Child Care is costing us the equivelent of a mortgage!

Pinky15

andrealm wrote: »

There are no benefits for sahps as such, if the total household income is very low the family would get more tax credits. I am a sahm and dh works full time, we have a fairly average household income and get about £10 a week tax credits but we would have got exactly the same if I'd gone back to work, as our income would've still been within the same threshold. I think it's a bit of a myth that everybody is getting lots of help from tax credits or having childcare paid. When we had our first child dh earned 20k and I earned 10k, we wouldn't have qualified for help towards childcare costs.

I agree with the above I am a SAHM and we get £20 per week T/credits my DH works full time. If I went back to work I would be claiming so much more towards childcare? So please don't think all SAHP benefit financially through not working as that is simply not the case. We mend and make do.
Also if low earners are entitled to higher benefits whilst one parents stays at home then that's fair as they are out working to support their family and paying tax also.
If their is such a big issue with the OP's childcare bills then perhaps they need to look at their financial commitments eg large mortgage. We moved into a small terrace to allow us the flexibility money wise, cut out foreign hols and no new car etc. Once you have children whether you work or not their are choices which must be made and inevitably with the costs of children in general unless you earn loads, sacrifices will need to be made.

JodyBPM

When I went back to work p-t after having my dd nearly 6 years ago, I do remember feeling quite agrieved that I felt that *I* had no choice about whether to work or not because *my husbands* salary alone put us over the thresholds for any help at all, yet we needed a bit extra to be able to manage. If I could have brought in full tax credits like the wife/partner of someone whose husband didn't work, then we would have been able to manage fine. I felt like I was being penalised by having *no choice* about going back to work, when those who had achieved less were handed the choice on a plate. And then one day, the penny dropped. I *did* have the choice - if I wanted to, we could have sold the house and moved into rental, spending the equity on rent. DH could have looked for and taken a lowly paid job, or indeed no job at all until our equity had run out, and then we'd be entitled to all the benefits out there. But that wasn't a choice I (understandably) wanted to make.

As it happens, I'm glad I continued working. I now have 2 primary school age children, and work 2 days a week, earning more than someone working full time in a minimum wage /low paid job would earn. And we will be mortgage free early next year, and generally life is both good and comfortable, and in fact I no longer *need* to work financially, I choose to. If I had have spend the last 5 years or so on benefits, we would be nowhere near where we are today.

I think it becomes very emotive, because its very hard to leave your baby at the end of mat leave, but in honesty we all have choices as to whether or not to stay at home. Its just that the government won't fund that choice whilst allowing you to live a comfortable existance with a reasonable family income, savings, pensions, mortgages, equity etc. Which is fair enough, really.

anguk

hastie wrote: »

luv this thread. It cuts to all that is uneven and unfair in this country!
My kids are both now going to school together, as of Sept, and my wife and I have worked so hard to look after them well, with us both working around each other without nursery assistance. Often at the expense of each other we have, we feel followed out moral compass as well as not giving up on our jobs.

The real issue is not the relative values of staying at home with kids against working full time, it is the fact that people who choose not to work, GAIN financially by shelling out children without the means to look after them. It is NOT a career path to have babies without working.

I bet there is not one person out there who feels, nothing about this thread, it defines this nation currently.

But not all parents who choose not to work get benefits, this is a complete myth (just as it's a myth that all stay at home parents sit on their @rse all day). Many live off one wage without receiving any benefits at all. When my kids were young I didn't work, we lived of my husband's wage and didn't receive any benefits. Not working doesn't automatically mean that you're receiving benefits.

I agree that having children is not a career path but it's not just some parents who don't work who might gain financially, there are many parents who do work who gain financially by having kids. I know many working couples who received no state help when they were childless but when they had kids they got tax credits even though both were still working.

Fly_Baby

anguk wrote: »

But not all parents who choose not to work get benefits, this is a complete myth (just as it's a myth that all stay at home parents sit on their @rse all day). Many live off one wage without receiving any benefits at all. When my kids were young I didn't work, we lived of my husband's wage and didn't receive any benefits. Not working doesn't automatically mean that you're receiving benefits.

I would say it is not a general rule - but it definitely not a myth.

Many live off one wage without benefits because this one wage in considered to be enough. If it is not considered enough it gets topped up with benefits - for those who choose not to work. So still their choice is funded by the system - because if they worked then the lack of means would be funded by their wages through their own effort, not by the taxpayer.

