Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

To ask if people judge single mums for not working?

(777 Posts)
PigsCanSoar Thu 14-Mar-13 22:56:03

I have a 11 m/o, and am a 22 year old single mum. I have handed in my notice to work now, as I don't feel he is ready to be left yet. He has always been very clingy, he will happily go off and play with anyone if I am there, but as soon as I leave the room he will just cry and cry.
He is also still breastfeeding every 2-3 hours, and ideally I would like to let him self wean up until 2.

I have no doubts about this being best for DS, and am planning to stay with him until 2 then look for a job again, but I just feel a bit anxious about actually telling people this, as since he was born it seems to have been constant "so when are you going back to work then" off everyone.

I am very lucky to be back living with my mum, so money isn't much of an issue as this will just postpone moving out for a bit.
So there's no necessity to leave him before he's ready, but I just feel like I'll look "lazy" for not going back yet.

Cherriesarelovely Thu 14-Mar-13 22:58:32

Crikey no! It sounds like you are busy being a great mum. Congratulations on your Ds. Ignore others. Plenty of my friends didn't go back to work for quite a while and I certainly wouldn't have done as quickly if I hadn't had to.

GregBishopsBottomBitch Thu 14-Mar-13 22:59:11

Its amazing that you'll get judged for not working, but you'll get judged for working.

If your not ready to leave him, then dont, if you rush yourself, it'll just make you unhappy, return when you feel is best.

Ikeameatballs Thu 14-Mar-13 23:01:02

You sound like a lovely mum.

I wouldn't judge you but I might worry for you in terms of making sure that you can gain work in the future, that you won't miss the adult social contact of work etc.

sneezingwakesthebaby Thu 14-Mar-13 23:02:06

We can't win either way OP. There's some that will judge us for working and there's some that judge us for not working. Its sounds like a good plan to me. If you have the opportunity to spend time with your child then make the most of it!

sneezingwakesthebaby Thu 14-Mar-13 23:02:49

Oops! Should also say there's some that won't judge at all either way.

WilsonFrickett Thu 14-Mar-13 23:02:55

As a 40 something married mum, can I just tell you <whispers> you'll get judged whatever you do. Seriously. So do whatever is best for you and your DS and two fingers to the rest of the world.

aldiwhore Thu 14-Mar-13 23:04:53

I only judge people who use their children as an excuse to be twats.

Whether you work or not isn't my issue.

There wil lcome a time though, no matter what his age is, where it may be hard on both of you to leave him... and it will pull at your heartstrings so much it will make Bambi feel 'meh'.

Personally I think under two, fair enough.

I HAVE to say, as a long term breastfeeder (17 months) that a bf every 2-3 hours at 11m old seems a lot... I did that with both babies (after the initail twice every 40 minutes with newborns) ... and I fed on demand, not judging, just an observation. ... seems like a lot of pressure on yourself.

CloudsAndTrees Thu 14-Mar-13 23:05:07

I think people can easily judge single mums for not working, because it seems that if you are getting little in the way of financial support from the Father, then you have an even bigger reason to need to maintain your job. But if people don't know your individual circumstances, so they aren't in a position to make an accurate judgement anyway.

I don't, I take my haT off to single mums x x

ThreeWheelsGood Thu 14-Mar-13 23:06:52

I wouldn't judge you. And I agree with other comments - it sounds like you're doing a great job, and mums get judged sometimes whatever they do! It seems like you've made a really considered decision, so be confident and comfortable that you're making the best choice by your child.

LineRunner Thu 14-Mar-13 23:08:00

You'll get judged for whatever you do.

LadyBeagleEyes Thu 14-Mar-13 23:08:01

God yes, you'll get judged.
You're the perfect example of a feckless single parent wink
Make the most of it Op, and enjoy.

expatinscotland Thu 14-Mar-13 23:08:06

I judge people who create a child with someone, and then swan off and don't pay for them at all.

Snoopingforsoup Thu 14-Mar-13 23:08:46

You sound far from lazy.
You are taking time out to look after your DS. No one should judge you for that.
Enjoy your time with him.

chunkymonkeybaby Thu 14-Mar-13 23:09:07

Pigs you sound a great mum and I don't think you sound lazy at all. It's sad how looking after our children is so undervalued in our society. You're doing what's best for your DS by being there for him and also breastfeeding.

Congrats and enjoy the time with your DS x

morethanpotatoprints Thu 14-Mar-13 23:11:36

I think every parent should do the best for their child irrespective of work commitments.
Married parents are given the choice whether to work or not and I see no difference for single parents. I certainly wouldn't judge a person on whether they worked or not.
Oh and you are certainly not lazy if you have a toddler to look after, its a contradiction of terms, so don't worry. Hold your head up high, you sound like a good, but busy mum. smile

Mannequinkate Thu 14-Mar-13 23:11:41

If your family are going to be supporting you financially then I wouldn't see a problem. However if you have given up employment to claim benefits then yes I would judge you.

Staying at home to raise your child is a luxury that has to be paid for. If you cannot afford to support yourself financially without working, then in my opinion it isn't a luxury you can have.

Giving up a job in this climate to get another again in 13 months after a 2 yr break is at best naive at worst completely stupid. You have a responsibility to provide for your child and you are putting yourself in a position where finding employment in the future is likely to be incredibly challenging.

HildaOgden Thu 14-Mar-13 23:13:36

I'm going to give an honest opinion.

I don't believe that people deeply judge women who stay at home to raise their children.

I do believe that people judge women/men who chose to rely on benefits to fund the 'luxury' of staying at home with young children,instead of financially supporting their own child themselves.

LadyPessaryPam Thu 14-Mar-13 23:13:59

You may not work right now but I think you will later on. There are people out there who would never work. They are not you. They are the arseholes I don't like.

I don't, I take my haT off to single mums x x

Yfronts Thu 14-Mar-13 23:17:38

you sound like a lovely mum with your babies best intentions at heart. just ignore any stick. anyone who knows you and loves you, has a true grip on your situation. thats all that matters.

seriouscakeeater Thu 14-Mar-13 23:18:57

There is nothing wrong with being a stay at home single mum!
I'm probably going to get flammed here...if money isn't an issue then enjoy your time with him. BUT I feel that if your giving up a job in todays in employment crisis to claim full benefits then YABU. The benefit system isn't a life choice like some people seem to think, its a buffer for when needed, not just because baby gets upset when you leave him x

seriouscakeeater Thu 14-Mar-13 23:20:26

Ooops x posted!

morethanpotatoprints Thu 14-Mar-13 23:24:09

Oh dear, I'm an asshole apparently. grin.

OP, if by some chance you do need to gain support for you and your ds, it is the fault of the absent parent if they are not paying. It certainly is not your fault. Don't let others bully you into feeling bad. Personally I do not see bringing your own dc up as a luxury, its nature.

FreyaSnow Thu 14-Mar-13 23:24:39

I think it sounds like a good plan. You're only 22. You've plenty of time to build up a career later. By the time you're back looking for work, lots of other women who have been to university, taken a gap year etc will be about the same age and entering the work place so you won't be an unusual age to be looking for work.

MsAkimbo Thu 14-Mar-13 23:32:22

It sounds like you're doing what works for your family. It's awesome! Anyone who says anything is likely jealous.

aldiwhore Thu 14-Mar-13 23:32:33

I actually don't see being a SAHM within the first 2 years (actually until pre-school age - usually 2.5 - 3 years) as a LUXURY, if it's unobtainable for many, then it's a problem with society and it's view rather than motherhood. But that's my opinion.

I would however, use these 2 years (or 13 months remaining) as training for the 'mild separation of life' - by which I mean, use this time to WEAN... not off the breast so much as off 24/7 one on one... and for some it does take time. Because when your child is 2 (and I was lucky not to have to rely on benefits for the first 3 years) and ready to engage with other children/people if you don't start that weaning now, the separation pain will be just as strong then as it is now.

Being a parent IS one long wean... from baby to toddler, to child, to teen to adult. It's a process, ever moving, never stationary.

You're doing nowt wrong pigs but always remember a child is always moving forward, ever changing and needs different things every year. Use the time wisely, you'll be fine, regardless of judgement, and don't think it will ever be 'easy' when you step into the next phase, because it rarely is, however you have to do it, so prep! Good luck x

Mannequinkate Thu 14-Mar-13 23:33:11

Yes freya and when those other 23 yr olds are interviewed and explain that they have been studying for the last 3/4yrs and OP explains she has a high needs toddler how interested in her do you think they will be?

HildaOgden Thu 14-Mar-13 23:41:27

I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of parents (mother/father) to provide for child.If one doesn't,then unfortunately the other should.

Choosing to have other people (ie unrelated taxpayers) provide for the child is indeed a luxury.Giving up a means of supporting the child in order to claim benefits instead....yes,sorry,I would make a judgement about a healthy young woman who makes that deliberate choice.

TheCraicDealer Thu 14-Mar-13 23:46:25

I'm slightly older than you (24) and got made redundant last year. Now I don't have dependants or anything, but that time spent looking for a job and seemingly getting nowhere was soul destroying. Even when I was successful, I had to work the first six months unpaid.

My experiences taint my take on this, but in your position I think I'd be leaning towards reducing my hours or finding a similar part time position. That would allow you to keep a foot in the door whilst looking after your son.

Economically, things aren't looking too hot for us as a nation. There will come a time when you're being interviewed for a position and are against people straight out of uni, who are flexible or with more recent experience. But you seem to have made up your mind. In essence, I would judge you, but not for the reasons you think it would be.

PigsCanSoar Thu 14-Mar-13 23:51:14

The getting a new job part isn't really a concern as I work in childcare so there is a high turnover of jobs. (This is part of the reason I have decided to wait, as I have seen how long the distress lasts with some children so just walking away and thinking he'll be fine wouldn't really work). Aldi that is good advice, thank you.

The part I find interesting is that it is the benefits that people judge. As I would be getting the same (fairly small) amount in benefits working as I would be not working under UC proposed amounts (and costing more working if we are counting childcare payments support) so does that mean you would still be judging mums working who are claiming them?
I see the posters points about can't win! smile

I'm glad that no-one has said they judge for not working purely on a "not doing enough" level though, as the rest is quite easily explained.

seriouscakeeater Thu 14-Mar-13 23:51:18

hilda completely agree. I find it quite scary when people feel entitlement to have children and expect the tax payer to fund them for no other reason than 'its nature' .

BertieBotts Thu 14-Mar-13 23:52:52

Having been a working single parent and an unemployed single parent I would not judge you one bit. I have quite often found myself in the bizarre position of being better off not working, although I now would not give up my job because I enjoy it too much, it's countered with the guilt of DS being in childcare for 11 hours a day and on work days, not being at home for longer than about 30 awake minutes at a time. It is really really hard on him, and I don't feel like I am adequately supporting him - support isn't just about money.

I feel like I'm working to claim top-up benefits which pay for him to be raised by somebody else leaving me just enough left over to pay the rent, be behind on the bills and barely buy enough food. He's struggling, too. Luckily for us this is temporary and will only be the case until I finish the course I'm on, which will enable us to have a better future.

You must do what you feel is best for your child. That is supporting them. Nothing to do with money.

BertieBotts Thu 14-Mar-13 23:57:20

Yep, you probably would be judged if you tell people that you're better off on benefits than working. Even when working means that you can't meet your (very basic!) outgoings and so you literally cannot afford to work. Somehow people who've never been in the situation of being that skint find it easy to judge. When you're living it, you just do what you can to survive, and it's bloody hard, but you come through it in the end. Honestly just do what is right for you, you won't have the energy to care if people judge you for it or not.

Sunnysummer Fri 15-Mar-13 00:00:23

Agree with previous posters that staying at home is absolutely not something I would judge... But yes, if benefits are involved, it's harder not to judge - when so many of us are having to go back to work with kids the same age for financial reasons, it just doesn't feel particularly fair.

jellybeans Fri 15-Mar-13 00:03:01

No I wouldn't judge. I am a SAHM and so see it as valuable to have a parent at home for pre school age. Even if that needs benefits. Enjoy time with your little one.

PigsCanSoar Fri 15-Mar-13 00:04:24

So it is more about it being fair and "well if I have to work so should they" than actually concern about the cost?
As going back to work I would receive more benefits, so on that principal I shouldn't go back to work. (not saying I won't go back, just theoretically)

midastouch Fri 15-Mar-13 00:04:53

I dont judge single mums, youve got enough to cope with with a baby on your own so you are definetly not lazy.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 00:05:48

If you can afford to stay at home and that is what you want to do then that's absolutely fine.

ThingummyBob Fri 15-Mar-13 00:08:52

I've felt judged enough for being a single parent. I don't think I could handle the extra judgements that would surely come with being a non working single parent but thats just me.
Every decision you make will be met with judgement from somewhere or other so do what you think is best for you and ds smile

jellybeans Fri 15-Mar-13 00:11:21

'So it is more about it being fair and "well if I have to work so should they" than actually concern about the cost? '

Yes it always does seem to be about that that people object to.

Ignore it, if you feel you are doing the right thing for your child then you are!

As has been said you would receive benefit even if in work, often this is more due to childcare etc. Life's short so do what makes you and your DC happy.

sneezingwakesthebaby Fri 15-Mar-13 00:15:02

pigs, I think you definitely need to prepare your thick skin for if you choose to do this. People don't hold back commenting about benefits and stuff. It seems to be the one area of life where people are allowed to abuse you about it. I've been called lazy scum, a leech etc etc and its always awkward when you meet new people who have a rant about benefit scum without realising they are speaking with one. Its daft though because as soon as I tell anyone why I'm on benefits (MH stuff), its all sweetness and light and "oh we didn't mean you!" like that makes it okay that they were slagging me off just a minute ago. If I was in your position, I would still do it though. Especially if you think jobs will be available in your line of work. Just be prepared for it all.

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 00:17:11

[Shock] who on earth would pay for all these children if every one had the same mentality.
Also beware claiming isn't as easy as it used to be now....

BertieBotts Fri 15-Mar-13 00:19:21

Haha sneezing! I had exactly the same experience, especially when I was at uni. It's always "Oh but I didn't mean you!" - yes you did, you twonk. Either that or you haven't thought it through properly and just have a vague idea that all single mums are Jeremy Kyle types who don't put any effort into raising their children anyway. (Although to be fair, I suspect that second theory might well be true smile)

TheCraicDealer Fri 15-Mar-13 00:25:57

You see more "conservative" mn'ers being lambasted on political threads about cuts etc for having the attitude of "I'm alright, jack". This seems to be an interesting parallel. If every single parent or family on a low income decided that as they would rather stay at home than work because they were nearly as "well off" financially then we'd be screwed.

People as a whole don't mind top up benefits because they view the people receiving them as contributors who are increasing their ultimate earning potential by working. They'll eventually put it all back in the pot, once their need for childcare, tax credits and so on has decreased. Giving up altogether (to some) is like an admission of defeat, as if they're expecting the state to provide for them totally instead of continuing to attempt to support themselves.

Obviously OP says she intends to go back to work, but I'm afraid I just can't get my head around leaving a job to go on benefits. But I'm Mrs Cautious!

sneezingwakesthebaby Fri 15-Mar-13 00:28:13

grin at you twonk, bertie I must admit sometimes I do enjoy the moment where they hurriedly try to backtrack over the worst things they have said.

jaywall Fri 15-Mar-13 02:23:17

I think it's great you have saved enough money or are living off family money to do this for your child if that's what you want to do.

It's not as though you're being a selfish expectorant and just living, like a leach, off of everyone else who has to work to pay the taxes to enable such expectorants, thus diminishing their own and their children's quality of life. Because that would be such a selfish abuse of what was supposed to be a safety net and that's not what you are doing...right ?

Bogeyface Fri 15-Mar-13 02:49:28

As a mum you will be judged. Single, married, not married but in a ltr, working, not working, working from home, free childcare, paid for childcare, bottle feeding, breast feeding, wet nursing (!).........

You get the idea!

Who gives a toss?! do what is best for your child and you, and to hell with the rest of the world smile

whattodonow1 Fri 15-Mar-13 02:49:56

Before handing your notice in speak to HR to see if you can get parental leave or a career break. It may be possible to take extra time off without quitting, especially now you have a little one x

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 06:07:40

I certainly would not judge you if you are fortunate enough to be financially secure and be able to financially (be it via your parents or savings ect) support yourself and the baby.  In fact "hat off" to you, enjoy your time with your little one and all the best for the future. I won't judge anyone for been a stay at home mum or dad if they are in this position.

