take advantage of the system. A person coming to mind is a friend of my parents, who has always had a 3 BR apartment paid for by the government, but once her last kid left home, she didn't want to move into a smaller place, so now she has nephews/nieces registered at her home, even though they don't live with her. So my parents' taxes are essentially paying for a huuuge place for a single lady. Or all those people who regularly go to health resorts paid for by the national health system (yep, I know, unbelievable!), mostly because they feel they are in need of a paid for vacation and happen to have some back pain. Or those that retire early on disability (in their 50s), and then work on the black market. My family personally knows several examples like that. The system can't but go bankrupt. And then? Well, imagine the US system, but much much worse.


----------



## LPF

Ozzieshunni said:


> I love the comment about children of parents who work being being better educated. Yeah okay.....

Not better educated - statistically likely to do better at school if your parents are in a higher socio economical group - its all in the research. People need to read comments properly before misquoting them and going off on one.

Nowhere did it say they if you claimed benefits now despite doing a degree, you were a benefit scrounged for life and therefore your children wouldn't do well. 

The point was staying in work throughout gives a statistically better chance of improved working prospects, which I'm turn gives better educational prospects - if that isn't your situation, or what is likely to happen, I don't know why you are getting so het up about it.

Also higher socio economic status doesn't necessarily = a mother working.


----------



## indy and lara

.


----------



## TennisGal

From reading what LPF posted, I don't for a second think she was insinuating that everyone claiming benefits was from a lower socio economic background?

Regarding the 'squeezed middle' - I similarly question how people just assume that this sector earn over a certain amount, and therefore they should be ok...why are they complaining...etc etc.

As JC has stated, it's not that simple. Taking, as an example, the friend I quoted earlier in this thread. They have a relatively high mortgage. Not because they have a particularly opulent house...but because they live in a 'desirable' part of the country. They drive to the station, both needing cars because someone needs to be back at different times to do the pick up for their LO, and because they are quite remote, friend needs a car for her day off. Their train fare to London. Commuter fares are eye watering. 

They get no help. She worries about money a lot.

As has been pointed out...not everyone claiming benefits is living the life of luxury, it should equally be pointed out that working mothers in said 'squeezed middle' are not either, despite many thinking they have relatively high salaries.


----------



## TennisGal

As regards how women can be a Sahm...I'm lucky, my husband supports us. However, as previously stated, this is a sacrifice, too, as it lessens his time with the girls.


----------



## jenny82

I'm just dipping into this thread as going back to work keeps coming back to me. I do feel like my education is completely wasted atm and all jobs seem so far out of my reach and capabilities. I have a look at my bookmarked job sites but any job I see, I just think there is no way they would hire me. Plus they're all full time. I feel guilty and useless not working but I also know that I would feel incredibly guilty for working, nevermind the fact that pretty much all my salary would be taken up by childcare. It's driving me a bit insane at the minute. 

I don't know what to do with myself. I take up pointless hobbies just to pass the time in the evenings but they bore me. I miss the hustle and bustle of working and regular conversations that don't revolve around nappies or how little money everyone has. Yet I know that working wont work for us. 

Kids have been sick since the weekend though so I think I'm going a bit stir crazy too. I've picked on OH for no reason since yesterday as I feel so frustrated. I think he hates me now :/

Oh and I am so embarrassed calling myself a SAHM. I hate the title. I know that this is alllll me though and I don't understand why I feel like this. I still put self employed on forms, even though I'm not :/. Please don't judge or be mean. I can't understand why I feel like this. I feel like a time bomb just waiting to go off..


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

Jenny, presumably when yours are older you'll be able to work? For myself I know that the September after Scarlett is 5 I will, all being well, be starting a nursing or midwifery degree and am currently doing voluntary work that will stand me in good stead for that.
I was made redundant from a role managing a printing company but that was seriously boring me anyway and i am so ready for a big change. 
I guess Scarlett is still so little and dependent on me, bfing etc that I am not feeling that either of is are ready for me to work and I am certainly not about to do so in order to be no better off financially and in a dead end job. However, having my future plans in place does make a great deal of difference to how I feel about myself overall...personally I wouldn't choose to be a sahm after both children are 5, I do need more.


----------



## jenny82

I don't think my younger baby is ready for me to work either. I'm not ready to work. I just feel guilty I guess...? I just don't know.

