Better off giving up work?

Mrs_Arcanum

oldtractor wrote: »

Personally I do not agree with grandparents looking after grandchildren on a regular basis whilst their mother works. Its a mothers duty to bring up her children,and their fathers duty to provide for them. The grandparents,after all,have already brought up a family and deserve to be able to do other things one their children have grown. The modern idea of all mothers doing paid work is bonkers. Quit work,enjoy your family,give your parents a break and learn to live on less money.

Unfortunately costs these days dictate otherwise.

If you can afford not to work and are happy being home then it may well be worth living on one wage. Best thing I did. You can get back into work by being involved in your children's preschool & nursery (committee, governors or PTA). This is something you can do & fit in around your family and will keep you in the "work" loop without the pressure of paid employment.

Alternatively you may be able to negotiate reduced hours when you go back to work avoiding the high need for costly childcare.

diable

Stay at home and look after your children is the best option, only problem is getting back in to work once they are at school so sometimes you have to sacrifice yourself for a few years to keep up with the job market.

cord123

Thank you to the last posters for the constructive advise - that is what I was after......
We could manage but it would mean that we have nothing to save etc, which I know wouldnt be a bad thing when I get to spend time with my bubs :-)
I just wish the gvoernment would value their police officers a bit more and stop messing their pay and conditions around then I would be able to raise my children on just his wage alone!!!

Spendless

I think it's likely if you stopped work that you'd only get the family element of tax credits (roughly £10 a week), which is probably around what you've been getting anyway up till now?

CB would continue cos neither of you hits the 40% tax payer bracket.

When is baby due? Your eldest will qualify for the 15 hours nursery free from September next year, so would an option be to take a years maternity leave with a view to going back as the nursery funding kicks in?

If you don't qualify for childcare cost help via tax credits, have you looked into childcare vouchers.

Is 1 child going to MIL and 1 child going to nursery an option on some days. I do know someone who did this when she had a similar situation.

swingaloo

Of course you are asking others to contribute to your household income, where do you think the benefits money comes from.

Many people would be better off not working but what if everyone followed that line of thinking.

I go to work and am worse off than if I stayed at home and claimed benefits but I dont feel I have a right to claim something just because I may be better off anymore than I thought I had the right to have children I couldnt afford at someone elses expense.

Valli

nannytone wrote: »

people should start looking towards themselves again, as we did before the advent of tax credits.

the question you need to ask is 'can i afford the children i have?'

any addition entitlement should be a bonus and not a necessary.

and before the advent of tax credits there was a different taxation system - with married men receiving a higher tax allowance because they were married - whether or not they had children at home...

this new system of tax credits came in to 'balance' the system so that the 'additional tax allowace' was directed to families, giving families the option of having a stay-at-home parent while the children were young.

So many people seem to have 'forgotten' this.

When the previous system was in force a working married woman could claim HER OWN tax allowance AND her non-working husband's tax allowance, too (if her husband wasn't working).
It's not REALLY a 'benefit' at all - it's a tax allowance in a new guise!

*gets off soapbox*

Mrs_Arcanum

Just a small reminder to those who advocate staying at home if you want a family. The country desperately needs tax payers, the more the better. There should be no issue with either option and purely down to personal choice and circumstances.

kirstle99

cord123 wrote: »

I work 30 hours over 4 days..... so with childcare being at around £40 a day x2 for 3 days a week, i will probably end up with less...... I totally understand it is an expense tha comes with being a parent but I am trying to work out which way would make me better off.....
Also, school holidays would also mean that I need to find and pay for childcare.

Hi, would it maybe be an option to cut your hours slightly, and work 3 days a week for 8 hours? This brings you in at around 24 hours per week and you would only need 2 days paid childcare instead of 3.

School holidays, yeah that's an issue for a lot of families. Do you know anyone who also has children a similar age who you could pair up with and cover some holidays? Maybe someone else is in the same situation as you?

sunnyone

Valli wrote: »

and before the advent of tax credits there was a different taxation system - with married men receiving a higher tax allowance because they were married - whether or not they had children at home...

this new system of tax credits came in to 'balance' the system so that the 'additional tax allowace' was directed to families, giving families the option of having a stay-at-home parent while the children were young.

So many people seem to have 'forgotten' this.

When the previous system was in force a working married woman could claim HER OWN tax allowance AND her non-working husband's tax allowance, too (if her husband wasn't working).
It's not REALLY a 'benefit' at all - it's a tax allowance in a new guise!

*gets off soapbox*

Get your facts right, the married mans allowance was tiny and was also given to single parents so all families got it and it had nothing at all to do with stay at home parents because you just couldnt do it on the pitance this was instead of another wage.

This fiction of transferable tax allowance never happened either, not in this country, only the married mans "extra" was transfereable and not personal allowance.

There was an extra avaialble to a tiny part of the poorest families but it wasnt given to the huge ammount that taxs credits are and nor was it anywhere near as widely avaialble.

Todays tax credits are a means tested benefit that was brought in to "buy" votes for labour and they are unsustainable, if you want kids, then you should pay for your own kids and their childcare.

melly1980

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Childcare costs are part of being a parent, its an expense that comes with having children.

I'll correct you on that.

Its an expense of being a parent for SOME people. Others get it at a heavily subsidised rate thus pushing the cost up for those that dont.