BUT, if your intention is to resign from your job and then go straight into the welfare system and claim full time, well that's different. In that case yes I would judge you because you are making a life choice and choosing to go on benefits.  Benefits should be there as a safety net for those that find themselves in a difficult position (redundancy / disability etc), not a life choice. There are other parents that have to make very similar and difficult decisions to leave their children and work so they can financially support them.  Can you imagine what would happen if every parent simply decided to resign and go on full time welfare. With this in mind, I wouldn't judge you if you carried on working (part time /flexible hours etc) and then needed financial assistance in terms of top ups.  Under these circumstances you are still contributing to the economy and bringing up your child as a single parent.  

znaika Fri 15-Mar-13 07:11:44

Blimey, I was going to say I would judge depending on the age perhaps- thinking DCs in secondary school or something. But an 11mo? All the people implying you're a scrounger becasue benefits are a safety net. 22 years old with an under one and working full time, this is about as hard as it gets. Quit if you need to , take stock, enjoy your son, and make sure that you are doing all you can to stay in touch with the job market. Do not feel guilty about this.

SminkoPinko Fri 15-Mar-13 07:28:16

if you are in childcare why don't you become a childminder or look for a nannying position where you can take him along? staying at home with a young child is fine in my book (bit jealous!) but I think the people who are mentioning the potential problems getting back into work when you're ready have a point.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 07:40:58

I don't judge someone who is unable to work due to looking after a child or if they simply can't afford to work and pay childcare.

I think I do judge where someone has a child without any planned means if financially supporting it other than from the state. And I apply this equally to men and women.

I do judge also where someone doesn't want to work but to be supported by the state solely because they want to spend more time with their child in the daytime. This is the reality for working parents and I don't agree when some people think its their right to have this luxury that working people don't, and be paid for the pleasure.

AnnabelKarma Fri 15-Mar-13 07:51:42

Yes, I judge those who choose to live off benefits.
Whilst you enjoy the luxury of SAH other women can't because they are working to fund your lifestyle choice.

JollyYellowGiant Fri 15-Mar-13 07:58:59

There is a single mum on my facebook friends whose DC is 3. She doesn't work, and constantly whines about how shit the council are, particularly because they won't give her a different council house (hers is suitable, she just doesn't like her neighbours). She annoys me.

There are other ones on my facebook and that I know in real life and none of their choices bother me smile

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 08:00:02

Personally, no I wouldn't judge. Who am I to know your situation. However the truth is MN is pretty tolerant compared to the real world. We are a bubble. In the real world you will be judged and judged harshly. You will also be putting yourself at the mercy of this bloody goverment! Who knows what they may do next? Why would anyone do that intentionally?

LynetteScavo Fri 15-Mar-13 08:02:14

Wow, no judging or disapproving here!

You sound like an absolutely fabulous mum, and your DS is very lucky. smile I think the job questions are sometimes about making conversation.

bigkidsdidit Fri 15-Mar-13 08:04:49

well, whether we judge or not doesn't matter, frankly. But I'd be terrified to voluntarily give up a job and rely on this government. WHo knows what they'll cut next.

Areyoumadorisitme Fri 15-Mar-13 08:07:56

I agree with many to be honest, I would judge if there are benefits involved.

Staying at home with dc is a luxury, whether you are married or not. If you can afford to support yourself to do that, then all well and good. If however you're relying on the taxpayer to support you then frankly you need to work and support yourself. It's not the taxpayers job to fund your 'choice'.

I find it hard to believe that you would get the exact same amount of benefit working or not working. Isn't there a 'better off in work' pledge?

Shagmundfreud Fri 15-Mar-13 08:08:16

I judge the man whose child you're raising who isn't paying for your upkeep while you (beautifully by the sound of it) raise his child.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 08:18:19

It's not a single mum issue.IMO if you can work you should work,provide for your kids
With 2kids you need a plan and employment to be solvent,or study for career
you have responsibilities.The father has responsibilities too.reliance on benefits isn't a great strategy

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 08:18:31

Society has changed and marriage status doesn't seem to matter most the time (I am not and never will be married), maybe you get occasional judgment but its certainly not continuous.

don't work by all means, but don't expect it to be funded by people who are working, other than the father obviously. the uk is very expensive. you have to earn over 26kpa to pay enough tax for the services you, as an individual, use in any given year.

also if you choose to depend on others, you are more vulnerable than if you are independent.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 08:23:50

Are you extending bf to delay returning to work?
Of course people ask when you'll return to work,you are parent you have responsibilities
Think you'll Look lazy for not going back,thinking benefits are decent amount? Yes

BertieBotts Fri 15-Mar-13 08:25:04

There is Areyou, but it doesn't take into account (enough) childcare - childcare is covered but only up to a certain amount. And travel costs, higher food costs because you no longer have time to walk to 5 different shops in a week, the cost of occasional convenience food because you're more tired. Most people don't end up better off in work, not full time anyway. Although of course if you're working towards a career then it's still beneficial. But if you work your arse off in a dead end job it can feel quite pointless when you're doing it for less money.

BertieBotts Fri 15-Mar-13 08:25:51

Er, scottishmummy, BF has nothing to do with working. A 9 month old + can be happy with BF at night while mum works in the day!

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 08:28:38

Bertie that's rudimentary budgeting,if on limited budget be careful.convenience food pricy
Cook own food,take sandwiches to work,shop online for groceries
Being tired isn't a reason to be bad at budgeting,we all get tired,so get organised

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 08:30:05

She bf every 2-3hr,errr thats going to impact given can't bf at work?

Morloth Fri 15-Mar-13 08:33:44

I don't really judge anyone, mostly because I am pretty indifferent as to what most people do.

However, I think this is a bad idea. Your safety net is not very safe. In your situation I would be hedging my bets and staying in work if it is at all possible.

BelleDameSansMerci Fri 15-Mar-13 08:34:53

I find the assumed "judging" of single parents the oddest thing here. I'm a lone parent and have never felt judged by anyone. Maybe I just have a hide like a rhino? certainly a similar size I do work full time though so perhaps that's why I don't feel the judgement?

I think if you're secure in your choices and believe you're doing the right thing, surely what anyone else thinks is completely irrelevant?

So, no, I wouldn't judge you. I'd think you're mad because looking after a child is much harder than working but I wouldn't judge you. wink

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 08:38:07

you're voluntarily giving up work that may affect eligibility.giving up job in recession is risky

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 08:43:00

BelleDame I certainly wouldn't judge you and I would be surprised if anyone did. You are a single parent and working full time, that's a balancing act. If anything I admire, respect and applaud any parent (man or woman) in your position.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 15-Mar-13 08:43:13

yes you will

i was often asked or told well you support yourself through benefits

not true i was made redundant while on maternity leave a very good package (it was a pay off) that i could live on for 2 years then i worked part time and with the ex money combined we were ok then i went back to studying so have a loan. i did sign on for about 3 months when my money had totally run out and i was ill at the time it was awful i was made to feel like scum (have worked since i was 17 to 35 paid lots of tax)

i do get around £1.19 more child benefit a week a £50 more a month tax credits than my friends who are in relationships

but society judges women very harshly

sydlexic Fri 15-Mar-13 08:43:58

I think parents, single or otherwise should do their best to be financially independent. The state should pick up the tab if through no fault of their own they are unable to do so, for the minimum time possible.

If your family are supporting you and you are not relying on the state then it is up to you and yours.

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 08:45:57

No, I wouldn't judge you at all.

Some of the views on this thread are frankly ridiculous. Looking after an 11 month old baby isn't a LUXURY. confused It's a job, and I believe that every family should be entitled to have one parent stay at home should they so wish. As you are a single parent, then that falls to you - you don't have the financial support of a partner so yes, you bloody well should receive benefits if needed! Until (shock horror) they're school age if that's what you want.

I for one am happy for taxes to go towards supporting single mothers to be SAHMs when they have no other means of doing so.

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 08:49:14

eaves ^ I believe that every family should be entitled to have one parent stay at home should they so wish^

wishes are cheap though arent they? how would you fund this? and it we cannot fund it for everyone, should we fund it for a few?

mrsjay Fri 15-Mar-13 08:49:43

never, you are doing what you feel is best for your son nobody has any right to judge you ,

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 08:50:08

Looking after a baby is set of demanding tasks,it isn't a job.it is economic inactivity
A job is financial remuneration in return for labour.watching your own kid isn't job

hamdangle Fri 15-Mar-13 08:55:56

I went to work very soon after my baby was born when I was 17 and I was breastfeeding too. I was on an office training scheme so got £50 a week which was topped up by income support. I didn't feel guilty about claiming benefits because I knew I was working my way out of the system. There were lots of times that I was financially better off not working but I would never have stopped.

When I wanted a better job I went back into education but I still worked as well. As a single mother in uni there was £3000 a year, that I wouldn't have to pay back, that I didn't claim because I would rather work and pay my own way.

I would have liked to have spent more time with DS1 when he was a baby but that is only because I would have liked it. He is 16 now and certainly hasn't been affected by me working. Your child is always going to want you there rather than a childminder so how do you know that you'll want to go back when he's two? If anything I found it harder the older he got because of all the fun stuff you miss out on doing together.

I dont think it costs the government more for you to work either. If you are working dont you get tax credits which is like getting your tax back? If you are just on benefits you are just getting money without contributing anything so obviously costs the government more.

EasilyBored Fri 15-Mar-13 08:56:22

I wouldn't judge you but I would be concerned that you hadn't thought about the big picture. It might be costly to work when your cold is a baby but it protects your income and your earning potential.

I don't think it's about the cost of benefits, or even the idea that done I have yo work it's not fair if someone else doesn't. It's more that by deliberately not working you are increasing your chances of ending up in a situation where you might not be able to find work in the future. You might end up claiming far more avoidable benefits in the long term. However, working in childcare I think you might not have that concern.

I'm going to be honest and say that if you had phrased it to me that you gave up work (and had to rely on state help because of that) because your child is clingy and you feel bad at leaving him, I would feel a bit huffy and cross. I actually think a separation anxiety gets worse as they get older, and that if it's always been part of their routine they adapt better. But I could be wrong, just seems like all my friend who have started using childcare before a year have had a much easier time than those who have waited and are putting a toddler in childcare.

DuPainDuVinDuFromage Fri 15-Mar-13 08:59:02

Astonished at some of these posts! I definitely wouldn't judge you, but think you should bear in mind the comments about it being difficult to get back into work and there not being much of a safety net. As you work in childcare, would it be an option to become a registered childminder and look after other kids as well as your ds? That way you get the best of both worlds!

HerrenaHarridan Fri 15-Mar-13 09:04:45

Yep,

but they judge you for every damn thing you do so I wouldn't let it rule your life!

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 09:05:26

FasterStronger - a lot of families can fund it themselves through one parent working. For those on low incomes / single parents I do believe it should be subsidised by the government. As for how - well, that's a whole different thread. (Personally I would start with raising taxes for the richest and clamping down on corporate tax avoidance.)

scottishmummy - semantics. A job doesn't have to be paid. Think "voluntary job" or "odd jobs around the house". Looking after a child at home IS a job.

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 09:10:03

Eaves Some of the views on this thread are frankly ridiculous. Looking after an 11 month old baby isn't a LUXURY. It's a job,

Why are some of the views ridiculous? If its a job, who are they working for?  Are you saying they are working for the tax payer? Having a child is a parents choice and therefore the parents responsibility for all the child's needs including financial security. If the parent then chooses to leave perfectly secure employment and go onto benefits then they should not be surprised when they are judged by those paying for them.  

Benefits do not equal entitlement because you choose to take a bit of time out to do something else (be it child rearing, traveling, watching Jeremy Kyle etc.)  Benefits are a safety net for those that find themselves in the most need out of no choice of their own. By the way in no way am I saying brining up a child is easy but if people choose to do it then they should be in a position to pay for their own children.  

JakeBullet Fri 15-Mar-13 09:10:05

I am a single parent and I choose to live off benefits.

Why?

My son is autistic and needs lots of my time ....in work I was exhausted all the time and making mistakes.

I do feel judged .....and I feel guilty every time for example I claim free prescriptions or dental care. This is because as a society we now judge people without knowing anything about their lives or circumstances.

Before I gave up work ...which was decision that took me 18 months to make....I researched the likely income (less than I earned in work rightly so) and whether I would face sanctions. I also posted on here for advice and the responses were interesting.....one mentioned "the taxpayer who will pick up your tab", others that "you will get nothing if you just give up work" (not true as even the DWP could see I was in an impossible situation). Many others though were supportive....
I have worked for the past 30 years so have more than contributed and will do so again once I am able. In the meantime I find other ways of giving something back. I volunteer as a Parent Supporter to help families who are struggling. I help people access literacy and Maths courses....it's only 4-5 sessions a month but keeps me feeling I am doing something. Perhaps some voluntary work might help you to keep your hand in the job market and have something to add to a CV. All important stuff for when you do return to work.

It's got to be up to you though, only you know your circumstances...not anyone else and certainly not on an Internet forum wink.

Hope that helps

jellybeans Fri 15-Mar-13 09:11:46

You won't need to work also until DC is 5 when you change to JSA. Ignore those who resent that they don't have the choice so don't want you to have it-selfish they should be looking at ways so all can have the choice (after all studies show most mums of small DC want to SAH/work p/t) . If you feel being home is best for DC then do it! You could always retrain or home study/OU until he is 5 when you will be pushed towards work. In my eyes just because our system is set up this way it doesn't mean it is right. It is perfectly normal for a mother to want to be with her small child! It just seems taboo to say it these days due to obsessions with a narrow view of 'gender equality' . Many believe motherhood is a vocation (and SAHD also fit into this). Leaving a child in nursery is tough, I did it with DC1 as was sucked into the current popular thinking. Have SAH with other 4 and would have done so even if ended up single (till school age). It means everything to me.

adeucalione Fri 15-Mar-13 09:13:28

I'm really surprised at the number of comments saying that anyone who wants to be a SAHP should have that choice, funded by the taxpayer if they have no other means of supporting themselves. That is ludicrously entitled, economically unrealistic and, frankly, makes me think that the Tories might have a point (and it irks me to admit that).

willyoulistentome Fri 15-Mar-13 09:16:12

You sound great - stick to your guns. I would never judge someone for doing what they think is right for their child. Your Mum sounds lovely too - helping your out!

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 09:17:47

LittleChickpea Please don't equate choosing to be a SAHP with wanting to travel or watch Jeremy Kyle. It's not taking a "bit of time out to do something else" as you put it, it's looking after your child FFS! Just because you put little value on that and see it on the same level as watching daytime TV, doesn't mean that it isn't a valid choice and shouldn't be supported (yes, financially, by society if there isn't a working partner to do it)

I very much doubt that the OP chose to be a single parent by the age of 22, so this situation wouldn't have been her intention when she had her child. The only person I would judge is the absent father, obviously not contributing.

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 09:18:09

eves raising taxes for the richest who do you think pays for the welfare state? its the highest earners!

clamping down on corporate tax avoidance. if this was easy don't you think a govt would have done this before? we allow foreign registered companies to trade with the UK. so they make sure their profits are created in low tax countries.

iwantanafternoonnap Fri 15-Mar-13 09:20:57

You get judged no matter what. I work full-time doing three 12.5 hour shifts a week 1 day and 2 nights. My mum has my DS on tuesday and from wednesday night until Friday morning...I get judged 'oh that's a long time to leave him' erm no he is sleeping for most of it and gets some quality fun time with nanny who isn't knackered like me. Plus I have 5 days where I am with him so much more than if I was 9-5. Me working keeps us in our lovely home.

I get judged for working you'll get judge for not working. Screw everyone else and do what is right for your little family.

SpringlingSpaniel Fri 15-Mar-13 09:22:15

I wouldn't consider your single parent status to be relevant.

If you are in the luxurious position to be able to afford to give up work and stay at home with your child, then I wouldn't judge that. Most people aren't in that situation, most people need to work to support their family, but if you don't need to, great.

However I would question whether it was the best decision for you in terms of getting back to work later and if I knew you, would advise you to consider setting up as a childminder or looking for a job as a nanny where you can take your child with you to work rather than giving up altogether.

adeucalione Fri 15-Mar-13 09:22:48

I wouldn't judge anyone for wanting to stay at home with their child but if you can't afford to do it, you can't afford to do it.

iwantanafternoonnap Fri 15-Mar-13 09:24:06

Mind you I do think that if you can work then you should try.

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 09:26:05

Eaves if you re-read my comment you will see I wasn't comparing it.  You still haven't answered my questions though... Why are some of the views ridiculous? If its a job, who are they working for?  Are you saying they are working for the tax payer? 

Also Personally I would start with raising taxes for the richest and clamping down on corporate tax avoidance. so how do you propose they gov does this? How much tax should people pay and how would you propose they band it in terms of salary? How much is corporation tax now and what should it go to and how would you crack down on it?

