AIBU or completely niave to think that you if you have children you will alway be better off working?

[tittytittyhanghang]

Will try to keep it short, but essentially dsis and her dp are unemployed with 2 children. She is in a private let, at a reasonable price (£450/month), which is all paid for her at the moment. Her and her dp are trying to find work (theres not much going tbh but good luck to them both anyway). She is worried basically that if one or both of them get jobs (most likely mw and part time) that they will be worse off. Am i niave/unreasonable to think that even taking into account of the higher private rent that she will not be financially worse off working as surely child/work credits and maybe some housing benefit will ensure she is better off?

If I have another baby we will be better off if I stay at home than if I work and we pay over £1,500 a month child care

Depends on if they would have to pay for childcare or they have relatives willing to do it for free. Childcare costs can easily make your outgoings more than your wages if you have more than one child.

Depends. If they currently get free school meals then they would probably lose them, thats £80 a month you need to find for 2 kids. Then breakfast / after school clubs would be more £££, my DS's after school club is £8 a session, although I do get some tax credits towards that.

I dont think there will be any childcare costs, either only one would work, or they would try to work around each other, and if there was the odd time the family and myself would no doubt help out. It is mainly the rent i think she is worried about.

If the children are school age then YANBU. but if they'd have to pay for childcare, then it's quite possible they would be worse off, yes.

Unfortunately, you are being naive.

In the short term - given the cost of childcare, you are being a bit naive. Unless yo have relatives who will do it unpaid, the cost is horrendous. When mine were in f/t nursery, it ate up 66% of my take-home pay. If I had 2 in f/t nursery now, it would eat up 98% - and I earn more now.

In the long term - you aren't being naive, it's an investment in yourself - having a continuous cv, keeping up with professional development, maintaining your skills - it's all worthwhile. But very, very hard to do these days. I'm grateful that my DCs are 9 and 11 and that I've had the breadline years.

yes, my nursery fee's were 50% higher than my salary for 2 dc's. (single mum who sadly had no choice to work and the tax credits paid for nursery).

Jeezo, i think she will need to make an appointment with a benefit advisor or something. Her and dp are reliant on benefits and make ends meet just, I certainly wouldn't be encourating her or him to take a job if it meant they were going to lose their home. I know how that sounds but I wouldn't want my sis to get into debt/rent arrears/kicked out just for the satisfaction of working!

Always better off working-unless you're paying for childcare ime.

A day or two childcare is manageable, 3 days a possibility.

But 5 days, full time care is ridiculously expensive.

I would be working to pay for childcare if I worked ft. I would literally be £40 something pound a MONTH better off.

So it depends if they have to pay for childcare.

Depends on what their potential salary would be, surely.

Had I returned to my part-time, minimum wage job after my maternity leave ended, then taking into account the cost of childcare and loss of child tax credits, we would have been worse off. It makes financial sense for me to be a sahm at the moment.

When i go back to work i will earn £40 a month after childcare i am only going back to keep my job for the future. My sister hasn't worked in 5 years because she would be left with the same disposable income working as not working so she doesn't want to leave her DD for no benefit that and she's work shy to be fair i really don't want to leave DS to work for nothing for 2 years but it makes sense long term.

ATM my sister always seems to have money for fags taxis and nights out but we can only afford 1 very cheap night out a month (walk to the pub 2/3 drinks each walk home) and i avoid even paying bus fair never mind taxis.

Myself and OH work and of course pay for everything.
If neither of us did we would get rent and council tax paid (£650 per month) free prescriptions and school meals (£100 mth) free bus for eldest DS (£82 mth) Even free fruit and veg.

Ok clearly im being niave, but i just thought the whole point of tax credits or whatever they will be was that as a family you would always be better off working than not working.

Well the whole point of the new "universal credit" is that you will always be better off working. we''ll see.

by the sounds of things if you had to pay childcare and were earning a basic wage then it's probably not worth it

but fast forward a few years and kids at school so hopefully minimal or no childcare you may be better of,but you will be at a massive disadvantage skills wise and generaly how you would fare in the job market (even mw jobs)

i talk from experience and am fnding that out now myself

You will technically always be better off working than not working. However, the technicality is that this relates to income. Once outgoings are factored in, the marginal rate of deductions is well over 100%.

When I had DD2, I worked out that as a nurse, earning £24k per year, so nowhere near minimum wage, the difference between working and not working was £1.43 per hour. In other words, I would be £53 per week better off by working.

However, that £53 in income would be weighed against:

Childcare (£300 per week)
Travel (£35 per week)
Professional Fees (£1.50 per week)
Union Membership (£3.75 per year)
Loss of NHS prescription exemption (£3.85 per week)

I am £78 a week better off working after rent, council tax and child care fees. I get free prescription dental ect ect with working 16 hours.

Sadly I know I would be worse off working. I'm a single mum so get rent and rates paid, uniform and free meals allowance and I don't have to pay for childcare. Prescriptions are free to everyone here anyway and I don't claim for the free fruit and veg as I don't need to. Obviously being a single mum I don't get a chance to ever go out so I seem to have more income than I did when with my ex and working.

Not to say I'm not dying to get back to employment and am looking at applying for work once dd hits the 6-9months mark. I think you can get certain benefits for returning to work and when I did work 16 hours part-time I got tax credits on top of my wages, although not sure how that will work with the changes to the benefit system being introduced.

They should have a personal adviser at the benefit office - maybe worth their while making an appointment with them.

i work part time and my wages with CTC and WTC are slightly higher than if I could work full time hours

Unless one of them is working full time and the other part time, on NMW they WILL be worse off. It isn't until you have 53 hours between you as a couple with two DC's that you will be better off financially working for NMW rather than on JSA.

It's only when you are earning ABOVE NMW that the amount of hours needed to be worked starts to drop for being better off in work for a two-parent family with two DC's.

System is shit. But so are wages.

Unfortunately pride doesn't pay bills, funnily enough creditors aren't that impressed with 'I can't pay gas/electric/CT etc but I'm really pround I have a job it means so much that I am working' tried it once They would be wise to get advice and make sure they factor in all expenses not incurred living on benefits. In a just world it would be easy to assume that working ALWAYS pays but reality is often different. Good luck to them though and I hope it works out for them.

Thanks boat, i agree 100% with the pride doesn't pay bills but even on mn you hear it over and over again thats its alledgedly better to work, even if your financially worse off, because you have a job. Id rather my siste and her dp didn't work in that case, as if what couthy has said is true, then they most likely be worse off!

On NMW, my Nursery fees were more than I could earn in a day 5 years ago. And that has only got worse. And back then, I was getting up to 80% of £300 a week of my childcare paid - now it's only 70% of £300 a week of my childcare.

So, 5 years ago, Nursery fees were £42 a day, TC's paid up to £240 a week towards your childcare. Daily wage was £40 on NMW.

Now, Nursery fees are £56 a day, TC's pay up to £210 a week towards your childcare. Daily wage is £46 on NMW.

Spot the difference?!

On a 3 day week then, your total childcare would have been £126. TC's would have paid £100 a week, leaving you to find the other £26 from your wages of £120. Leaving you with £92.

On a 3 day week now, your total childcare would be £168. TC's will pay £118, leaving you to find the other £50 a week from your wages of £138. Leaving you with £88.

And all your other living expenses have gone up exponentially in that same five-year period, yet you are trying to do it out of less money.

Don't let anyone tell you it's easier to be in a NMW job now than it was 5 years ago...

Well from what I've read David Cameron said he wants work to always pay. For those that are able to work. Which I think is sensible and fair. But don't know if that has yet been put into place in all cases.