To wonder what’s the point when I’m left with this after bills?

Ignore that. I misread it.

Pretty sure teachers are not changing nappies.

They already have relaxed the ratios. Was 1:3 now it's 1:4. This means SEND kids are being excluded as they require too much care to be met in mainstream settings at this ratio but there isn't anywhere near enough specialist settings. That lack of early education has a knock on effect to their school years. I'm sure I'm the long term it will cost the tax payer more.

1 to 10 is not childcare there's no care going on it's throwing food at them saying no that hurts and changing nappies

Well quite. Which is why these threads are wrong. Take the poster who came to kick the boot in. Tells op to cut her cloth. 2 adults - only one working on a lower wage. 4 children. Two teens, two primary. One disabled child. So UC for a family of 6 plus disability, plus careers and everything else. The harsh truth is - that poster will be clearing the equivalent of a high salary after tax. Even if you take the disability elements out. No childcare, no commuting, minimal tax.

But op deserves a kicking for being in the top 5% of earners? It is obscene and it’s wrong.

Yep the £892 is the actual rule. If somebody earns more than that, they are in "light touch". It's called the administrative earnings threshold

My comment was relating to the Job Centre pushing people to take more work. I don't see a problem with that.

Is the £892 p/m an official government policy or a guideline for Job Centre staff, so that they concentrate their efforts on those that don't work at all? It seems bizarre that the government would have an official policy that they only want people to earn £892 and not more.

The system is clearly wrong if the OP is worse off than somebody claiming UC - especially when fringe benefits such as free prescriptions, cheap broadband, etc, are factored in.

The OP would benefit from lower taxes and, from a motivational point of view, cuts to UC entitlements, so that there is a clear, tangible benefit to working.

She currently pays 3x more in tax than she has left over after paying essential outgoings.

For part-time UC claimants to end up with the same take-home money as somebody on £70k is obscene.

There needs to be both a tangible benefit to working and an incentive for UC claimants to increase their hours and progress their careers.

Children also need to see a benefit to working. If they go without 'nice things' because their parents don't work, that's an important life lesson for their future. Maybe some pester power from the kids might encourage parents to go out and earn some extra money.

Which is blatantly not the case for high earning single parents of young children right now, as we can see with the OP.

And that's a problem.

And people will always make the choices that they legally have available to them which best benefits their families.

We can't - and shouldn't - expect otherwise.

The key is to design the tax and benefit system so that people doing what's right for the country also ends up being best for them.

It all depends on individual circumstances. I couldn't comfortably say that if someone on benefits is earning just over the £892 per month to avoid being forced into working more hours by the job centre then they're doing something wrong because a) that's the amount set by the government so they arent breaking any rules and b) they could have very good reasons that working more isn't feasible for them. Although I have no doubt that some people are indeed hovering just above that figure to avoid being left alone by the job centre because they don't want to work more hours.

It depends on your idea of fairness, I think.

If OP has sufficient skills that she can earn £14k by working one day a week, then shouldn't she benefit from that?

That's a lot after bills paid. Lots of free things to do in your area. I'm afraid I've only done free things. Remember nursery fees only temporarily so it be better soon. Can you save Abit per week into an account it can just be five pounds it all adds up. We take own drinks etc out. Never been into a coffee shop as expensive so could you save Abit that way

What’s the alternative quit work, no money and in an even harder situation? How would you pay your £900 mortgage? Bills? Food? You need to put things in to perspective for yourself. Yes it may be hard but £570 a month might be right for you but you just need to budget yourself each week. Nursery isn’t forever a few years (depending how old your DC is) then you will have a massive chunk extra each month you won’t be spending. You need to think long game, everyone wants it easy now and it makes it stressful for them but just think of the luxuries you’ll be able to afford further down the line

It's definitely worth:
1.keeping a position where you can work again once your DC is at school. Ideally keep part-time work. If not, think about how you'll get back to the same level afterwards (easier if you have qualifications, experience and it's a short break)
2.making sure you keep your own home

It's really OK to take your foot off the pedal for 5 years out of a career of 45 years.

But it is hard to get back into work if you've left. In some fields you would be OK - especially if you have a qualification which limits who can do the work, like Dr, nursing, solicitor. You might go back at a lower level initially, but can soon get it back if you want to.

I think the real risk is if you do a job where it's all about you continually proving yourself, where you're only ever as good as your last project. If you're in one of those, then you need to find a way to stay with the same employer - so that in 4 years you'll have the chance to prove yourself again.

But shouldn't people be expected to work, rather than just the bare minimum in an attempt to maximise benefits for the minimum effort?

They really shouldn't. Most of the job centre staff don't know the UC rules properly.

The point in work is the long term.