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 09:26:25

K, so you are quitting to go on benefits. Frankly, a very poor idea under this government.

adeucalione Fri 15-Mar-13 09:28:38

I would be ashamed to ask the state to support me - that's what you do when you're too old or sick to work, or as a short term measure after redundancy, not because you'd like another year off work (wouldn't we all).

DeepRedBetty Fri 15-Mar-13 09:35:06

The whole socio-economic business model of UK plc is based on a tax and benefit system that would like parents to take the minimum time off and then pass the bulk of working hours childcare onto paid professionals. Which suits some families, but doesn't work for all. I didn't re-enter the workplace until ddtwins started school. I could have put them into nursery or got a childminder or a nanny, but I'd have been earning just enough to pay those people, and not been able to do the things we did spontaneously.

It used every last penny of the Dream Trip Around The World Fund, but I wouldn't have missed it for all the tea in China.

Agree with many others btw - we're damned if we do, damned if we don't, so we might as well do what we think is best.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 09:35:14

Unwaged at home watching your own kids isn't a job,that's fact.not semantics
Job is paid employment,contribute tax and ni. Home with own kids isn't a job
Op has a job she's choosing to give that job up to go on benefits,IMO unwise

SpringlingSpaniel Fri 15-Mar-13 09:41:08

"The whole socio-economic business model of UK plc is based on a tax and benefit system that would like parents to take the minimum time off and then pass the bulk of working hours childcare onto paid professionals."

I don't see it as the system would like parents to take the minimum time off, more that taxpayers would baulk at being taxed heavily enough to afford to subsidise this choice for anyone who wishes to make it.

jellybeans Fri 15-Mar-13 09:42:44

'Just because you put little value on that and see it on the same level as watching daytime TV, doesn't mean that it isn't a valid choice and shouldn't be supported (yes, financially, by society if there isn't a working partner to do it) '

eaves totally agree. Just because some people dismiss it as nothing doesn't make it true!

acceptableinthe80s Fri 15-Mar-13 09:42:52

Yes OP people may judge but really who cares. Currently the government will pay income support to those with children under 5, that will probably change to children under 1 soon enough. There is no shame in claiming benefits that the government say you are entitled to.
If you were to work say p/t and put your child in childcare and move into your own place you would actually be costing the 'tax payer' around £1000 more per month in housing benefit/childcare benefits so that kind of defeats the whole 'why should the taxpayer pay for you to stay at home' argument. Single parents in low income jobs DO cost the taxpayer more than SAH single parents and those working single parents probably don't earn enough to pay tax in the first place.
Besides OP you are a taxpayer/have been and will be again, if you want to spend the next year at home with your baby then that is entirely up to you, no one else.

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 09:50:28

if you want to argue the OP should do what's best for her family, you need to apply that across the board, so middle and high earners should look to minimise the taxation they pay at that will be best for their families.

personally I don't think you should just do what right for you & yours. we have society.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 09:50:28

,the NHS,education and social care are currently v squeezed.frozen posts,reduced budgets
Huge fiscal demands,its la-la land to say pay every parent to stay home cause they want to?
Who finances that?the waged who have to work?if you're Unwaged housewife dependent upon male partner,that's not sourced from benefits.but claiming benefit unwaged is paid by tax,ni it's everyone business

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 09:54:52

LittleChickpea I read your comment the first time and you absolutely were comparing those things. You said:

Benefits do not equal entitlement because you choose to take a bit of time out to do something else (be it child rearing, traveling, watching Jeremy Kyle etc.)

That absolutely is comparing child rearing to watching daytime TV and being incredibly dismissive.

As for calling being a SAHP a job - obviously I don't mean a SAHP is working for anybody, obviously they're not drawing a wage. What I mean is it's not some "luxury" as so many on this thread have called it, you are working looking after your child.

A question to those who have said that they would be ashamed to be a single parent on benefits, or see it as being entitled: Do you claim child benefit? Did you take maternity leave? Did you take advantage of free prescriptions or dental care after your children were born? And if the answer to any of those is yes, do you feel ashamed or entitled? Of course not. Society makes provision for parents - that's why under the current benefits system, you don't have to claim JSA until your child is 5. It is already recognised that one parent should be able to stay at home if they so wish.

Meglet Fri 15-Mar-13 09:57:09

I don't judge smile.

I'm a single parent who has always worked (except for maternity leave) and believe me it is pretty miserable. My health and sanity are in tatters! And I have a permanent sore throat from yelling at the kids all the time.

And, yes, I cost the ecomony / benefits system / NHS far more (in the thousands) as I had to work than if I had stayed at home.

But maybe it will all be worth it in 15yrs time when hopefully both the kids are at university and I'll be able to work full time, got some OU qualitifications under my belt and have never taken a career break. But from where I am now it's really not much fun juggling it all.

Meglet Fri 15-Mar-13 09:58:46

ugh, I can't even spell today.. economy.

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 09:58:52

and there are also many schemes that enable individuals and companies to minimise their taxes - but look where that has got us.

if you do what's best for you and yours, without a care for others, people will judge you.

Mannequinkate Fri 15-Mar-13 09:59:56

Almost 25% the children in this country live with single parents, if we all decided to stay at home for a year or so and give up perfectly good jobs please explain who would pay for it?

Your choice is lazy, entitled and short sighted.

This argument about it costing the tax payer more for you to work doesn't wash with me. If you are working you are contributing tax and in, as is your employer. You pay for child care which means another company is also paying tax, is able to employee someone else that can then pay tax and ni and spend money in the economy. The more people working the better off the whole country will be.
Please do not use your perceived cost saving to the taxpayer to justify not providing for your own child.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 10:00:36

Eaves i see you concede unwaged at home with kids isn't a job

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 10:03:58

It's not a paid job scottishmummy, no. I would have thought that was obvious the first time I used the word.

FairyJen Fri 15-Mar-13 10:05:36

I have only ever judged one single mum. That was only because her child was 23 years old and she wouldn't work so she could cook and clean for him and he had someone to come home to confused

Enjoy time with your baby, you never get it back smile

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 10:07:08

What's the point in blethering about what scoiety should do or what it should value?

The op has to deal with the here and the now...which means she is intentionally putting herslef at the mercy of this administration. Only someone without any other choice would do that. Or an idiot.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 10:08:11

Eaves not obvious what you mean when 0905 you emphasized looking after child IS a job?
Now you're clear it's not a job,are you back tracking?

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 10:10:58

I know some on MN don't like my views on this.  But I have been sitting here considering this whole culture of entitlement that we have relating to fully fit people quitting their jobs, fully fit people not working (exclude disability, that's a different issue) and thinking its their right to claim benefits instead.  

This is to everyone that agrees that you should be entitled to just quite your job to be a SAH mum/dad and claim benefits. I am an open minded person and can be swayed by a logical arguments.  Please could someone tell me how you propose the country should pay for this so everyone can have the same opportunity? Also whilst paying for this how do we ensure the NHS is properly funded, pensions are funded because by 2030 there are going to be double the amount of people we have currently over 85, the deficit is resolved and industry can afford to increase wages without placing themselves And their staf at risk?  Please someone give me a logical argument so I can understand this culture of entitlement?  

Eaves I am still very interested in hearing your response to all my questions. If its not a job then why should the tax payer fund a choice to quite your perfectly safe job?

acceptableinthe80s Fri 15-Mar-13 10:11:34

Perhaps if the government were to criminalize non payment of child support and introduce custodial sentences for non payers along with setting child maintenance at a realistic rate (i.e half the true cost of raising a child) then they could greatly reduce the burden on the taxpayer.
As is stands the government do have these powers they just choose not to enforce them.

sneezingwakesthebaby Fri 15-Mar-13 10:15:24

Hmm, I'm a SAHM single mum on benefits and while I work hard looking after dd and get tired etc it is 100% definitely not a job. I would also say staying at home with your child is a luxury because it is a choice a lot of people would love to have and don't have.

manicinsomniac Fri 15-Mar-13 10:16:09

I wouldn't judge but I would wonder how you were going to manage.

I'm a single mum of 2 and have never had a partner so had to put both children in nursery from a couple of months old and go back to work. I don't see any other option really.

As it happens I like working but, if you're a single parent, that's immaterial really isn't it? You simply have to work.

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 10:21:03

^^ This argument about it costing the tax payer more for you to work doesn't wash with me.

It's true though. I am a single parent and I work. I get far more in state benefits that I did when I wasn't working. I mean, really a lot more. Yes, I pay tax, but it's nowhere near the amount that I get from the state. There are plenty of other people in my situation as well, and it isn't going to change any time soon. This is because the UK is increasingly becoming a low-wage economy with little or no job security, while at the same time with insanely high costs of living (just look at how much money it takes to provide yourself with a home fgs).

OP, some people will always judge you; after all, you impregnated yourself, didn't you? No other person involved at all.

I think that some people just don't understand that when you are a single parent, you are the only person that your child has. You have to provide for them and also raise them. It's actually impossible to do because you can't be in two places at once, so it's always going to be a bit of a fudge. I see nothing wrong at all with opting out of the paid work for a bit if you think this is in your child's best interests. You won't be there forever.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 10:24:39

It's irrelevant whether or not op single mum

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 10:25:33

scottishmummy I'm not backtracking at all. I believe that it IS a job. Clearly it's not a paid one. You're arguing with me over semantics for the sake of it. As I've already said, the word job can be used in contexts that don't involve paid employment.

LittleChickpea there are various ways the government could save money and divert funds towards benefits. Let's start with Trident, that would save a bob or two.

catgirl1976 Fri 15-Mar-13 10:26:18

No wouldn't judge at all

But try to keep your skills current for when you do want to go back to work

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 10:30:36

Eaves you still haven't answered any of my questions. How do the gov this? Because at the moment it reads like you are regurgitated newspapers and everything is very superficial with no actual content or depth to it. Please I really want to know your thoughts on all the questions I have put to you. If you don't know then just say "I don't know". That's ok.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 10:30:43

Eaves will take more than trident to fund anyone who wants to stay at home
Given fiscal crisis how do you finance statutory demands,health,education
And your wish list of financing parents be at home unwaged cause they want to,it's la la land

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 10:32:06

It's not irrelevant, scottishmummy. The OP is the only parent that her son has. Therefore decisions that she makes about working/not working will impact on him in a way that decisions couples make just don't - there's no juggling leave/hours to get less time in childcare, no partner around to pick up the slack when she needs to put in more hours at work, no choosing shifts to fit in with someone else who can look after the child - none of the things that parents who are couples take for granted. And, quite aside from such practical considerations, there is no-one else there to show that child how to live, to filter his responses to the world, to take him on his journey to becoming an independent and functional human being. That the OP is a single parent is entirely relevant to whether or not she decides to work for the next 13 months.

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 10:34:56

but the OP is not saying she cannot work, she is saying she doesn't want to.

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 10:35:45

Wallison OP is living with the GP and I am sure they are loving so they could cover all your points off...

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 10:36:25

littlechickpea I think however you cut it, it boils down to increasing taxation ie some working parents will have to pay more tax for other parents not to work.

People blather on about tax avoidance but a succession of governments of different stripes have not been able to crack this nut. It's just a sound bite. An easy yet meaningless phrase.

The reality is that the only sure way to incease the welfare bill is to borrow more more and/or increase taxation.

Borrowing more money at this time is economic suicide. Our DC will be landed with this hideous debt. So we will have a generation of people who will have had a SAHP but their economic future will be horrendous. They will not thank us!!!
If we borrow any more cash, then we must spend it on infrastructure programs ie getting people into work. Not paying them not to work.

So that leaves an increase in taxation...

Latara Fri 15-Mar-13 10:36:39

OP, I can't judge because i've not been a mother... just wanted to say you are only 22 so make the most of being young and of having a lovely baby, you are very lucky.

The best thing is to ensure you have qualifications, skills & a plan for when you will return to work.

Mannequinkate Fri 15-Mar-13 10:38:33

That the OP is a single parent is entirely relevant to whether or not she decides to work for the next 13 months.

Exactly she as his only parent is responsible for him financially. Why should I be? When she is perfectly capable of supporting herself and her dc through paid employment (a job).

I say all of this as a full time working, single mother

would the OP feel so entitled if she had to knock directly on my door for her hand outs?

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 10:38:52

Wallison op has adequate support and childcare,lives with her mum
She's made active choice not to work,has job handed in her notice
She's managed to work up to this point,now choosing not to and ps says her benefits are good

MooMooSkit Fri 15-Mar-13 10:40:16

No i wouldn't judge you and anyone else really needs to get a life tbh. People always say the same crap "as long as you are supporting them and not relying on benefits" sorry what business is that of yours? Some mums have paid into the tax system for years and years and years before they have babies so if they want to take a year or two off and have a few benefits (claiming back money they paid into a system) then let them and get off your high horses imo. YABU. I took a year off to look after my son, 6 months were maternity pay but then i left and was on benefits for a few months and i don't regret it and i wasn't "taking anyones money" i've paid plenty into the system thanks!

lrichmondgabber Fri 15-Mar-13 10:41:46

People are judgers. Do your own thing on single mummery

MooMooSkit Fri 15-Mar-13 10:41:59

YANBU i meant :P

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 10:42:00

Well that's another point latara

If I were the OP I wouldn't be even considering a life working in an industry which will always pay poorly.

I will bet my bottom dollar that in fiev or ten years time there will be no top up benefits.

I will bet my bottom dollar that the state pension will be decimated.

I will bet my bottom dollar that tertiary education will cost twice what it does now.

I will bet my bottom doallr that the NHS will be a different beast to what it is today.

I would use my time to get myself into a career that will ensure myself and my DC have a decent future completely independent of the state!

adeucalione Fri 15-Mar-13 10:42:51

I don't think the benefits system works like a bank moomoo, you don't have an automatic right to draw out what you put in.

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 10:42:57

LittleChickpea I have already suggested areas where I believe the government could save money - higher taxes for the richest, Trident etc. I am not an economist, so I am not going to write an essay for you proposing in great detail exactly how it should be implemented.

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 10:43:55

moomoo - when you say you have paid plenty in, are you aware that you have to earn more than £26k per year to pay enough tax for the government services you use in any year?

if you earn less than that in any year, however much tax you think you are paying, its less than the amount you take out in services.

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 10:44:17

Wordfactory so how do we struture the taxation? How do we band it in terms of salary and what should the levels be? For example up until April 2013 some people were paying 51% of their wages in tax? What is an acceptable level?

And what do we dowith people that choose not to work? Do we just say fine off you go, don't worry we I'll increase some hardworking persons tax instead? that's not right! Also Increasing taxes alone will in no way cover our current outla and deficit.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 10:44:25

So that's your solution scrap trident?that's not enough to finance statutory demands and pay sahp

FairyJen Fri 15-Mar-13 10:44:42

Tbf moo at 22 the op will not have paid in masses compared to a woman who has a career break in her 30's for example. Just a point worth noting.

Also I find it a bit hmm about the level of benefits when she is living with her parent so will not be paying a full rent or mortgage for example. I hate to admit it but the more I read this thread the more I start to judge. Sorry.

Mannequinkate Fri 15-Mar-13 10:46:23

I suppose I need to get a life then, as I see the benefits system as a safety net in case I lost my job or was too ill to work. Not a savings account that I can dip into if I fancy a career break

spanky2 Fri 15-Mar-13 10:46:41

I get judged for being a SAHM and I am married . Alot of people aren'tnice . I wouldn't judge you. You are doing what you think is right for your family .

FairyJen Fri 15-Mar-13 10:48:25

Taxing higher earners will not work. I used to pay a stupid amount of tax, around 40% as was over threshold, then large pension etc etc putting it simply I will not take another job over that threshold again.

For eg my dp earnt 19,000 pa and I earnt 33,000 pa after my tax and pension etc we were bringing home same wage! Fucking pointless that was!

ThingummyBob Fri 15-Mar-13 10:48:44

I think some people do not realise that in work benefits are usually much higher than out of work benefits.

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 10:48:46

Eaves so you don't know.... Then how can you possibly accept that its ok and affordable for people to carry on quitting their jobs and getting benefits. It can only boil down to some feeling of entitlement. That's ok, I know now, I was just wondering...

jellybeans Fri 15-Mar-13 10:49:13

Not possible in many cases to care for small kids and go to work at the same time with only one parent (unless work from home/childmind etc). So either way state will need to help either by paying for childcare so lone parent can work or paying to allow lone parent to stay home. Former is often more expensive so why does it matter which they do? Just because some working mums don't like the fact they 'have to' go to work so why should others not have to? Totally different if you are in a two parent family, you have way more choice.

