To ask if people judge single mums for not working?

[PigsCanSoar]

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.

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

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

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

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.

Totally agree with dahlen

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.

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

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.

Me too NC78

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.

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

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..

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 :)

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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.