No contradiction here.

anguk

Fly_Baby wrote: »

I would say it is not a general rule - but it definitely not a myth.

Many live off one wage without benefits because this one wage in considered to be enough. If it is not considered enough it gets topped up with benefits - for those who choose not to work. So still their choice is funded by the system - because if they worked then the lack of means would be funded by their wages through their own effort, not by the taxpayer.

No contradiction here.

But even if both parents did work if their income didn't reach the threshold they too will have their wages topped up with benefits so the tax payer will be funding them too.

It's not just non-working people who are funded by the system, sometimes it actually costs the state more if they go back to work if you take into account the money that's paid by the state for childcare.

mishkanorman

Well I'm one of those job-less scroungers you all love to hate on this thread !


I gave up work to have my eldest 8 years ago, had another child 2 years later and due to the childcare costs involved I've not returned to work. When we looked at jobs in my area (I dont drive, cant afford to) it roughly worked out that all my wages would be spent on the 6 weeks holiday + the several other half terms/end of terms through out the year. We get tax credits so my OH's 17k wage gets topped up to around 21k, we survive on that but are no means 'well-off'. For childcare it would work out to be around £300 per month for during term time and as much as £300-£400 per week for holidays.

Looking at the choices we felt ours to be the better for our family

onlyroz

skintchick wrote: »

Additionally, can I ask you this. If the parents of small children who are on benefits could get a job, do you think they should? And put their children into paid childcare? Or are you happy that some of them will want to stay at home and parent full-time because, just like me, that is their choice?

My view is that if you want to stay at home while your children are young (i.e. of pre-school age) then fine. I am also happy for you to receive some sort of benefit or tax credit to make this financially viable.

However, I personally see *no* reason why anybody would want to continue to stay at home beyond this time *particularly* if you are claiming some sort of benefit/tax credit in order to be able to afford to do so.

I also think that if you are willing and able to go out to work when your children are of pre-school age, then it should be financially advantageous for you to do so. If "the system" is such that you would be better off to stay at home rather than go out to work (and pay taxes and therefore contribute in a positive way towards the economy) whilst paying for childcare, then "the system" is wrong.

Fly_Baby

onlyroz wrote: »

My view is that if you want to stay at home while your children are young (i.e. of pre-school age) then fine. I am also happy for you to receive some sort of benefit or tax credit to make this financially viable.

However, I personally see *no* reason why anybody would want to continue to stay at home beyond this time *particularly* if you are claiming some sort of benefit/tax credit in order to be able to afford to do so.

I also think that if you are willing and able to go out to work when your children are of pre-school age, then it should be financially advantageous for you to do so. If "the system" is such that you would be better off to stay at home rather than go out to work (and pay taxes and therefore contribute in a positive way towards the economy) whilst paying for childcare, then "the system" is wrong.[/QUOTE]

My sentiment exactly. Very well put.

balletshoes

hastie wrote: »

luv this thread. It cuts to all that is uneven and unfair in this country!
My kids are both now going to school together, as of Sept, and my wife and I have worked so hard to look after them well, with us both working around each other without nursery assistance. Often at the expense of each other we have, we feel followed out moral compass as well as not giving up on our jobs.

The real issue is not the relative values of staying at home with kids against working full time, it is the fact that people who choose not to work, GAIN financially by shelling out children without the means to look after them. It is NOT a career path to have babies without working.

I bet there is not one person out there who feels, nothing about this thread, it defines this nation currently.

but having kids costs money - people who you describe as gaining financially by shelling out children still have to feed and clothe them, pay the heating bills etc. I've worked in government benefits my whole adult working life, and theres no way I would prefer to be relying solely on benefits with loads of kids to feed, over working and having a family, with the choice to make about how I financially take care of my children.

anguk

balletshoes wrote: »

but having kids costs money - people who you describe as gaining financially by shelling out children still have to feed and clothe them, pay the heating bills etc. I've worked in government benefits my whole adult working life, and theres no way I would prefer to be relying solely on benefits with loads of kids to feed, over working and having a family, with the choice to make about how I financially take care of my children.

Yet according to some of the threads on here those who rely solely on benefits have a great life, loads of money for booze & fags, xboxes & playstations, foreign holidays, free cars and they sit on their @rses watching their huge TVs all day!