ThingummyBob Fri 15-Mar-13 10:52:49

Fairyjen your pension contributions must have been around £800 per month for your wages to come out the same confused

Not sure that exactly pointless.

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 10:55:57

Yes, I believe that one parent within a family unit should be entitled to be a SAHP. Funnily enough the government believes that too, don't they?

I suppose that is a "feeling of entitlement", but I don't see that as being a negative thing. People feel entitled to all sorts of things within society, such as education or healthcare. I place value on the importance of being able to care for your own child, should you so wish.

SpringlingSpaniel Fri 15-Mar-13 10:57:24

"Mannequinkate Fri 15-Mar-13 10:46:23
I suppose I need to get a life then, as I see the benefits system as a safety net in case I lost my job or was too ill to work. Not a savings account that I can dip into if I fancy a career break"

^^ this.

Moomoo I don't think you understand how the system works. If everyone thought that paying some taxes entitled them to claim it back when they wanted to take some time off work, the country would go bankrupt very quickly.

KidderminsterKate Fri 15-Mar-13 10:59:55

I'd not judge you but I'd think you were making poor life choices. It's very important to role model a good work ethic. If you have a job in this climate then you'd be a fool to give it up.

It is hard to leave a baby but I strongly feel single parents have more of a responsibility to work so you can improve your life chances. otherwise you'll be stuck in your parents house on benefits forever and that's no life for your little one.

Sahm is NOT a job......how ridiculous to suggest it. Its a lifestyle choice and one that lone parents do not have the luxury of.....

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 10:59:59

Govt believes adults who are mentally,physically capable of work should work
Students and education is studying to qualify to work
No govt will pay to maintain woolly hippy notion of muthas at home

KidderminsterKate Fri 15-Mar-13 11:00:06

I'd not judge you but I'd think you were making poor life choices. It's very important to role model a good work ethic. If you have a job in this climate then you'd be a fool to give it up.

It is hard to leave a baby but I strongly feel single parents have more of a responsibility to work so you can improve your life chances. otherwise you'll be stuck in your parents house on benefits forever and that's no life for your little one.

Sahm is NOT a job......how ridiculous to suggest it. Its a lifestyle choice and one that lone parents do not have the luxury of.....

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:00:08

I the idea that SAHM (basically a live in nanny/maid/) is a luxury is mind boggling to me, coffee and daytime tv, smiling gurgling baby, is quickly replaced with sleep deprivation, lonliness, and often being expected to be doris day every second of your life oh and of course ...a toddler who is often challenging/frustrating and anything wrong must be your fault because you
are 'with then all day'.

in your situation OP many peoples easy option would be sticking a bottle in it and going back to work to get a break.

and you will be judged either way. working mothers face judgement, but IMO slightly less.

KidderminsterKate Fri 15-Mar-13 11:00:35

I'd not judge you but I'd think you were making poor life choices. It's very important to role model a good work ethic. If you have a job in this climate then you'd be a fool to give it up.

It is hard to leave a baby but I strongly feel single parents have more of a responsibility to work so you can improve your life chances. otherwise you'll be stuck in your parents house on benefits forever and that's no life for your little one.

Sahm is NOT a job......how ridiculous to suggest it. Its a lifestyle choice and one that lone parents do not have the luxury of.....

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 11:00:59

I put 'scrap trident' along with 'sort out tax avoidance'...just meaningless phrases for those who don't understand economics.

The only way to pay for an increase in the welfare bill is borrowing.
Which only a fool would advocate right now.

So we're looking at a serious hike in taxation. Which all the evidence shows won't result in an increased tax take (taxation is a delicate flower, try to get too much and tax drops as people go hell for leather on avoidance/evasion, plus corporations move away yadda yadda).

And anyhooo...no government is going to hike tax by that much. And any extra they do get most certainly aint gona be spent on the welfare bill. Surely everyone accpets that?

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 11:01:12

Eaves the point is, the country can't afford it any longer. As The Labour MP said when they left offivce "there is no money left. Labour spent it all". So you want the gov to fund it on the never never........

FairyJen Fri 15-Mar-13 11:01:49

thing the way thugs are going I prob won't get that pension back! grin

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 11:03:06

Please could someone that agrees with the whole benfits argument answer my questions. I really value your thoughts. So far only one person has responded..

^I know some on MN don't like my views on this.  But I have been sitting here considering this whole culture of entitlement that we have relating to fully fit people quitting their jobs, fully fit people not working (exclude disability, that's a different issue) and thinking its their right to claim benefits instead.  

This is to everyone that agrees that you should be entitled to just quite your job to be a SAH mum/dad and claim benefits. I am an open minded person and can be swayed by a logical arguments.  Please could someone tell me how you propose the country should pay for this so everyone can have the same opportunity? Also whilst paying for this how do we ensure the NHS is properly funded, pensions are funded because by 2030 there are going to be double the amount of people we have currently over 85, the deficit is resolved and industry can afford to increase wages without placing themselves And their staf at risk?  Please someone give me a logical argument so I can understand this culture of entitlement?^

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 11:03:34

But you know what OP, I think other people's judgements are the least of your worries.

Poverty, benefit trap, reliance on a conservative government for your handouts...this is the real stuff of nightmares.

Why anyone is advocating it is beyond me. Are people really that short sighted? Aren't good parents meant to watch the long game for their DC?

TSSDNCOP Fri 15-Mar-13 11:04:23

Yep, alas I'd judge you, unless you had the financial means to enact your scheme without recourse to the welfare state.

You are fit, educated and employed. Your child is fit and well. To give up a perfectly good job to be a SAHM and fund that choice through benefits is taking the piss. Particularly when you read about other MNers who genuinely cannot work and are struggling to feed and clothe their kids.

I'd live to know the financial contribution the father of your child is making. As will the people at the benefits office I suspect.

FairyJen Fri 15-Mar-13 11:04:31

Also dp pays minimum tax and no pension. Still sucks tho. Mind am enjoying maternity at moment so every cloud...

KidderminsterKate Fri 15-Mar-13 11:05:40

absolutely agree word factory

OP I would urge you to retract your notice and grovel to your boss. Then find a decent childminder and suck it up.

LadyPessaryPam Fri 15-Mar-13 11:06:55

morethanpotatoprints Oh dear, I'm an asshole apparently. grin.

Yes you are, you are relying on people like me to work and pay tax to enable you to laze around.

bigkidsdidit Fri 15-Mar-13 11:09:02

I agree with wordfactory in that I would put money on tax credits etc not existing in 10 years' time. If you have the chance of a career and to work and develop yourself grab it with both hands because the current system won't be around for long.

sick0fants Fri 15-Mar-13 11:10:19

Agree jellybeans

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 11:10:46

What I find astonishing is that people mither around, worrying about what effect a bottle or a nursery might have on a child...yet not giving a monkey's about their economic future.

Why on earth would we saddle our beautiful, wonderful DC with this debt? Why on earth would we hand on this albatross?

Don't we have a responsibility to the next generation?

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 11:11:59

LadyPessrPam. Ha ha ha PMSL

FairyJen Fri 15-Mar-13 11:12:37

Op bearin in mind what you said about a high turnover of jObs - this doesn't mean you will get one you know. More people will qualifying daily in your profession plus the job market my change.

I work in a sector where there is an extremely high demand and live in London. Still would struggle to walk into a job tho...

You need to keep this in mind I think. It feels a bit like you have not thought this through very clearly

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:14:23

The elephant in the room here is childcare,
the support has gone down and prices have gone down, my eldest went to PT playgroup which cost well over 300 a month its insane never mind full time nursery.

I am lucky to have a DP who earns well, but god forbid we separated and I became a single mother, I would have to simultaneously have to uproot both children and deal with the behaviour problems that may bring, search for a job and pay for full time childcare for a toddler and young baby. I think if we sorted out the outgoing/ingoing it would encourage women who want to work but would pay more in childcare than they would earn.

Babyroobs Fri 15-Mar-13 11:14:38

Personally I think anyone would be crazy to give up a stable job in the current economic climate. The country is near broke, the pot is empty and I fear benefits will continue to be cut furthur and furthur. Could you go back to work part time and then gradually build up when your child is a little older ?

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:15:58

*Prices have gone up I should say.

LadyPessaryPam Fri 15-Mar-13 11:17:02

Yes wordfactory, these laissez faire people don't seem to give a monkeys about the debt albatross they are bequeathing to their children and grandchildren.

And bigkids in correct, eventually real austerity will happen and the people who have keeps some form of career or training current will have a significant advantage over those who lapsed or indeed like morethanpotatoprints never bothered in the first place.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 11:17:21

No elephant or impediment for op,she has job she's giving up to claim benefits
Lives with her mum, presumably mum helped.op has held down Job til now
This isnt hard luck story,she's choosing to give up work

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 11:17:28

WordFactory. I agree with you. You hear the whole my child needs me and I can't work etc. what about when the country gets to a point where the system collapses. Not only will the children suffer the parents with no consistent employment history will also suffer.

The way things are going the system will collapse. And we are not talking in a hundered years. We are talking inour life time. The ever increasing pension deffecit alone should scare the crap out of people. Bu not many look at the bigger picture because all they see is what they are entitled to on benefits right now. It's beyond me..

LadyPessaryPam Fri 15-Mar-13 11:17:58

keeps = kept

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:18:30

So is she working or going back to work I'm confused.

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 11:19:13

Govt believes adults who are mentally,physically capable of work should work

Not if looking after a child is involved they don't. Is a SAHP being supported by their partner expected to work just because they could, physically and mentally? No. That's why you don't have to claim JSA until your children are of school age. I'll keep saying this until you get it.

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 11:19:18

wordfactory - the deficit isn't as bad as all that. When Labour left office, the country was in less debt that when they got in, and the deficit was lower than it was in 1997. Also, in historical terms, the deficit as a % of GDP is not extraordinary. There has been much bullshit and scaremongering about how we are 'bankrupt' which relies on people not knowing that debt and deficit in terms of a national economy is not the same thing at all as personal debt - you simply cannot talk about them in the same terms.

sick0fants Fri 15-Mar-13 11:19:41

laze around Geez

Lots of working mums have told me that they prefer to go out to work because it's EASIER than being a sahp. They choose to do it because it's easier for THEM.

Will nobody think of the children!!! grin

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:20:57

you are lucky in the sense you have a job to go back too OP,

I fell pregnant as a teen, so I have no job to go back to no experience etc,

I would love to go to work but the childcare prices have mad it no go for me unfortunately.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 11:20:59

Read op posts,she has job gave in notice.benefits apparently v good.lives with mum

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 11:21:24

wallison are seriously suggesting we should borrow more to increase welfare spending?

Babyroobs Fri 15-Mar-13 11:23:21

I agree LittleChickpea, the future is very scary , I'm forever amazed at how short sighted people are.

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 11:24:37

I'm suggesting that you cannot talk about national debt and deficit in the same terms as you would quantify personal debt - it is meaningless and facile. I am also suggesting (in fact, I am saying - because it is true) that when Labour got in in 1997 there was more debt and a higher deficit than there was when they left.

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 11:24:46

The last thing we need is to be borrowing more to fund the welfare bill....

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 11:26:20

BabyRoobs. Thank you.. I am too but it's the reaction you get when you talk about reality that's really scares me. So many people with their heads in the and....

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 11:26:26

wallison - we have a structural deficit - which means even if someone waved a magic wand and tomorrow the economy was booming, we would still be spending more every year than collected in taxes.

^ that IS a problem.

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:27:19

How is being a SAHP lazing around?

its not even a logical argument, childcare is a piad job one you study for but looking after your own child is apparently 'lazing' ? running a home, literally/metophorically wiping everyones arse, lazing around?

Opinions like that concern me, the SAHPing that you've come across must have been incredibly negligent in which case, iots probably better those people went back to work so someone else could do a better job.

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:28:45

Read op posts,she has job gave in notice.benefits apparently v good.lives with mum

I lived in with my mum for 2 years, she worked full time SAHP was the only option for me. living with mum doesn't always mean childcare on tap.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 11:29:34

She said money wasn't a problem as she would be living with her Mother. I assumed her Mother would be supporting her.

Dahlen Fri 15-Mar-13 11:29:39

I was a working single mother throughout my DC's childhood's. I wouldn't judge you, although I would question the wisdom of what you're doing. It's never an astute move to give up the means of being economically independent, although that doesn't mean that giving up work isn't the right move for you and your DS of course.

The Children's Society report recommended that the government remove a lot of the pressure on (newly) single parents to find work. The reason for this was that is saves money in the long term. Children who are adjusting to the breakdown of the parent's relationship - which may involve a house move, change of schools, etc - fare much better when they are able to spend most of their time with their primary carer until they have adjusted. The Children's Society recommended about a year.

For women who have a career or job they love, or those for whom working is a crucial part of their identity/feelings of self worth, it makes obvious sense to return to work. These are the mums who will juggle it fine, be happy and refreshed at home for having had some time apart from their child, etc. For those who are in a dead-end job, suffering from PND, going through a acrimonious divorce, have a difficult sleeper, older child with behaviour problems, <insert any other difficulty here>, returning to work may result only in a mum run ragged who has no physical energy/emotional reserves left to give to her child. In addition to having the state pick up a proportion of the childcare costs, how does that benefit anyone? Mum is suffering, child is suffering and tax payer is paying. If mum stays at home, she copes better, her child fares better and the cost to the tax payer is not only less in the short term but likely to be markedly less when viewed over a long-term future as well.

Everyone has to do what is right for their individual family within the laws of the land. The OP is doing just that.

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 11:30:46

whimsicalmess. No one is saying SAHM is lazy. What we are saying is where will the money come from to pay for the benefits for those that choose to stop working and stay at home? The country's piggy bank is empty....

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:30:52

My mother didn't financially support me in terms of baby milk nappies etc all me again ...don't assume.

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 11:31:45

Well, national debt has actually increased faster under the Cameron than it did under Labour, so I suggest you take your grievances on the matter to that nice man Mr Osborne.

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:33:09

Some people have used the words 'lazing at home' which is offensive.

probably not you but some posters have.

I was pointing out not all people who live with parents have childcare on tap.my mother worked full time , dad not around and I was also my sisters carer, its not always ...a choice or a 'luxury' angry

LadyPessaryPam Fri 15-Mar-13 11:34:37

There are people out there who would never work. morethanpotatoprints self identified here and hence laze around at the taxpayers expense is a fully justified statement.

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:35:38

did she say would never work or just choosing to be a SAHP?

TSSDNCOP Fri 15-Mar-13 11:35:44

Where's the OP gone?

FairyJen Fri 15-Mar-13 11:35:45

whimsical I see where your coming from but the situation the op is describing sounds completely different

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 11:36:08

wallison the whole 'oh this is what happened under Labour' thing, is just another menaingless phrase. Consign it to the soundbite dustbin with 'just scrap trident.'

What happened is been and gone. The Labour administration governed under a period of huge boom. Recrod breaking tax take, lead in no small part by the financial sector.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

What is happening today is that we are in recession. Tax take will continue to reduce. We have a structural deficit!!!!

Continued borrowing in these circumstances is not akin to the borrowing under the previous government.

You may not care what is handed on to the next generation, but a lot of us do care.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 11:37:54

Whimisicalm why dont you read op posts instead of asking others to interpret for you

sick0fants Fri 15-Mar-13 11:38:01

PessaryPam said "laze around" chickpea
Perhaps we should be asking why the non resident parent isn't contributing anything or enough to his child's upbringinging, instead of slating single parents? I see it all the time, mostly men worming their way out of providing properly for their child, when they are well able to

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 11:38:37

I did shes said she's breastfeeding so I assume shes still at home?

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 11:39:41

The point is that people should be encouraged to take financial responsibility for themselves and their children. And not automatically assume that their choice not to work will be supported by other taxpayers. This is the crux of the matter.

NC78 Fri 15-Mar-13 11:40:21

Totally agree with dahlen

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 11:40:40

did she say would never work or just choosing to be a SAHP?

whimsical. I don't understand what's the difference? Either way it's at the tax payers expense..

Sorry, I would judge. I am a mum of a toddler and my "flexible" working arrangement at work was only put in place until he was a year old. After that, I couldn't leave work early (at 5pm!) to feed him so I had to wean him. Wanting him to self wean by the time he's 2 isn't a reason for not working.

i am our main breadwinner, I don't get the option of not working, as benefits won't pay our mortgage, but I would have given my eye teeth to be at home with DS at that time. "Can i stay at home with DS whilst he self weans?" Yes, if you and your (ex) partner have the income to enable you the luxury of doing so. Otherwise, no.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 11:41:03

Op works childcare she put in notice,choosing not to work.apparently shell get good benefits

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 11:41:31

And wallison the economic situation is far beyond party politics now.