I do want to study more or get a masters but what's the point? I never feel like I'll be able to use it. Just feel so down on myself I think. I graduated while I was pregnant so I think I'm in this limbo of really wanting to put myself out there but knowing I can't.


----------



## RedRose

TennisGal said:


> As has been pointed out...not everyone claiming benefits is living the life of luxury, it should equally be pointed out that working mothers in said 'squeezed middle' are not either, despite many thinking they have relatively high salaries.

:thumbup:

Also, it has been touched upon briefly but I think it's worth considering again, just how much the cost of living varies in different parts of the country.

Lots of families are priced out of the areas the grew up in, and it's worth noting that many mums have to bring in a wage in order to stay in the areas they want. Obviously this is a choice too, but it's not a shallow choice based on wanting more 'stuff' and holidays- it's to avoid having to move their families into scagheadville.

It's a really interesting thread but I can't bear the thinly veiled judgements from some posters that somehow their family choices are more worthy than those of other families. There are just an infinite amount of variables to consider when directly comparing two families and what is 'better' for them. I think we can all assume that every mum in this thread has made a very calculated and considered decision to do what they do in the very best interests of their children. It's not easy, and any vitriol should be directed at the system and not the mums, I think.


----------



## Ozzieshunni

LPF, you're going to get women taking it to heart because you're basically making blanket statements, research or not.


----------



## chell5544

Ozzieshunni said:


> LPF, you're going to get women taking it to heart because you're basically making blanket statements, research or not.

But its ok for pp's to say that putting children into childcare could damage their development


----------



## Ozzieshunni

chell5544 said:


> Ozzieshunni said:
> 
> 
> LPF, you're going to get women taking it to heart because you're basically making blanket statements, research or not.
> 
> But its ok for pp's to say that putting children into childcare could damage their developmentClick to expand...

I never said that :wacko:


----------



## MrsHedgehog

LPF said:


> Ozzieshunni said:
> 
> 
> I love the comment about children of parents who work being being better educated. Yeah okay.....
> 
> Not better educated - statistically likely to do better at school if your parents are in a higher socio economical group - its all in the research. People need to read comments properly before misquoting them and going off on one.
> 
> Nowhere did it say they if you claimed benefits now despite doing a degree, you were a benefit scrounged for life and therefore your children wouldn't do well.
> 
> The point was staying in work throughout gives a statistically better chance of improved working prospects, which I'm turn gives better educational prospects - if that isn't your situation, or what is likely to happen, I don't know why you are getting so het up about it.
> 
> Also higher socio economic status doesn't necessarily = a mother working.Click to expand...

I think this isn't really relevant though. The statistics may show this but it over simplifies things. I certainly wouldn't be persuaded to go back to work because 'statistically' my kids would be more likely to do well at school.


----------



## TennisGal

There have been many comments floating round that have also struck nerves with working mothers, as I'm sure with those who stay at home and are supported...with benefits or without!

With a subject that draws strong opinions, there will always be a degree of sensitivity from all of us. About something. Heck, I was lucky to study at one of the top university's in the worl, had a great job...reading some comments has made me question why I don't want more than looking after my girls right now!! And can't imagine going back! Like, have I wasted my time with my career?! ;) 

We are all going to be sensitive about something - because as mothers, we are pulled in a hundred different directions.

This debate is good and sniping free - I hope it continues to be!


----------



## LPF

MrsHedgehog said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozzieshunni said:
> 
> 
> I love the comment about children of parents who work being being better educated. Yeah okay.....
> 
> Not better educated - statistically likely to do better at school if your parents are in a higher socio economical group - its all in the research. People need to read comments properly before misquoting them and going off on one.
> 
> Nowhere did it say they if you claimed benefits now despite doing a degree, you were a benefit scrounged for life and therefore your children wouldn't do well.
> 
> The point was staying in work throughout gives a statistically better chance of improved working prospects, which I'm turn gives better educational prospects - if that isn't your situation, or what is likely to happen, I don't know why you are getting so het up about it.
> 
> Also higher socio economic status doesn't necessarily = a mother working.Click to expand...
> 
> I think this isn't really relevant though. The statistics may show this but it over simplifies things. I certainly wouldn't be persuaded to go back to work because 'statistically' my kids would be more likely to do well at school.Click to expand...