Your dc won't need childcare forever, when you're in the midst of the primary school years, sometimes you can't see the light at the end of the financial tunnel. But it's over all too quickly and suddenly your childcare costs are non existent. Your mortgage is reducing and you'll be paying, at the very least, into a work place pension.

So come 20+ years you'll be earning at least 70k, have paid off your mortgage, so have £900 extra, your dc have flown the nest or in education, and won't need childcare, so you'll have that £1200 back, and you'll also have a pension of sorts.

Honestly op hang in there. When my dc were young I had £100 a month left after bills, food and petrol. It was awful and bloody relentless as I was also a single parent. Fast forward I've a small mortgage left and a lovely house I can call mine. No childcare costs and a really good pension which I can use to retire early.

Well indeed. Under the Nordic model - higher earners are paying their fair share - everyone else needs to.

There are two issues. One the tinkering of the tax system. So removal of CHB and tax allowance. Nordic models keep these things as universal benefits.

Childcare - again a universal benefit. If more people are working - more tax - a well funded society.

The problem is here? Higher earners can’t possibly have anything for free because they earn too much. Greed - tax the rich.

It’s short sighted, envy driven politics. Not only is it harming the country -it’s immensely damaging to women.

If we want cheaper childcare, we need to relax the rules on the ratio of children to carer.

I attended a playschool as a 2 year old and I remember there being 20+ kids with only a couple of adults.

Everybody I know that attended the playschool looks back on it with fond memories.

The ratio of kids to adults kept it affordable for ordinary families on normal wages.

Just to say that 2 salaries bringing in 50k between them Will be very similar take home to one of 70k due to higher rate of tax and loss of child benefit. Of course you have a lot mroe mouths to feed. Totally get how exhausting it is to think about each penny despite both earning though

Although my DS is older.

They definitely expect you to work more than 18 hours, I went through it last year when I was made redundant.

The problem here really is the childcare. This example absolutely shows why childcare needs to be subsidised substantially more, and not means-tested.

It's such a high cost that it throws everything else - all attempts at fair redistribution - completely out of whack.

The nordic model isn't actually really relevant here - it isn't what's causing the problem, since the benefit top ups dwarf tax on the lower earner anyway. But I do think that extra taxation (including that needed to properly fund childcare) needs to come from everyone, not only top earners. If we're a society, then let's actually act like one.

100 this. Same advice I gave to the single mother who lost about £15k overnight for hitting 100k. Bang goes the personal allowance and funded hours. It was the only way for her to realistically survive.

It’s the tax and childcare system which does it. Forces so many women out of the workplace.

When people quote income here. They don’t account for tax and other penalties which significantly reduces income. Yet when its benefits…all the tax free top ups are left out which can lead to the equivalent of a decent salary after tax.

It's not so much begrudging money, it's that I find it mind-blowing that a single mother on £70k - an amount of money that most people would say puts you right outside the realms of any sympathy for not having enough money, as we've seen on this thread - ends up with the same amount of money as someone on minimum wage. Someone who may have 3 extra kids to look after, but also has significantly less childcare (all school age rather than nursery age).

I find that utterly insane.

If we really think that's the minimum amount the TA needs to live a basic OK life, then how is it that someone earning top 5% of income also only gets to keep the minimum amount of income to live a basic OK life.

That there's practically no difference in how much disposable income a single mother has regardless of whether she earns minimum wage or top 5%

That's just nowhere near fair, in terms of how we organise our society.

I've heard people say on another thread recently that it's a problem that such a tiny proportion of our society are net financial contributors, but this shows how it plays out.

I do think long-term we need to move to be closer to the nordic model, where everyone pays more tax but it's distributed more evenly across the income spectrum - so lower earners are actually paying in too. And subsidise childcare properly (not the unfunded free hours, which made nurseries close and costs actually rise for most parents).

In the meantime, OP: I think I'm changing my advice. Do the numbers for yourself, and if it makes sense for you then see whether you can drop right back to 1 or 2 days for a few years - I know that in some high-paying jobs that's impossible, but if you're good at your job and explain the situation they might be willing.

If you go down to 1 or 2 days a week, I think you'd only be about £45 per month worse off, maybe better off depending on your commuting costs.

And you'd get to enjoy time with your DC and be much less stressed! Entry to parks and things is also cheaper during the week. There's no educational need for nursery, which someone threw in (it's not bad, but it's certainly not better than time with an educated, engaged mother - and your DC will love being with you).

In a couple of years, once your DC is at school, up your hours again. Keeping your hand in with 1-2 days at work means you will be able to do that - that's the really critical part. And the earnings mean you're entitled to the UC and childcare support without having to apply for more jobs.

It's crazy, and it's terrible for the country that it works out this way (instead of paying 17k into the coffers, you'll be taking out about £20k). But that's what our tax system is.