All this they did this and they did that...pathetic.

The reality is that today, in this economic cycle (and sorry but Gordon didn't manage to banish those), in the throes of a worldwide recession, we simply cannot justify borrowing more money to increase the welfare budget.

It is basic economics.

sick0fants Fri 15-Mar-13 11:42:13

Me too NC78

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 11:43:16

The structural deficit isn't the be-all and end-all of signifying a healthy economy - there are other factors at play as well, significantly the size of the economy. If the economy is large (boosted by, say, spending) then servicing the debt is easier, and that is the key thing ie how the debt is serviced, as opposed to what the debt is.

And it's a bit rich to say that what happened is been and gone when the only thing that the Tories say about the economy is that Labour left it in a mess and they have to fix it when a) Labour did not leave it in a mess - it was actually in considerably better shape than when they got into power and the borrowing was, in historical terms, pretty low; and b) what they are doing is not fixing it.

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 11:43:47

It's not basic economics - it's woefully misunderstood economics.

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 11:44:34

sick0fants OP hasn't said what the position is with the father. But if he isn't paying then as far as I am concerned heis an arse and should be locked up. It would be criminal in my book..

Snowme Fri 15-Mar-13 11:44:41

Yes, but not loud enough for you to hear it.

I have been a lone parent since my first was born early six years ago. My youngest is due to start Reception this autumn so I am now looking at work options.

It was always a plan to be a stay at home Mum partly out of preference but also because of the environment in which I previously lived with them - there was no support from their father, I worked fulltime and spported both of us as he refused to work or contribute financially, and he couldn't have been trusted to keep them safely anyway. But that's another story.

My financial situation has been so dire however the last few years I couldnt afford to go back to work earlier. I DO have a higher income on benefits than employment. On paper anyway. But any national insurance 'credits' I paid towards that 'ran out' a long time ago, at least 2-3 years ago. Id been working fulltime from age 20-37.
So I have been feeling guilty for being a dole dosser since then.

Because you can live at home with your Mum and enjoy comparatively far less financial strain that most lone parents go through having to fund their own home, I would say enjoy th opportunity whilst you can smile

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 11:46:42

Yes, but I couldn't give a monkey's what silly Gideon says! Nor bloody Ed Balls!

Both are interested in short term politicking not long term economic planning.

The reality is that right now, in this economic dip, we should not borrow for anyhting other than things which will benefit the economy and make jobs.
It is harsh, but it is reality.

ElectricSheep Fri 15-Mar-13 11:49:16

What an intelligent post Dahlen

For all those wringing their hands re structural deficit and the country going bankrupt - just bear in mind that next month the richest 10% of the country get a 5% cut in their tax. Hmmmm, yeah but we can can't to allow single mums to stay at home with their babies and continue breastfeeding.

Don't believe everything your told. A lot of this 'crisis' is only a crisis to the very wealthy.

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 11:51:32

Wallison Labour did leave It in a mess. Gorden Brown was one of the most dangerous MPs we have ha the unfortunate pleasure of havin in power. He spent spent spent even after he knew in 2006/2007/2008 that the country was heading for a serious mess. Why, because he was hoping to buy his way into the PM seat..

Anyway, the past is the past. We need to sort the mess we are in and borrowing more money is not the answer..

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 11:52:27

Thing is though electric that 5% didn't actually make much money did it?

It didn't help and was only introdcuded as a punitive measure by a dying government.

If we're interested in increasing tax take, I mean seriously interested as opposed to scoring points then we have to look at things intelligently and sometimes take counter intuitive steps.

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 11:54:13

You might not give a monkey's what Gideon says (and I agree he is an arsehole) but his fiscal planning is, according to him, expressly based on what he sees as the situation that he inherited. I don't for a moment think he is as stupid as all that - I think the cuts he is pushing through are ideologically driven because he wants a small state which of course is understandable because he is a Tory. But he is saying that the cuts are necessary because of the mess that Labour left, when in fact they didn't leave a mess at all.

Anyway, sorry OP, this has nothing to do with you so I'll shutup now.

ElectricSheep Fri 15-Mar-13 11:59:48

Word the tax lost by that 5% is projected to be £6 billion, according to the HMRC's own figures. Admittedly they also project to make up about £4b of that by increasing the number of high rate tax earners over the coming year (mostly because inflation means that more people will earn over the threshold).

So net loss in the next financial year is forecast as £2billion. Austerity seems to operate only when convenient with this Govt

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 12:00:27

No I agree that what he says as the reasoning behind his fiscal policies, are unlikely to even scratch the surface of his ideology.

But then I think Labour's reasoning is equally faulty and disingenuous.

My gut feeling though, putting party political allegiances aside, is that things are indeed very bad in the economy. Worse, we don't see much signs of change. And I simply don't buy the argument that there would be change if only we followed Balls' plans. I think we're stuck at the moment in the bottom of the bust cycle.

I think there is an argument for increasing borrowing to try to stimulate things. But only very specifically targeted.

There is no economic argument for increasing borrowing to increase the welfare budget. That can only be done when we see an upturn.

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 12:05:30

electric those figures won't, sadly, make an appreciable difference to the welfare budget.

And it may be that that money is better off being spent. Money within the economy tends to churn and radiate, money collected by government and handed out, less so (though of course it gets spent).

I agree though that it's a difficult balance. Time will tell...

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 12:12:01

wallison - to achieve what you are saying we would need strong growth for several years. that's not going to happen any time soon.

maddening Fri 15-Mar-13 12:14:06

I wouldn't judge you with such a young baby- once they are in preschool and school then I would think moves back to work should be made.

I would suggest however that you use this time to get some extra courses under your belt - use it to better your chances in the future.

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 12:18:33

faster therein lies the rub.

And of course what the government wants us to do is spend. Labour too, who are suggesting VAT cuts to get us spending.

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 12:21:36

Anyhow, I must bow out...the shops call. Now that should please both Gideon and Eddie grin.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 12:31:49

I wonder how people who judge sahp's receiving benefit can sleep at night. Unless you lack education you know that a Conservative gov (which we have, don't kid yourselves), historically support and encourage the wealthy to gain more wealth at the expense of the poor.
So to support cuts in welfare you are supporting this ethos.
The rich businesses including bankers have created the problems we have here not people receiving welfare benefits, or tax credits.
There are still people significantly richer than the majority receiving child BENEFIT, yet they believe this is ok for some reason, whilst poorer people shouldn't receive benefit.
They also seem to think that they pay for benefit for others, when the money they pay in tax goes to fund the infrastructure of the country and other countries throughout the world. Its quite laughable really to see how these people justify the guilt they must feel, being so rich and watching the poor suffer.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 12:35:51

Frankly give you're an unwaged housewife youve no particular basis to opine how working people taxes should support op choosing to give up work

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 12:37:16

morethan They also seem to think that they pay for benefit for others, when the money they pay in tax goes to fund the infrastructure of the country and other countries throughout the world.

the amount we give away to other countries is a small part of the whole...yes the HRT payers pay for the schools, the hospitals, the roads, the welfare system and everything else.

so there really is very little for them to feel guilty about, as long as they pay their taxes.

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 12:37:50

morethanpotatoprints I agree. I asked back in the thread whether anybody in receipt of child benefit feels ashamed or entitled - funnily enough nobody has replied to that.

It's awful that the role of looking after your own child is so undervalued in society and looked down on like some kind of lazy lifestyle choice.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 12:52:07

scottish

Oh great, sahm brings her children up and now isn't entitled to an opinion on an open forum grin Marvelous only on Mnet.

Did you receive child benefit before it was capped scottish?

I am also not an unwaged housewife, by definition. I'm sure I don't do any more housewifey type of duties than you do, and my dh pays me wages.

I also H.ed my dd so I save you, the tax payer money as I don't take a school place.

Also with the shortage of school places as the first topic of conversation in active, it will be interesting to see what 2 parents working will do when their dc have no school.
I don't think the economy can cope with 2 parents working, it is selfish too when there is a shortage of jobs, and families with both parents unemployed.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 12:57:31

Two adults working is selfish.priceless.complete hippy guff
Dp and I have professional qualifications,our working contributes vocationally and financially
Selfish as we taking 2jobs?anyone who thinks they can step into my job..feel free.get the degrees,the pg,the post qualifying experience...put @10yr aside to get there

diddl Fri 15-Mar-13 13:01:38

If OP is living with her Mum-what benefits will she be entitled to?

i should think child benefit, income support, child tax credit.

free prescritions,free dentist, free school meals

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 13:10:59

Ok potato,you've said 2adult working is selfish when other families have 2unemployed?
Are you suggesting one of the unemployed be compelled to take a job vacated by the 2job household
How would you do this?compulsion?how would you fil immediate skills gap this would cause?

Imagine impact upon retail,nhs,service industry,business if working adults who selfishly are in a 2job relationship were forced to give up 1job to unemployed

You've said you work?your dh works. ^So which one of you two will give up work?^given you think 2adults working is selfish

grabaspoon Fri 15-Mar-13 13:14:41

My boss is a single parent she works... But people moan that she works and misses time with her son. you can never win.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 13:15:27

Scottish,

I too have qualifications inc a degree, a masters, PgCE, oh and the exec diploma in management from CMI.
I had more than 10 years exp before I left to raise dc.
I'm sure its not in the same field as you, but don't kid yourself you are not indispensable.
I do think you are selfish to take 2 jobs, especially when you constantly belittle those who choose a different lifestyle to yourself.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 13:19:16

This thread is quite perplexing. People are quite free to choose any lifestyle they want. But as long as they don't expect other taxpayers to pay for it. That is why the Labour government didn't get in. (I did vote for them by the way. Who knows why.) But I totally approve of this government's attempt to reign in the gigantic welfare budget. Benefit is for those people in need. Or who have lost their jobs or who cannot work. Not for people who choose not to work. That's my opinion.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 13:19:27

"I don't think the economy can cope with 2 parents working, it is selfish too when there is a shortage of jobs, and families with both parents unemployed"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 13:20:22

Answer the question,will you compulsorily force adult to relinquish job for unemployed
What about skill gap?how will you address this?if you and dp work who will give up job?
Why is 2working adult selfish?

LadyPessaryPam Fri 15-Mar-13 13:20:37

And you have no intention of ever working? Really? Until you die? Or was that just a wind up morethanpotatoprints?

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 13:22:30

Potato if dp pays you salary do you work?are you employed?

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 13:24:23

Potato I hope you're paying tax on your "salary". Does he allow you holiday from your "job". Hope that's paid too - you're entitled to holiday pay and sick pay too. What about a pension - hope he's set one up for you and paying contributions.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 13:25:37

Allnew.

What do you think will happen to all those people being forced to look for work to gain tax credits/ UC? There are not enough jobs to support 2 parents working. They are still going to receive benefit as there are no jobs because selfish families have two. Oh, they will still be called names though and belittled as the scroungers of society.

Anyway, I have to go now as KS2 English beckons, then I have to collect my free prescription.

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 13:27:15

morethan - you do live in the south east or London? or a cheaper part of the country?

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 13:28:15

morethan - I think you're time would be better spent taking an economics class

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 13:29:07

Nothing is free morethanpotatoprints. Somebody somewhere is paying for your prescrption.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 13:31:06

Oh lol,potato are you really sticking to the 2working adults selfish line.you've backed self into corner
So if 2working is selfish does one worker relinquish a job?will it be compulsory
The recipient of the recently vacated job,will they have choice in area of employment or pot luck?

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 13:33:16

Wallison Labour did leave It in a mess. Gorden Brown was one of the most dangerous MPs we have ha the unfortunate pleasure of havin in power. He spent spent spent even after he knew in 2006/2007/2008 that the country was heading for a serious mess. Why, because he was hoping to buy his way into the PM seat..

Anyway, the past is the past. We need to sort the mess we are in and borrowing more money is not the answer..

diddl Fri 15-Mar-13 13:34:09

I had absolutely no idea that you could claim anything if you were living with parents & not available for work!

diddl Fri 15-Mar-13 13:36:28

-Other than stuff for children, of course!

How does income support work then?

difficultpickle Fri 15-Mar-13 13:39:11

I wrote a post and then MN went off line and lost it.

If you aren't intending to claim benefits then it is no one else's business but yours. If you intend to claim benefits when you could work then I'd rather my tax money wasn't contributing. Having said that I doubt you could actually claim benefits as you aren't available for work and voluntarily gave up employment.

Good luck to you, it must be lovely to be a single parent and not have to work. It is a luxury that very few single parents, myself included, can afford.

SirChenjin Fri 15-Mar-13 13:41:13

Can you really voluntarily give up a job, take yourself out of the job market, and still claim benefits? shock

I'm doing something wrong....

jellybeans Fri 15-Mar-13 13:43:28

Excellent post Dahlen.

LittleChickpea Fri 15-Mar-13 13:47:57

morethan for someone as well educated as you, I have to say you do come out with some seriously flawed comments... The two working adults comment has had me in stitches.

The rich businesses including bankers have created the problems.

Morethan please can you explain to me how the bankers did this?

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 13:49:37

Of course the OP could claim benefits. I would imagine that, seeings as her baby is only 11 months and she has been BFing every 2-3 hours, she has been on mat leave up until now & is giving her notice in rather than returning to work.

A single parent is entitled to look after their child until school age rather than work, and claim benefits if needs be.

No different from a SAHM with a working DP whose family claim child benefit and maybe tax credits.

tomverlaine Fri 15-Mar-13 13:50:28

I would judge to a degree but more from the point of view that you are dependent on your mother for financial support (and I can't work out whether you would be even if you went back to work)- and I believe you should (or rather at least the couple having the baby)be able to independently support your selves

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 13:50:52

I'm back. Dh is doing English today, I have a break yey!

Scottish It is to become compulsory soon for all people who are able to seek none existent work, in order for them to keep benefit.
There will be no or hardly any savings to benefit from these people as they will still receive their benefit. The only requirement is to seek.
So some sahp's are now faced with the option to look for none existent jobs and keep benefit, or in other cases opt out of the system and lose entitlement to any benefit. I say some sahp's because obviously there are those not claiming benefit as their dp earns more than entitlement.
I know several people who are employed in more than one job, and families with both working, you don't need to be an economist to know that this is not sustainable.
The answer to the question do I work, well not for an employer I don't. So I don't pay tax, holiday pay etc. I do have money for a pension though and up to date with NI contributions. My dh gives me half his wages and along with TC and cb, I manage the finances.
I didn't say I had no intention of working again, but it is highly unlikely as we intend to H.ed for the next 10 years.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 13:54:38

"I do have money for a pension though and up to date with NI contributions."

good luck with that when there's no state pension when you retire

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 13:54:56

For those who are having difficulty grasping the entitlement of a single parent to stay off work to bring up their child, here is a link:

www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/lone-parents/

Lone parents can claim income support until the child is 5 at which point they are expected to seek work.

People may not agree with that, but that is already in place I'm afraid.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 13:58:09

I have read that this is changing with universal credit. People will only be exempt from seeking work if they have a child under one. That seems to be the proposal.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 14:02:35

Allnew

Why will I need good luck when I have pension provision already. Its not with a company so it can't be lost, like so many plans can when the company goes bust.

eavesdropping

That was also my point above, seeking is one thing. Actually finding a job is another. The gov have done this to placate the many workers who have complained about the system, it won't save any money. How can it when the only compulsory aspect is seeking work? However, what is being proposed to those who really need welfare such as single parents, disabled and carers, the long term unemployed is just diabolical and how anybody can applaud this is beyond me.

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 14:05:18

Viviennemary my understanding is that under UC, a single parent with a child aged between 1 & 5 would be required to attend work-focused interviews to keep in touch with the workplace, but wouldn't be expected to actively seek work until their child is at school.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 14:14:32

You are probably right evesdropping. I read it on a thread about benefits and signing on a while ago. I can't see the point of work focused interviews for people who won't be working for another four years.

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 14:16:30

morethan - I very much doubt your personal pension will amount to much. if I were you I would take a look at how much it will be. Most people will be disappointed. People who have been out of the workplace for longest are likely to be the worst off.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 14:32:04

more than unless you're putting hundreds of pounds per month into a pension pot then you should have your fingers crossed it will be worth anything at all

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 14:56:34

I think it is also only necessary to take work during school hours, but have heard people say that there are even fewer of these jobs around.
Work focused interviews are also another way for gov to say they are tackling unemployment, to tick another box to please the supporters of the welfare cuts. There seems to be a lot of goal post moving, I would guess to manipulate figures. I don't think much will change for the majority. As I said before though, what is happening to the most needy in society is just diabolical.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 15:01:23

Allnew and Faster

I know what you mean, so many people lose savings through inflation, it pays to invest in other areas and not put all your eggs in one basket.

