not returning back to work after maternity leave

evenasus

portly1 wrote: »

Of course we claimed every possible benefit that was available to us, on top of my salary.

Hardly something to be proud of.

portly1

evenasus wrote: »

Hardly something to be proud of.

Why? If you are entitled to it you claim it - don't you?

There is a reason why benefits are there for families - for them to claim them - silly isn't it?

portly1

princessdon wrote: »

You can't argue facts, children from benefits are more likely to claim benefits and achieve less.

If your children ended up on benefits why is this?

Nope both my children (girls) are stay at home mum's too. Their husband's provide for their families which is the way it should be and always has been.

They don't claim anything that they are not entitled to.

whiteg2

There is a reason why benefits are there for families - for them to claim them - silly isn't it?[/QUOTE]

Benefits are there as a stop gap for someone in need - not for someone to claim just because they believe they are 'entitled' to them

seven-day-weekend

portly1 wrote: »

errr whatever happened to the idea that the child - mother bond for the first 4 years of it's life is the most valuable thing any mum can give their little one?

I'm a guy and I don't think it is right that any woman should ever be made to feel that she should have to go back to work until the child is 4.

It's about time we looked at what gives baby (and mum) the best start in life - being dumped in a nursery at 3 months old for 8 hours a day whilst mum goes to work to earn just enough to pay for the nursery fees or maybe a bond that is so special that no one should ever interfere with?

Whilst totally agreeing with this lifestyle choice, I do not think that the taxpayer should have to subsidise this choice.

I was a SAHM until my son started school. My husband worked and supported the family. The only Benefit we had was the (universal) Child Benefit.

FBaby

No one is being 'shafted'. We all have a responsibility towards mums with young children up to age 4. The main cause of the breakdown of today's society is because the traditional values are being eroded.

Of course some are being shafted, those whose partner earns enough that the family is not entitled to any support from tax payers, but not enough to support his family on his income alone. They are plenty like this. When it comes to having two + young children, you are better off on a low income when the mum can stay at home and the family income is topped up by tax credits, often doubling the income. The worse off are those where both partners are earning similar amount say £25K each. If mum gives up work, they can't claim much tax credits at all, but with their income cut in half, can't pay their bills. If she goes back to work, their combine salary means they are not even eligible for help with childcare (or very little), so most of her salary goes into childcare costs. These families are worse off than those on low income.

Jennifer_Jane

I believe that all able-bodied and able-minded people should be contributing to the economy (ie the tax system) unless they fall below the tax allowance levels. We all take out of the system, so, for me, it's insufficient to only take out what one is entitled to (anything else is fraud, surely?), we should be trying to pay something in too.

The reason why women (I'm talking about feminism in the 1960's) wanted employment choices (rather than depending on a husband's income) was that, very often, a man talked about "his" money, rather than the family money, and treated their wives abominably because of this. Women then had difficulty returning the workplace as they were often under-educated, had few skills and little work experience, and often stuck in terrifically unhappy, if not, dangerous environments because they had few choices.

In America, it was a little different in that women were often well-educated (with college degrees) but were simply bored being SAHM, but men wouldn't allow (sic) them to work.

The OP has a job, but is deciding not to return after her maternity leave because she won't be making anything after childcare costs. I believe that she should, however, continue in her job: people do get promotions, they get pension contributions and other aspects which may not be obvious, but which she will need later in life. But she should keep her working skills current, and perhaps try to get something more locally, or even start her own business.

Looking for a life on benefits is lazy and damages society. Nevertheless, I hope she does get what she is 'entitled' to.

I wish her well, and hope that the birth goes well, and that she has a very happy life - but I hope she can return to being a taxpayer as soon as possible!

jules1964

sorry but if you cant afford to support your child, one dont have one until you can and two dont expect tax payers to pay for you. You said your money would just about cover your childcare costs. Well thats ok isnt it, you can afford to pay them. I hate the fact that people would rather scrounge than work and support themselves. I was at home when my children were small, but my husband supported us NOT the tax payer. China have the right idea. Go back to work and think before you have child number three.

portly1

jules1964 wrote: »

sorry but if you cant afford to support your child, one dont have one until you can and two dont expect tax payers to pay for you. You said your money would just about cover your childcare costs. Well thats ok isnt it, you can afford to pay them. I hate the fact that people would rather scrounge than work and support themselves. I was at home when my children were small, but my husband supported us NOT the tax payer. China have the right idea. Go back to work and think before you have child number three.

Or maybe restrict breeding to the aristocracy and landed gentry? I am sure that they can afford children without looking to society to help out financially.

There we go I've solved the problem. You get a licence to get married, a licence to watch TV, a licence to use your car on the road, so why not have a licence to be allowed to breed?

Any infringement of that licence will mean automatic removal of the said unlicensed child whereupon it will be handed over to some other family that does have a licence but no children.
Only licenced children will receive an education, healthcare and the opportunity to work when they are older.

Come to think of it, go one step further - any breaches of fathering an unlicensed child will result in automatic castration of said wayward father.

jules1964

Benefits are there for people who cant get a job even though they have tried and people who are disabled and cant work. NOT for people who would rather stay at home and sponge when they have a perfectly good job already. My brother and his wife have just had there third child accidently. Its all hands on deck to support them re childcare so they can both go to work and provide. There struggling and would be better off on benefits, but they have something this country often lacks PRIDE!