I actually wasn't specifically saying that anyway - if you read back I was talking, in response to a question, as to why the government would pay just as much in tax credits etc to keep someone working as they would pay in more traditional benefits. There are lots of factors the government consider.


----------



## LPF

Ozzieshunni said:


> LPF, you're going to get women taking it to heart because you're basically making blanket statements, research or not.

Where did I say it was a blanket statement? 

I don't see you having a pop at other people making 'blanket statements'? Why have you singled me out?


----------



## Ozzieshunni

You're the one that came out with the stats on education and SAHMs? That's what I'm referring to.


----------



## LPF

Ozzieshunni said:


> You're the one that came out with the stats on education and SAHMs? That's what I'm referring to.

But I made no reference to education and sahm - socio economic status has nothing to do with sahm necessarily. 

You didn't actually answer my question on why you weren't singling our other people on this thread for their 'blanket statements'


----------



## Ozzieshunni

No, nor do I really intend to.


----------



## LPF

Ozzieshunni said:


> No, nor do I really intend to.

Why?


----------



## Ozzieshunni

LPF said:


> Ozzieshunni said:
> 
> 
> No, nor do I really intend to.
> 
> Why?Click to expand...

I'm going to leave this now. Clearly, we don't agree so it's best left before it turns nasty :thumbup:


----------



## LPF

Ozzieshunni said:


> LPF said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozzieshunni said:
> 
> 
> No, nor do I really intend to.
> 
> Why?Click to expand...
> 
> I'm going to leave this now. Clearly, we don't agree so it's best left before it turns nasty :thumbup:Click to expand...

I don't see why it would turn nasty. 

I was merely trying to establish if you disagrees with people making 'blanket statements' as you put it like many people in this thread or my side of the debate on the bigger picture of why the government off incentives to keep people in work?

But that's cool, I need to get off my mobile anyway!


----------



## nicolefx

Am I the only one who goes to work because I don't want to be a SAHM lol? I don't know how much better off/worse off we would be if I didn't work and claimed whatever benefits you are allowed to claim but honestly I don't care, I enjoy going to work and feeling independent and Zack absolutely adores nursery and has came on leaps and bounds since he started. Personally, I feel the time I spend with him now is much more treasured than before because I do get little pangs of longing when i'm at work and miss him. I love that feeling when I am going to pick him up from nursery - I get so excited :haha:. I like the fact I can pay for him to have nice things. We are by no means rich in any way shape or form lol - I work 30 hours a week for £11,000 pa and my OH works 40 hours a week for £15,000 pa. Childcare is £710 a month and we get £600 in combined tax credits. We get £80 a month or something in child benefit. We live with my OHs parents at the moment as we are saving for a deposit to buy our own place. Personally, I think there are too many people in this country who have kids and live off benefits - maybe if like the OP you only intend to do so for a couple of years till the children start school then fair enough but how many people just live their whole life on benefits and then their kids go on to do the same. For me, working isn't just about money it's about pride and teaching my son values - I was always brought up with the value that the world doesn't owe you anything and you don't get anything for free, clearly that doesn't seem to be the case!


----------



## chell5544

nicolefx said:


> Am I the only one who goes to work because I don't want to be a SAHM lol? I don't know how much better off/worse off we would be if I didn't work and claimed whatever benefits you are allowed to claim but honestly I don't care, I enjoy going to work and feeling independent and Zack absolutely adores nursery and has came on leaps and bounds since he started. Personally, I feel the time I spend with him now is much more treasured than before because I do get little pangs of longing when i'm at work and miss him. I love that feeling when I am going to pick him up from nursery - I get so excited :haha:. I like the fact I can pay for him to have nice things. We are by no means rich in any way shape or form lol - I work 30 hours a week for £11,000 pa and my OH works 40 hours a week for £15,000 pa. Childcare is £710 a month and we get £600 in combined tax credits. We get £80 a month or something in child benefit. We live with my OHs parents at the moment as we are saving for a deposit to buy our own place. Personally, I think there are too many people in this country who have kids and live off benefits - maybe if like the OP you only intend to do so for a couple of years till the children start school then fair enough but how many people just live their whole life on benefits and then their kids go on to do the same. For me, working isn't just about money it's about pride and teaching my son values - I was always brought up with the value that the world doesn't owe you anything and you don't get anything for free, clearly that doesn't seem to be the case!