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 15:13:11

it was the size of the pension pot rather than the investment decisions I was referring to.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 15:39:37

Faster
I don't think the initial size matters if it is growing and will out perform inflation.

LadyPessaryPam Fri 15-Mar-13 15:49:40

So you are a financial wizard as well are you morethan?

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 15:55:50

"I don't think the initial size matters if it is growing and will out perform inflation"

hmm I would think the initial size very much matters. So £1000 starting point even with a great return won't give you much when you're 65

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 16:03:22

even more shock shock than i was last night!!
Just came on to have a nosey and paled at some of the posts on here!
The benefit system is a BUFFER! for those who genuinly NEED it. Posters saying 'go for it, enjoy your time'...just wow!
Having a child is no one elses responsability than the mother AND fathers. NOT mine or the goverments. Its not up to me to pay for there christmas presents or food or housing while you are able to play house with free money! How lovely would that be??
Utter selfishness and entitlement! You cant just take from the pot with out putting something in. I just can not get my head around people who find that ok?

This is why the goverment are being complete arse holes and clawing every thing back because people have been talking the piss for too long.

People who have genuine disabilitys, familys truley down on there luck people who need it deserve it not some crazy assed people who think 'hey you know what, I'm entitled to have kids and expect every one one else to pay...its only nature after all...'
confused

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 16:10:04

Still cant believe the utter -wank- excuses for not applying for jobs.... touigh shit, unless you win the lottery im afraid you have to join the rest of the human race and work for your money.
If you cant afford to pay for your own children...stop having them.

A post few posts up said that in the future most benefits will dry up...i agree..what the hell are you going to do then...

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 16:12:10

This is why the government are being complete arse holes and clawing every thing back because people have been talking the piss for too long

yes.

TheSecondComing Fri 15-Mar-13 16:12:57

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Crawling Fri 15-Mar-13 16:14:57

I wouldn't judge and I wouldn't judge if you claim benefits adrenal your doing nothing legally wrong and the government have decided to put a system in place for single mums.

As for people saying their taxes shouldn't pay for it you don't get a choice and if all single mums got up and worked you wouldn't pay less tax.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 16:16:38

serious

Having a child is no one else's responsibility than the mother AND fathers

I totally agree and its about time something is done about making absent parents pay for their dc. Some people including myself take your comment literally and are solely responsible for our dc. But then we are called names, because we receive money for doing this. Would you have given it back?

Did you refuse your CB? If its a tax assumption, there are many sahp's who have indeed paid many years of tax, some at HR.

If you think it would be so lovely to receive tax credits, give up work and claim then?

The government aren't clawing anything back. All they are saying is that to keep benefit if you are able, you need to be available to to seek work whilst your dc are at school. There are no jobs like this, so where will the money come from?

I know where, from the poor, disabled, carers, long term unemployed who may have good reasons why they can't find work.

BlahBlahBlahhh Fri 15-Mar-13 16:18:34

I've not had time to read through people's comments but in answer to your question I have to say I do judge people in general that don't work. I know I will get flamed for this, sorry but it's my honest opinion. I breast fed both of my children and in both cases found it very difficult having to go back to working. I have been working nights for the past 13 years to fit around DH's job and to be there for my children. My DS's were 14 weeks and 6 months when I went back. I did not have the luxury of deciding if I wanted to or not (benefits would not even enter my mind).

Crawling Fri 15-Mar-13 16:21:43

That's fine blahblah but be aware some people judge working mums for not caring for their child themselves. So it seems you can't avoid being judged. So just ignore and judging op.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 16:24:04

I'm not in favour of unlimited benefits for people choosing not to work. I am in favour of benefits for people in need or who can't work. Why do people think others should pay for them. The people paying for them might be on very very low wages themselves. And paying tax. The tax threshold should be raised to £15,000 a year.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 16:26:21

Blah.

That was your choice though, as you would have been entitled to tax credits, which contrary to what many people presume, is not a benefit.
Some people choose to be a sahp, its their choice too.
If I had gone to work, dh and I would have had 2 claims for tax credits instead of the one we have. Ha, perhaps many are right and we should all be working and claiming benefit.

BlahBlahBlahhh Fri 15-Mar-13 16:30:35

Crawling...I am not generally a judgy person and am generally very liberal...maybe I am a bit jealous of people who have the option wether to work or not. Unfortunately not everyone has that option and some people such as myself don't see benefits as a way out of their responsibilities.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 16:36:04

Morethan, how are you solely responsible for your children when your partner gives you half his salary?

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 16:38:08

Of course tax credits are a benefit

You wouldn't get "2 sets of tax credits" if you worked. You'd have to suit one joint claim and it would be reduced to take account of the higher household income

BlahBlahBlahhh Fri 15-Mar-13 16:38:14

I don't think I was/am entitled to tax credits

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 16:41:13

A single parent who chooses to care for their 11 month old baby themselves rather than working and putting it into childcare isn't "playing house" or "taking the piss". What a vile post.

I am honestly aghast at some of the attitudes on here. Where does this level of hostility towards fellow parents come from? I find it hard to believe that it's all completely borne out of concern for the economy - I wonder to what extent jealousy and guilt comes into it for some posters?

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 16:41:18

morethan

this bit is right perhaps many are right and we should all be working

not this bit and claiming benefit

sweetkitty Fri 15-Mar-13 16:42:18

Pigs - I'm a SAHM and have never regretted it, the job I did could not be done part time and I did not want to leave a baby 13 hours a day 5 days a week. We moved to a cheaper area of the country and I became a SAHM.

However, the downside is my career is dead in the water. Ideally I would have worked 2 days a week.

One of my friends left her abusive husband with her 2 DC, she upped her hours at work but between organising childcare and paying nursery fees she was run ragged and got so stressed she gave up work, she had more money and none of the stress, to her it was a no brainier.

I would look into taking a career break or studying part time so you at least have something to show for your time off so to speak, is part time an option?

BlahBlahBlahhh Fri 15-Mar-13 16:46:02

People that judge working mums only do so IMO to justify themselves not Contributing to their childs upbringing financially. My children do not suffer for me working, they benefit as my salary pays for all the extra curricular activities they enjoy and the holidays I help to provide for.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 16:46:57

Potato,given you think two working adults is selfish explain how youd relinquish one of the jobs to give to the unemployed?
You disputed you're not housewife asserting you work with wages?now you're clarifying you in fact have allowance from dp
Do elaborate on your thoughts about 2adults working=selfish and your plan to redistribute jobs

sweetkitty Fri 15-Mar-13 16:50:05

I don't judge working mums, every family situation is different and we all make choices for our families.

I do sometimes get annoyed when people say "it's alright for you SK you don't have to work" yes I know I am lucky but these are usually people with 2 new cars in the drive, foreign holidays, designer clothes etc we don't have these things as we've chosen to have me at home instead. They could be SAHMs they just don't want to downsize their lifestyle which is fine I have no problem with it at all just don't try say you work as you cannot afford not to.

If you want to work fine, if you don't also fine.

sweetkitty Fri 15-Mar-13 16:52:59

DP does not give me an allowance, he works for our families money. If I worked a substantial amount of both our wages would go on childcare, we don't outsource the childcare we keep it inhouse (for now).

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 16:54:10

I'm more than happy to outsource at minimum wage,more money for me

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 16:57:24

Blah.

Everybody is different though and just because you don't work and receive TC or benefits doesn't mean you are finding a way out of your responsibilities. There are many reasons why people choose not to work. The money they receive is not equivalent to an income so they are not gaining anywhere near the amount that 2 parents working can gain. I didn't work because it wasn't economically viable for my family, because I don't believe in child care for my family, because I had other things to do, and because I like being a sahp plus many other benefits I could think of.

Phosphene Fri 15-Mar-13 16:58:16

So what do you do when things don't work out with your mother and you can't support yourself financially without a job?

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:00:57

Potato,care to elaborate on the 2working adults is selfish or was it off cuff remark
Do you genuinely believe that,if so what would your solution be?redistribute jobs

sweetkitty Fri 15-Mar-13 17:01:51

Scottishmummy - I have four DC there would be no money left for me grin truth be told I just didn't want to leave my babies but was in a lucky enough position that I didn't have to.

Being a single mum would have changed that completely though.

SirChenjin Fri 15-Mar-13 17:02:49

Wow SK - bit of a sweeping generalisation to say that people who choose to work normally have 2 cars, foreign holidays and designer clothes shockFamilies where both families work do so for many, many reasons - and designer clothes/holidays abroad are often way down the list. It's not simply a case of 'downsizing their lifestyle' and then living on the wage that another adult is bringing in - for many again, 2 wages is necessary to get by. What an overly simplistic attitude you have.

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 17:03:51

morethan having read your comments about the fact that is selfish for two parents to take two jobs, and how pension funds grow...please promise me that it is your DH's responsibility and not yours to educate your DD about economics!!!!!

Seriously, it's fine to have strong feelings about being a SAHM and knowing the ins and outs of the welfare system to ensure you can do what you want...that's your business....but for the love of God, please ducate yourself about basic economics. My 13 year olds understand it better than you do.

Shr0edinger Fri 15-Mar-13 17:04:09

You need to develop a thicker skin OP. I've had people judge me, and it used to upset me. Often it's people who are intelligent, and yet they still don't seem to grasp that your earning potential is less than theirs or that you have more children than they do.... or less help with childcare. Honestly, people JUDGE before they think, and you can't MAKE them think. So tune them out. And I say this as somebody who has struggled (a lot) with being judged. I think I'm finally getting through that though.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:04:42

I didn't have to use nursery,wasn't compelled by circumstance.i chose to do so

whimsicalmess Fri 15-Mar-13 17:05:07

Im not that old, and it wasn't unusual in my day for mothers to go back to work after their youngest went to secondary,

I hope to god I don't have to wait this long, There is nothing wrong with raising your kids,

Although OP one day soon you may pray to god you could go to work and hav e adult interaction aswell as earning money.

And I'll be honest every single venomous 'SAHP' are lazy people I've ever met, either didn't have kids or did and weren't very good at it, and lashing out and people who handle being at home nurturing a child better than they did is a transparent act.
(dons hard hat)

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 17:06:33

eaves people do take the piss.. I have a neighbour who has NINE children and both parents dont work. Thats taking the piss. I would say some of the hostility come form the simple fact..^why should I pay for the children you cant afford^

Like I have said SAHM is wonderful for the child if its available - i will too be one in a few weeks time when my little bubba arrives- My DH will be the sole provider as he earns just over the thresh hold for tax credits.

When I had my DD when i was 16 i too was benefits,single parent mother but i went to college and sorted my self out, i didnt carry on like it was my god given right to carry on having children and expecting every one else to pay for them.

I wonder to what extent that people who are pro stay at home and claim till your hearts desire are actually those people....

I would also hazard a guess that these people are the same people that complain that foreigners are taking all our jobs confused

crawling legally wrong on some cases no.. morally YES!

AND actually my hat goes off to single parent mums/dads that work to support there child/children

stickingattwo Fri 15-Mar-13 17:06:57

It depends, am I ( workiNg mother paying child care almost to the amount of my salary) supporting your benefits? Then yes I judge. If you or family are supporting you then n I don't.

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 17:10:53

One thing is absolutely certain from this thread; there is no appetite to provide benefits so that parents can stay at home...

So when this government remove them, which they will, no one will kick up much of a fuss.

Shr0edinger Fri 15-Mar-13 17:13:18

but you have to earn good money to be able to make it worth your while working when you have 2 kids. I'd be lucky to earn a tenner an hour and childcare is going to be at least 8.

you can judge away, but the maths still don't work out.

Shr0edinger Fri 15-Mar-13 17:14:55

...... also, people always judge the mothers! never the fathers who don't contriute, or don't contribute enough. I have said to people that it's my x's actions or lack thereof that had me on benefits for years. (not on them now) But still it's been a long old climb back up to ground zero.

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 17:15:34

shr0 I suspect that given half a chance this government will ensure you will be better off...by reducing benefits to bone and knuckle levels.

Shr0edinger Fri 15-Mar-13 17:17:16

i even said to one woman, years ago, well, I'm the provider and the carer. my x is providing neither of these roles, so if you'dlike his address you can go and judge him if you like.... she didsn't seem to have the same fire in her belly to judge a man who who earned a good salary but paid no maintenance! twaz all my shame apparently! children are still a woman's problem when the chips are down.

sweetkitty Fri 15-Mar-13 17:19:02

Sir chinjin - it wasn't a sweeping generalisation, I was talking about a handful of people who I personally know and make comments on me being a SAHM. I am well aware for a lot of families two working parents are needed.

It's all about choice, it's fine to work full time, part time or not at all. We all make the best choice for our families and ourselves. What I do object to is making nasty comments to people who have made choices that are different to your own.

I think the OP is making the best choice for her child and herself at the moment but has to realise the implications of that choice going forward.

The person I feel hostility to is the father of her child if he has just fathered a child, left and is not contributing a penny to that child's upbringing. Unfortunately I know far too many men who have done that.

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 17:20:01

^^^^^^ ^^^

<<bangs head on wall and leaves thread>>>>

God bless those who work and get robbed pay taxes to support the economy. Other wise we would have no NHS , no safety nets ect ........

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 17:21:26

I agree with SK - everybody I know who has returned to work could have struggled by as a SAHM with just their DP's wage if they'd really wanted to. I can't think of anybody who has returned to work literally in order to keep a roof over their family's head. What a lot of people see as necessary expenses - holidays, cars, gadgets, home improvements, haircuts - they go to work for. Fine. Other families decide to muddle by on the bare minimum so that one parent can stay at home. Also fine. And when there is only one parent, society should support that parent to have that choice too. Which thankfully, at the moment, it does.

GoSuckEggs Fri 15-Mar-13 17:21:39

I think that if you have kids then you ( be that yourself or your OH/DH) should work to pay for them.

I could give up work when we have children, because my husband would support us. As it happens I am quiting work next week and DH and I are moving, so he will be supporting me until I get a new job.

Do not have childre if YOU can not afford to care for them. It pisses me off that some people have no sense of shame about sponging, when they had a perfectly good job!

Shr0edinger Fri 15-Mar-13 17:22:47

Well, I'm in Ireland, but christ things have got tight here. I think unfortunately our politicians look at David Cameron and introduce some of his measures, but we have no structured childcare, no medical care, a shorter school day, but our politicians make cuts with the preamble about what's done in Britainn! so, thanks david cameron ..... Anyway, I'm not on benefits any more but it was a hard trap to climb out of. Really. It was.. it's NO joke having a low earning potential, beign solely responsible for two kids, recession, and dealing with everythinng, and being reminded on a daily basis by politicians and the media what a scrounging drain you are on society.

What used to sicken me as well was when luckier mothers would judge me, ie, the mother up thread who says all her salary goes in childcare. so, she knows how expensive childcare is... but still jduges a single mother for struggling to make it all come together. that attitude is very depressing.

in my view, no mother shoudl judge another mother if she hand on heart, honest look at the finances, couldn't hold it all together on her own. By that I mean that if she couldn't run a household on her own, as a single person with children, then please don't dare judge a single mother for being unable to run a household on her own without support from social welfare. It makes no sense mothers / women should be more supportive of each other. judging a woman for basically suffering the financial repercussions of having no husband is absolutely dickensian. i can't believe that this attitude still exists.

Shr0edinger Fri 15-Mar-13 17:24:17

@ pigscansoar i despair at myself here, still defending myself. I don't need to. I shouldn't. But it had an impact on my self esteem I think.

I got through it and you will too, but it's not easy. My children are older now. eldest will start secondary next year. So thankfully it's getting easier. long old road though.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 17:24:18

word

Lol, my economics hasn't done us much harm so far [grin. My dd despite her only being 9, seems to have a good understanding of economics. Childcare at a cost of more than you can earn is not viable.
Not everything that gives a good return to beat inflation involves money in the hand/ bank after initial investment.
The ability to manage the economics of my household and family is fine for me thanks.
Finally, I don't know the ins and outs of the welfare system and I don't claim any benefits as I am not available to seek employment

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 17:26:41

Well you certainly need to understand that work and money are not finite so by not taking a job, you are not in any way helping the economy or other families.

This is basic.

As for benefits - I understood you were claiming tax credits. You seem well informed on such matters.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:26:55

So potato,how you plan to deal with the selfish adults who have two jobs
What will you do to help those unfortunately unemployed,whilst others selfishly hog two jobs?

ChestyLeRoux Fri 15-Mar-13 17:28:34

I think its a little crazy right now. I thought in the past that it would be easy to jack work in as then I could have a restful life at home, but am glad I didnt now as a lot of people now that I know that did that cant find any work.

At the minute most companies arent interested if you have a gap in your cv and you are against mums that have kept going/single people with no gaps. There are hardly any jobs out there so think very wisely before you quit.

Shr0edinger Fri 15-Mar-13 17:29:46

comments on this thread prove that unfortunately majority of people STILL don't getit.

a couple is a team. they can assign roles as it suits their family best. either carer and earner, or two earners + outgoings for childcarer. a single person isn't a team and doesn't have that option. it's only ever going to be one earner PLUS OUTGOINGS (for childcarer). clearly a lot of people just don't seem to grasp that when they race to judge.

Also, comments about not having children if you can't afford them, so stupid, sure don't 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce now. it's such a myth that there are millions of women getting pregnant as some sort of career.

and if you met me in person i bet you'd all be lovely to my face, oh we don't mean YOU, no no no, we mean those other ghastly single mothers, you know the ones. But judgements, lazy assumptions, they pave the way for cuts whcih make people's lives very difficult.

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 17:30:54

That's the issue chesty

People are urging the OP to give up work and claim benefits seemingly in denial that a. the benefits system is being decimated and b. the job market is appalling.

I mean, really. Are people so shortsighted?

ChestyLeRoux Fri 15-Mar-13 17:35:05

I will say back when I had dc1 and other mums stayed at home on benefits, and said 'oh its so hard staying home with the baby' hmm it did used to annoy me. However now everything in our town is closing and I have a secure job, and they cant get interviews at all even for waitressing or shop work I am glad I kept going.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:38:19

How many of those agreeing yes give up work,precious moments etc are single mums?
I suspect a fair few are in fact with partners,the wage slave,and aren't single mum about to claim benefits

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 17:40:12

word Are people so shortsighted? it appears so.

LineRunner Fri 15-Mar-13 17:41:45

Don't have children if you can't afford them

I am one of those women whose marriage ended unxpectedly when my H left me for someone else. He also left his children.

Funny, no-one says anything to my ExH.

I do work, but I get some tax credits. Again, no-one asks my well-paid ExH why he doesn't make up the difference out of his considerable wages. (Well, I did once but he told me to fuck off.)

I think work is best where it is possible to work; but my god it's not easy when you are raising children on your own.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 17:42:56

Scottish, I don't plan for such things, not being in Gov and such. There's not really much that can be done, maybe apart from to educate those that judge, that there aren't the jobs available for people claiming benefits, because too many people work now.

SirChenjin Fri 15-Mar-13 17:43:19

Certainly Sweetkitty - choose to work or stay at home - but only if you and your partner can afford for one of you to do this. Don't sit with your hand out and expect the state to fund your 'right' to stay at home after you've voluntarily chosen to remove yourself from the workplace for no other reason than you'd rather spend the time at home/breastfeed for 2 years/whatever.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 17:45:37

I was wondering how long it would be before you started talking about your famous "wage slaves"

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 17:45:50

Line if he were here, I'd give him a slap for you.

DH had a huge falling out with his brother about this last year. He and his wife divorced and his view was that she could just claim top up benefits (she worked part time) rather then he pay decent child support!

That way he'd have enough left for a nice new house with the OW.

DH was apoplectic on his nephews' behalf.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:45:50

So really just online blah about working adults,and you know you're being unreasonable with no substantive plan or basis for comment

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 17:47:44

morethan you do understand that unemployment isn' caused by there being too many people in work don't you?

You were joking right?

Please tell me you were. No one is that thick.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:48:32

Wage slaves was a quip by a housewife on other thread to explain why she didn't work
Apparently had such busy time with PTA,etc to consider demeaning self as wage slave
Didn't mind the dp being a wage slave who paid mortgage,bills,maintained unwaged her status. Funny that

wordfactory Fri 15-Mar-13 17:50:26

Funny too how mums need to be at hoem to be good parents, but Dads appear to be able to be good parents and work.

Must be some special penis magic wink...or are women just rubbish?

LahleeMooloo Fri 15-Mar-13 17:53:24

Extremely foolish when the country is on the verge of going bust.

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 15-Mar-13 17:56:55

I would judge a healthy adult choosing to quit work to rely on benefits. Having a chid means providing both financial and emotional support.

Double standards on here though, NRPs are slated if they fail to financially support a chid yet the PWC is apparently exempt from the same.

Too many have children and then decide other tax payers should pay for that choice.

sunshine401 Fri 15-Mar-13 17:59:58

Can you not go part time?

sunshine401 Fri 15-Mar-13 18:00:43

That was to the original OP.

Not sure what other people think of me for giving up my job, but SIL has been on FB a few times talking about 'those who cant be bothered to work' etc, I love my DCs but never wanted to be a SAHM, and am finding it really difficult, having been in FT work since I was 16, and a bit scary having to rely on DH for money.
My ILs changed their minds on the childcare they were going to provide 2 days a week saying it was too big a commitment (fair enough, but wish they had thought of it sooner). Basically I either stayed in my job, and end up £400+ a month overdrawn, or gave up my job. So job it was. We are still completely skint, but not overdrawn (much).

LineRunner Fri 15-Mar-13 18:07:38

In the last year, my DS's school and my DD's 6th form college have both expected me to be at events '('evenings') at 4pm in the afternoon, some of which clashed with each other, as well as clashing with my working hours.

It just can't be done.

So I'm probably listed as being a shit parent.

ExH, meanwhile, doesn't even get asked why he can't attend. (For a start no-one has his latest new phone number or address.)

But I carry on working.

I will always wonder if I did the right thing.

Ah ignore me, just realised it says single mums in the OP!

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 18:16:05

eaves I can't think of anybody who has returned to work literally in order to keep a roof over their family's head. What a lot of people see as necessary expenses - holidays, cars, gadgets, home improvements, haircuts - they go to work for. grin grin LMAO are you for real?????? WTF!!!

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 18:19:19

line your ex is a complete prick, well done you for forging on flowers

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 18:20:30

Morethan, in what way do you not claim benefits if your household receives tax credits and you get free prescriptions?

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 18:25:48

eaves my DS has 4 children..both her and DH work after childcare and bills they have nothing left. Yep they get child tax credits as not entitled to working.NO holidays no luxury life style. if she gave up work she STILL would not be able to claim credits as if goes off your last tax year, so she would have to go a year with out working , leaving family £500 down a month which is the morgage... so yes people do go to work to keep a roof over there heads you silly woman!

if your mum doesn't mind why did you care what anyone else has to say?

LineRunner Fri 15-Mar-13 18:36:50

Thanks for understanding, wordfactory and seriouscake.

The other stuff that's incredibly diffucult as a single parent, working, are the expectations that you can fit in everything that needs doing during the day: doctor's appointments, eye tests, dental visits, hospital appointments and clinics, vaccinations, school appointments... home repairs...

I never have any annual leave left over. And we couldn't afford a holiday anyway.

And I have aged 20 years in the last decade. This actually is me grin

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 18:38:19

eaves

I too know people like this, who believe that material possessions are in fact a necessity. Its fair enough if they want to work for this, but then they say they have to work to survive..... NOT!

allnew

Tax credits aren't welfare benefits as you have to work to receive them. "Its your money, its got your name written on it" etc.

word
Do you know how offensive it is to insinuate or call a person thick. I do hope that your work does not have you in a position where you have to empathise, sympathise or indeed have anything to do with the public at large.

There are more people working p/t, some with several jobs. It doesn't take too much intelligence to work out that there are few jobs left for the unemployed, whether they choose/want to work or not.

SirChenjin Fri 15-Mar-13 18:38:45

Haven't read the whole thread wink but if the OP plans to live with her mum and be supported by her and her exP, then I don't see an issue. I think the judging starts when someone voluntarily takes themselves out the workplace and then claims benefits when they could be working.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 18:41:16

Your tax credit amount will be increased due to the fact that you don't work. Otherwise household income would be higher and your tax credit award would reduce.

It absolutely is a benefit. You are completely in denial. As are free prescriptions. Presume you don't claim child benefit either???

SirChenjin Fri 15-Mar-13 18:42:08

Morethan - what on earth are you on about??! Too many people working??!Where on earth did you learn economics!!!!!

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 18:42:29

If I chose not to work, we would receive tax credits. We would therefore be receiving benefits.

Babyroobs Fri 15-Mar-13 18:43:25

Of course tax credits are a benefit . Many families get far more in tax credits than they pay in tax , and people on income support paying no tax get them too !

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 18:43:32

More than, I'm actually quite concerned that you are home educating. I don't mean to be rude, but you don't seem very bright

AnnabelKarma Fri 15-Mar-13 18:44:20

You are talking rubbishmorethan

If tax credits were returned tax, the richest would be getting the most back. As it stands, they get bugger all.

It's a benefit. And I don.t even know how to respond to the idea that one of a couple working should hand their job over to someone unemployed. It's just so preposterous it's laughable.

TheChaoGoesMu Fri 15-Mar-13 18:47:58

I wouldn't judge someone for giving up work if they had the means to support themselves. I would judge a perfectly healthy adult for giving up their job to go on benefits, unless there was a really good reason. The benefits system should only be there to provide a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times, for whatever reason, until they can get back on their feet, or if someone is unable to work through disability, or for needing to care for someone with a disability.

Altinkum Fri 15-Mar-13 18:48:29

No I don't judge you OP and anyone who does are idiotic, your child is your responsibility, and if he can't cope without his mum near, then your job is tone with your child.

Goodluck and enjoy, after all he's only little.

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 18:48:59

linerunner I agree!

It was the home repairs that used to get me (i know it sounds silly) that was the only time I was frustrated i didnt have a man hero around the house confused In the end --after attacking a plug with a knife many of times--I could fix most things ( you tube was a great help lol) and much better than DH now lol!

It will get better honestly, where i have been a complete tit and started all over again! wink

I must look like an old bag as my DD got me anti wrinkle cream for mothers day! i actually thought it was very thoughtfull !!

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 18:49:48

"Its your money, its got your name written on it"

they aren't saying that any more.

abbyfromoz Fri 15-Mar-13 18:52:17

Firstly congrats on being an awesome mum. Secondly who gives a damn what people think? What would they know? Xx

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 18:56:03

firstly. where did I suggest somebody hand a job over to somebody who is unemployed?

Tax credits are not a benefit we will have to beg to differ here. At least they weren't until another propaganda myth spun by government. Its funny how they weren't under the labour gov, lol.

I am bright enough to have managed the family finances for the past 25 years, paid off the mortgage and have enough to live off nicely in retirement without working for a living. As for educating my dd I am a qualified teacher so, if you have nothing else......

yes I agree if I worked as well the income would be higher, tax credits would be less but with childcare we would be worse off, so that is not economically viable.
I thought I was supposed to be thick and not understand economics.

If you think it is economically viable to work for nothing or minus money, I would question your sanity tbh.

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 18:59:43

If your income goes down by more than £2,500 you get re-assessed in the current year. Just telling you so that you can tell your DS.

FasterStronger Fri 15-Mar-13 19:00:57

enough to live off nicely in retirement without working for a living

if you continue to rely on other people working, which I am sure you will....

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 19:01:02

Tax credits BENEFIT your family financially and are paid by the STATE at TAXPAYERS expense. You're in denial. I have no idea why you're so reluctant to admit you're in receipt of benefits. You were very happy to announce up thread that you were about to collect your free prescription confused

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 19:09:33

allnew

I am not in denial at all if you or if others want to believe what you are told by government thats fine.
Tax credit started as family credit and has had several titles since. It never was classed as a benefit as you had to work to receive it. Now the goal posts have moved and the latest gov have called it a benefit, so be it.
As we have been awarded this for many years now, I look at it as I did in the beginning. You choose to believe what you like.
What is wrong with receiving free prescriptions if you are a low income family?

Faster
I am not going to work, which means I will be unavailable to seek employment so will not be entitled to UC, how will I be living off others?

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 19:12:47

It's not what I am told by the government for heavens sake. I am capable of understanding that a payment from the state is a benefit. I used to receive child benefit but no longer do. That was a benefit as well.

weegiemum Fri 15-Mar-13 19:14:14

I only work for a token salary as I work for a struggling charity providing literacy services for women with no qualifications. I'm a fully trained, highly experienced teacher. I do it partly as I'm disabled, and it's physically much easier than secondary classroom teachers, also because my dh earns a good salary but works long hours as a GP, and so I need to be available for holidays/after school. And partly because, though there's a huge amount of policies from this government we detest, the "big society" is something we can buy in to. I tutor 2 days a week and also run a literacy group at church.

However, I also reserve the right for dh and I both to work if we so wish. I'm a senior (in Scotland I'm a Chartered) Teacher, I don't know if there's an equivalency elsewhere in the UK. Bascically it's seniority that means you stay in the classroom or in curriculum development rather than moving into school management. I have an undergrad degree, pgce, MEd and a further undergrad degree in a different subject I did for fun. And I also work as a senior marker for the exam board. My dh has his medical degree, full GP training, has done specialisms in family planning and GP Training and is now a specialist community mental health provider. So ... Which of us do you want to give up? One doctor less, one teacher less?? Sadly, though I'm actually more senior in my profession, my dh can earn 3x my max ft salary. And my disability made the decision for us.

However, I find the thought that a couple shouldn't both have jobs because some have none ridiculous! The person I know best in a non-income household is a friend from theology college (my fun degree!!). She has 2 dds under 3, all her work experience is retail in bakeries. Her dp is a complete waster who has never worked. How can anyone even contemplate that we shouldn't both work as they can't? Such an odd opinion (especially given the money that's been sunk into dh and I's training ( though I paid for my MEd and BTh myself).

However, I also think being a sahm (as I was for a few years) is a full time job!! (with 3 dc under 4, certainly!!). And I get benefits. I get High Rate DLA Mobility (as even walking to the end of he drive is often hard and I use a wheelchair), and Medium Care (as I need either my dh or, if he's away on-call, my dd1 to help me dress). I think I'm entitled to that - if I didn't get the mobility component, how would I get to my (practically unpaid) job that benefits society? But there are some who think I'm a waster cos I can't walk (not on here, I hasten to add).

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 19:14:20

I didn't say there was anything wrong with receiving free prescriptions per se, but undoubtedly they are a BENEFIT, which you apparently receive due to the suppression of income due to your decision not to work

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 19:18:41

wallisonI will let her know, thank you.

morethan of course you will look at it like that, it sounds better lol grin

sunshine401 Fri 15-Mar-13 19:21:31

You do not get working tax credits if you do not work. confused Clues in the name.
You get child tax credits for childcare (if you work/student) Most families can claim up to 70% of their costs.

You do get child credit whether or not you work but not the childcare element of course.

sunshine401 Fri 15-Mar-13 19:23:29

prescriptions are a benefit anyway we are so lucky to have them. Medical care/medication costs are a lot worst in other countries.

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 19:30:32

Seeings as we've now moved onto judging people who get free prescriptions...I'd like to know if there's anybody on this thread who works but who also happens to be diabetic or epileptic. I bet you happily tick the medical exemption box without worrying about the state of the economy...

sneezingwakesthebaby Fri 15-Mar-13 19:31:54

Tax credits are benefits.

See here
www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim76100.htm

It's a link to a list of social security benefits from the HMRC website and look what seems to be listed. Both forms of tax credits.

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 19:32:38

Of course tax credits are a benefit. They're largely an in-work benefit, but they're a benefit just the same. As I said, thanks to tax credits I actually receive more in benefits as a working parent than I would do if I wasn't working. Ergo I'm an even bigger scrounger than I would be on the dole.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 19:34:43

Who judged anybody for getting free prescriptions confused

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 19:38:09

I get free prescriptions as im pregnant and i dont mind ticking the exempt box as i pay in to the system as does my DH as do the workers that get free prescription...

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 19:41:37

I happily got free prescriptions when I was pregnant too. And free dental care. But I wasn't in denial about these being benefits

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 19:44:58

And you're quite right to happily take advantage of free prescriptions when pregnant - it's a maternity provision that you're entitled to. But I can't see the difference between that, and provision for supporting lone parents who want to care for their child. It's all paid for by the tax-payer, isn't it?

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 19:50:02

I was on maternity for 8 months, during which time I paid quite a lot if tax. The tax I paid at that time covered those benefits a hundred times over wink

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 19:55:33

Ergo, I was that taxpayer

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 19:57:15

And I'm sure that many SAHPs, lone or otherwise, have contributed plenty in taxes over the years to cover the benefits they might receive now. If you want to look at the system as a savings pot, as swings and roundabouts, fine - but you can't do that only with your situation and the benefits you're happy to claim.