Not at all I love my job it is the only time I get any adult time lol I love DD1 face when she sees me through the window when I pick her up she shouts "that's my mummy" I enjoy talking about all the fun things she has done that day 
I just sometimes (especially being back on maternity leave) wish I had the option to stay at home with my kids if I wanted to :thumbup:


----------



## hattiehippo

nicolefx said:


> Am I the only one who goes to work because I don't want to be a SAHM lol? I don't know how much better off/worse off we would be if I didn't work and claimed whatever benefits you are allowed to claim but honestly I don't care, I enjoy going to work and feeling independent and Zack absolutely adores nursery and has came on leaps and bounds since he started. Personally, I feel the time I spend with him now is much more treasured than before because I do get little pangs of longing when i'm at work and miss him. I love that feeling when I am going to pick him up from nursery - I get so excited :haha:. I like the fact I can pay for him to have nice things. We are by no means rich in any way shape or form lol - I work 30 hours a week for £11,000 pa and my OH works 40 hours a week for £15,000 pa. Childcare is £710 a month and we get £600 in combined tax credits. We get £80 a month or something in child benefit. We live with my OHs parents at the moment as we are saving for a deposit to buy our own place. Personally, I think there are too many people in this country who have kids and live off benefits - maybe if like the OP you only intend to do so for a couple of years till the children start school then fair enough but how many people just live their whole life on benefits and then their kids go on to do the same. For me, working isn't just about money it's about pride and teaching my son values - I was always brought up with the value that the world doesn't owe you anything and you don't get anything for free, clearly that doesn't seem to be the case!

Not at all here too. I spent a long time training and working up to my current job and I always intended to go back to work part time. I love my adult time and Tom has got so much from nursery. I'm glad he started nursery at 8 months old because it would be so much harder to start him now at nearly 3.

I was brought up with a very strong work ethic, not that being a SAHM isn't working, but it's not for me.


----------



## MrsT&Ben

.


----------



## welshsarah

Hi everyone. It is disgusting how tax credits make it hard for families and maybe they could give benefits out as vouchers for food and clothes and maybe going to work would mean you get money to spend on what ever you like. 
Just a thought then even if you are getting the same amount of money as being on benefits, you know you need to work for the luxuarys. 
Even through Iv given up work for the time being I am going to go back when little ones are in school (id be so bored otherwise), and keep looking for a job which fits in with me and the family. Hubby works shift work thats the only problem. 2 days on 2 nights on and then 4 days off. 
I think weather you are on benefits or not your doing what you think is best for your family. No one knows your family better than you do! Working parents are not better than SAHM's or vice versa. We just all doing what we can to get on and do what we think is best for our children whether they go to nursury or not. xxxxx


----------



## LJM

If you just work for the money and not because you want a career as well there is no point in you working. 

I work two evenings and the weekend- we manage OK on what DH gets and child benefit and a small amount of tax credits but I like to contribute and be around people my own age- I get it in college but I don't get to "socalise" with people as much there. 

I will be going to uni Sept 2013 or 2014 (depending on if we decide TTC) and when I have finished I have every intention of working full time because I want a career and being a full time mother isn't for me. 

We are all different though :)


----------



## londonangel

It's really hard isn't it. I work full-time and hate leaving Eleanor at nursery all day and being away from her for over ten hours a day. But.... I am in a position where financially we'd be massively worse off if I didn't work. I earn more than my hubby does at the moment so there's no way I can give up. I can't work a four day week even as then we'd be £300 a month worse off. We spend loads on the nursery too. I think if it was a question of only being £19 a week (or month) better off I would probably not be than keen on working! As I said I don't like working full-time anyway really. The one good thing is that my Eleanor loves nursery.... blooming expensive though.


----------



## londonangel

I should probably add that I wouldn't actually want to be a SAHM but ideally I would work three or four days a week rather than five!


----------



## Jchihuahua

londonangel said:


> I should probably add that I wouldn't actually want to be a SAHM but ideally I would work three or four days a week rather than five!

Same here. I love my job and I love working but I wish it was part time not full time.


----------