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 19:58:46

You paid tax amounting to hundreds of times more than the cost of free prescriptions and dentistry while on maternity leave? Okaaaaaaaaaaaay.

Wannabestepfordwife Fri 15-Mar-13 20:03:41

Op as a sahm I totally understand why you want to stay at home but it is really a wise decision when the government are pushing through child care ratio changes- in two years there might not be as many child care positions.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 20:29:12

Yes Wallison, I did, only had about one prescription and one checkup in that 8 months. Cost saved to me say £35? yes i paid more than £350 in tax.

difficultpickle Fri 15-Mar-13 20:31:29

I don't think that anyone who gives up work and lives off benefits is any more an 'awesome' mum than those of us who slog our guts out going to work to keep a roof over the heads of our children and food on their plates.

I work bloody hard and do it all on my own.

Every single sodding day.

Every time ds wakes up in the middle of the night because he is ill is down to me to see to him, down to me to care for him, down to me to make the decision to send him to school when he is ill but not infectious as I cannot use up all my holiday to care for him when he is sick. It is completely and utterly relentless.

I would love to just kick back and not have to work so bloody hard and carry the guilt that every working mother has but some of us have no choice. Benefits are a safety net in a time of need not a lifestyle choice.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 20:31:41

I received the BENEFITS while paying tax. I have no problem with people receiving benefits when in need or on low pay. But not because they'd just prefer not to work. Not the same thing at all as a free prescription as a taxpayer when on maternity

TheChaoGoesMu Fri 15-Mar-13 20:36:03

Good post Bisjo. And you sound like an awesome mum to me.

sneezingwakesthebaby Fri 15-Mar-13 20:40:55

This thread has really got me thinking. Especially your post bisjo. I can't wait til I am in better health so I can start getting back on the road to working again. I don't want to get sucked into it becoming a choice to stay on benefits when I become well enough to earn the money myself.

sweetkitty Fri 15-Mar-13 20:41:39

Tax credits are most definitely a benefit, are they not getting made extinct when UC comes in?

Someone made a point about the government paying 70% of childcare for most families, this is also not correct it's up to 70% and is mostly for families on minimum wage. Most families do not receive a penny towards childcare costs.

Tax credits would not be needed if the minimum wage was a living wage, most benefits are paid to people in work as they don't eat enough to live. Take in workfare, zero hours contracts and reduced working hours and its really grim even if you are in work.

There was someone on here recently whose DH was offered X hours never got them, was told there was no extra hours, he cannot sign back on, they don't have enough money to live on hmm

I think if you are in a job, you should try your hardest to keep it in some respect (reduced hours, career break) rather than trying to get a job in a few years when you could be faced with something like I've described above hmm

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 20:41:47

allnew

As a low income family (and yes I don't work), I have been entitled to free prescriptions for many years now. Until this year I have hardly ever needed one, but unfortunately now I need 2 per month.
I have paid tax in the past and at one time it was as a HR tax payer.
I don't think I have cost the tax payer too much do you? So why do you have a problem with me?

MummytoKatie Fri 15-Mar-13 20:42:19

Wallison - I don't think allnew is necessarily wrong - I had free prescriptions and dentistry while pregnant plus dd up to age of 1. For me this amounted to:-

No prescriptions (nothing wrong with me)
Two dental check ups (but no fillings etc). Value 2 * £15.50ish = £31.

100 * 31 = £3100.

I was a high earner plus worked for a company that paid really good maternity benefits so I paid a lot more than that in tax.

difficultpickle Fri 15-Mar-13 20:43:43

Sorry, it was a bit of a rant at the end of a very long week coping with both ds and I being poorly (but both of us at work/school) blush.

I don't think those who claim disability benefits are making a lifestyle choice.

Wallison Fri 15-Mar-13 20:44:52

If you were on maternity leave, you were getting paid to not-work. And your employer would be claiming back what they paid you from the Revenue. Therefore your maternity leave was funded from public money, and you also received free prescriptions and dental treatment. Were you paying more in tax than your employer was getting back from the tax system to pay you your maternity leave? I think not.

difficultpickle Fri 15-Mar-13 20:47:20

When I was on maternity leave I got nothing after 6 months, no money at all. I had to get a bank loan (disguised as a car loan) so I had money to live on.

MummytoKatie Fri 15-Mar-13 20:47:54

Anyway - back to the Op......

I don't think I judge you for it but I don't think it is very advisable. Firstly because it makes you vulnerable to the whim of Mr Cameron and I don't think he's very reliable. But also because I'm not sure the situation will get any easier. My clingy 11 month old became a clingy 2 year old and is now a very clingy nearly 3 year old.

sweetkitty Fri 15-Mar-13 20:48:51

In Scotland we all get free prescriptions, does that mean the while country is on benefits? grin

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 20:58:42

I can see where people become wrapped up in the petty jealousy of they get more than me, or are entitled to more than me, etc etc.
In the case of entitlement to free prescriptions it is only a benefit when it is used. Some people can go for many years and not use this benefit, my dh is one. I too went for a very long time without needing any. Its hardly saving a fortune in these circumstances.

seriouscakeeater Fri 15-Mar-13 21:08:55

Yes eaves got it in one..paid for by the tax payer. And thank god we have those otherwise people like you would be toast!
Entitlement at its best!! Just hope to god your children have a better work ethic than you sad

messybedhead Fri 15-Mar-13 21:09:22

You do whatever is best for you and your baby.

People will judge you for being young and for being single whether you work or don't. If you work you get judged for being a bad mother and if you don't work you get judged for being a scrounger.

If you live with your parents and claim benefits to look after your child... So what? There are lots of two parent families who have a SAHM relying on tax credits to support them. A single parent is no different... Well apart from you'll be living on approx 120 per week and lots of working two parent families receive a lot more in terms of hb, council tax benefit and tax credits.

Crawling Fri 15-Mar-13 21:09:30

Excellent posts eaves.

coatonarack Fri 15-Mar-13 21:13:28

X

Crawling Fri 15-Mar-13 21:16:40

You would probably be able to claim more money of the state if you work OP you will probably be able to claim WTC at 200 Ctc at 200 and child care costs which are high according to most people and you will get 70 % if you are in a minimum wage job and your tax won't cover it. But by not working hour will only get about a 100 a week as you won't get housing benefit so by giving up work you are probably going to claim less in benefits.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 21:21:26

Ditto

eaves grin, I love these threads, some people are unable to look at the bigger picture. Brilliant posts.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 21:39:15

Yes Wallison, I was paying more than my employer was receiving, as I was pretty much on full pay.

More than, I have no problem with you, or the benefits you receive. I pointed our you were in denial claiming not to receive any benefits. Oh, and also that your 2 parent working family selfish post was ridiculous

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 21:47:03

*Yes eaves got it in one..paid for by the tax payer. And thank god we have those otherwise people like you would be toast!
Entitlement at its best!! Just hope to god your children have a better work ethic than you sad*

People like me seriouscakeeater?!!! You know absolutely nothing about my financial situation. If you're assuming that I'm on benefits myself, you would be wrong.

ConstantCraving Fri 15-Mar-13 21:48:46

Of course you should stay at home if you want to OP. Similarly if you want to go to work, then do.

And re: the benefits debate - why is it ok to be a SAHM if you have a working partner, but not be a SAH single Mum on benefits? Neither earn their own money. It's just more acceptable for some reason to have a partner support you than the state.
I was a single, teenage mum on benefits in the late 80's, now I'm an old working mum paying my taxes and happy that they go to support single, teenage mums - or whoever else needs benefits..What goes around, comes around.

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 21:55:45

More acceptable "for some reason" hmm

Because as a couple when you decide to have sex and create a child it's your joint responsibility to provide for the child rather than the state's responsibility. So of course it's more acceptable to choose to stay at home at your own joint expense. Of course unforeseen circumstances excepted, but then that's clearly not a choice

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 22:00:26

allnew

You said you had a problem with people who chose not to work receiving entitlement to free prescriptions, and that is me. I pointed out to you that indeed this may mean receiving no monetary value at all if you don't need a prescription, or very little occasionally. So to be so bothered about this seems so petty imo.

Constantcraving
I totally agree its no more acceptable to be a sahm married than it is to be a sahm sp. Not in my book anyway.

eavesdropping Fri 15-Mar-13 22:00:35

Oh and seriouscakeeater - my work ethic is fine thanks. Worked for 17 years before I had DD and am choosing to be a SAHM whilst she is little, supported by my DH. Will return to work in due course.

People are able to have empathy for others' situations and be in favour of the welfare state without actually being in that situation themselves you know.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 22:01:57

But the partner of the SAHM is willing to support her. And the same if it is the woman who works and the Dad stays at home. Not everyone who works thinks it is their duty to support the choice of a single parent to remain at home with no means of fiancial support for themselves or their children.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 22:02:34

'financial'

allnewtaketwo Fri 15-Mar-13 22:03:04

I'm not bothered about it, I just don't know why you're so adamant it's not a benefit, when clearly it is

anotheryearolder Fri 15-Mar-13 22:04:47

Im afraid morethan that once again your posts on this thread have made me cringe .
You seem very unaware that you come across as crass and your grasp of economics is risible .
The" two jobs per family is selfish", is something that you have recycled fom another thread.
As I asked previously - are you qualified to do my job ??

Op Its a difficult decision for you - longterm its probably better to stay in work if you have no partner to support you and your baby.
Could you work parttime ?
I wouldnt judge you whatever you choose (smile)

SirChenjin Fri 15-Mar-13 22:06:42

Constant - because when 2 people decide to make a baby they assume (or should assume) financial responsibility for that child as far as possible, which usually means that one or both work to support that child. If a decision is made for one parent to stay at home then it should be on the basis of whether or not your financial circumstances can support that decision.

It should not be the State's responsibility to foot the bill for a child that a couple have brought into the world when they have no discernible means of supporting it. It really, really isn't rocket science - and I'm also an old working mum who was a teenager in the late 80s. The difference is our definition of "need" I think - you don't "need" benefits if you actively chose to do something you know you can't afford.

anotheryearolder Fri 15-Mar-13 22:07:02

smile

Shagmundfreud Fri 15-Mar-13 22:15:09

"Because as a couple when you decide to have sex and create a child it's your joint responsibility to provide for the child rather than the state's responsibility".

Being a parent is part of the normal life cycle, not a hobby, and the birth and raising of the next generation is essential to the continued existence of the country. The state needs women to have babies and raise them into tax paying citizens, otherwise the future of our economy is pretty bleak (unless of course you're suggesting we just import ready made adults from abroad).

My personal view is that all parents who wish to receive a salary from the state to stay at home and raise their children (or child benefit for that matter) should attend obligatory classes in child psychology, early years education and parenting. If they don't attend and complete assignments, they lose their benefits. If you want to be paid by the state to parent you should agree to training and education in order to do an optimal 'job'.

anotheryearolder Fri 15-Mar-13 22:20:02

What about WOH parents shagmund ?
I dont think whether you SAH or WOH has any bearing on how good you are as a parent .

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 22:33:39

anotheryear

I can assure you my comment on 2 parents working has not been recycled from another thread. Its how I feel and I believe I'm entitled to an opinion.
As I don't know what you do, I'm not sure if I do qualify to do your job and don't see as that has any bearing as I am not seeking employment.
In addition, as I said previously my grasp of economics has not done my family any harm up until now, so I'm happy not to be a specialist in world economy grin.
You got anymore.
Oh coming across as crass, well I voiced an opinion or two.

reneaa2 Fri 15-Mar-13 22:34:06

Op I would recommend going to part time work.

I really think it would be good for you long term to stay in the workforce. Also I think that it would be good for your child, as a child of a single parent to have experiences with other children and carers as well.

Also those who are saying that 2 parent families should be given the opportunity to have a sth parent, they already have the choice!!

Those on low incomes will have their benefits topped up if one parent chooses to stay at home. And if the family earns to much then they will have to downsize/cutback to allow this to happen as of course the govt shouldn't not have to top up high earners income! So I don't understand the argument tbh

morethanpotatoprints Fri 15-Mar-13 22:47:28

reneaa

There shouldn't be a problem but some people don't believe that you should have income topped up if one parent chooses to sah.
They don't like it that you can survive on less income than they can, so they name call and belittle your decision to be a sahp.
That's it basically, a bit of envy

reneaa2 Fri 15-Mar-13 23:15:30

I don't understand the jealousy, everybody in our society is in reality able to choose, no ones hands are truely tied (although it may take some time to downsize etc) so it comes down to priorities.

I don't understand why you would make a choice and then be jealous of someone making the opposite voice to you?!

reneaa2 Fri 15-Mar-13 23:17:40

Choice not voice

anotheryearolder Fri 15-Mar-13 23:22:37

I think if the mother of a young baby has been effectively abandoned by her partner- who pays no child maintenance then this qualifies as being in genuine need .OP If you could maintain part time work it would pay off in the longterm - if you live with your parents can they help with child care?

morethan SAHP who have partners who cannot earn enough to provide their basic family needs are hardly in a position to be envied - they are at the mercy of this government. sad

Wasn't long ago the government wanted to pay sahp fifty pounds a week to sah as they wanted to promote family values.....

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 23:52:24

Which govt wanted to pay unwaged parents to stay at home.not recall this
Do elaborate

PigsCanSoar Fri 15-Mar-13 23:56:49

Wow I wasn't expecting this many replies. I'm at page 6 at the moment, so will do a reply now then read the rest otherwise I'm going to forget earlier points.

To the people suggesting childminding - as I am living with my mum, I don't think she'd appreciate me setting up a business in her home!! But otherwise I would look into this. I do look after a 4 and 2 year old about 6-8 hours a week, but this is very much as and when their mum needs a break rather than a formal set up.

As regards to leaving the job making it hard to find another one, I have thought about this, and work has kept me on their books and said to check with them about any vacancies before applying anywhere else, but childcare is a much easier sector to find work in than many others due to a high turnover with job changes, more children joining, and maternity leave.

I do think some people commenting about "living off benefits" don't actually understand how the benefits system works. You are always worse off on benefits than at work. At minimum wage (which childcare pays) you will receive the same amount of benefits while working under UC as you would not working, and bear in mind under a certain amount you don't pay tax on a wage so you aren't necessarily contributing either, just costing "the tax payer" more in childcare support.

PigsCanSoar Sat 16-Mar-13 00:04:52

Vivienne "Not everyone who works thinks it is their duty to support the choice of a single parent to remain at home with no means of fiancial support for themselves or their children."

As far as I'm concerned living with my mum and using my savings from working along with the benefits that I would be receiving whether working or not working isn't having "no means on financial support." If I was living in a council house paid for by the government, having never worked, with no savings and no intentions to work again, then I might see your point.
But even then, why is there no responsibility put on fathers to pay 50% of the childs cost after they loose interest and decide to carry on with their lives, rather than "15%" of whatever wage they declare, if CSA manages to get through whatever avoidance they try.

ClippedPhoenix Sat 16-Mar-13 00:16:04

I'm a single mum and when DS was little (I was 35 when i had him) left a rather demanding job up the City in which I would have had to be out of the house at 7.30am and not return until 7pm at the earliest, most of the time it was about 10.00pm.

For me, personally, being with DS in his infancy was far more important. I went to college one day a week to retrain in something to do with childcare where they had a creche and worked a couple of mornings a week in a playgroup.

I probably have the work ethic ingrained but I put my DS first.

Basically, no I wouldn't have done absolutely nothing.

PigsCanSoar Sat 16-Mar-13 00:19:08

Phosphene Fri 15-Mar-13 16:58:16
So what do you do when things don't work out with your mother and you can't support yourself financially without a job?

In that case noone should ever be a SAHM, what if it doesn't work out with their partners/husbands?
I think there is a far greater chance of a relationship breaking down, than my mum who has brought me up and known me my entire life suddenly deciding to chuck me and her grandson onto the streets...

ClippedPhoenix Sat 16-Mar-13 00:23:17

There's no reason though why you can't keep your hand in is there knowing full well that you are a single parent? Go and train for something if you don't have a skill for when your child is a bit older.

ClippedPhoenix Sat 16-Mar-13 00:30:43

I'd also advise any woman to keep something going, even if it is for a few hours or to learn a new skill just in case.

You never know what's round the corner.

And you OP, knowing full well that you are a single mum would be well advised to equip yourself.

PigsCanSoar Sat 16-Mar-13 00:31:07

Clipped, I'm qualified in childcare, and don't want to change careers so random training isn't really needed.

PigsCanSoar Sat 16-Mar-13 00:32:54