to wonder what MN's view is on this?

[ciabattav0nbreadstickz]

I know a couple, not friends but I know of them.

Both of them worked until recently, one full time, one part time.

They have had a baby. The mum has, for all intents and purposes, given up work. The dad now works p/t because they get more in benefits if he only works p/t. So they get more or the same income as they did before having the baby when he was working f/t and she was working p/t than they do now with only one of them working p/t.

Aibu to be curious as to how the population of MN view this?

I know that the general consensus seems to be that if you have kids you shouldn't claim any more benefits that you actually need to survive and that you should pay for your kids yourself if you can.

But equally so I've seen similar threads where a couple have been praised for being savvy enough about the benefits system to work out that they have had a better income by working less.

So which would in be in this situation?

Fwiw I don't necessarily agree with it but that is less a comment on the couple themselves and more of an issue with the way the benefits system works that means it is more financially viable for many families in many situations to do this.

I have nothing against benefits and have claimed them myself so no judgement against the couple!

Sounds like you resent working so hard? You don't 'have' to do anything there are choices.

Actually I have no idea why you started this thread anymore and what the actual question is? you're not benefit bashing but you're judging their poor choice? I don't get it, why does it bother you?

If they're low earners and it works out best for them and the child so what?

I am slightly uncomfortable with the implication that those who work f/t don't value time with their families as much by comparison though

I think you have misunderstood me. I said that I can only guess that this couple value time with their kids over a more secure future. This does not mean that they value their kids more than people who work full time. On the contrary, it could be that they are bringing their kids up in an environment of financial worry and debt, where people who work full time do so to try and spare their families these stresses (or it could not. We don't know!) I just meant that objectively they have made a choice. It is different to perhaps your choice, and is not a choice I would make, but I think both are valid choices.

As for ccs, living standards etc. Maybe true for some people, but this is getting a bit far into judgeypants territory for me. Given you can't control how people spend or borrow (benefits or no) and we don't know about this couple, it seems a bit irrelevant to your original qu.

Working from a veil of ignorance and imagining I could end up in either their position or my own, I don't think this use of benefits is something that you can or should legislate against. Where would you draw the line? There was a thread on here recently saying it wasn't worth earning >50k because of the loss of ?child tax credits. Aren't they the same as these people? What about the small business owners who pay themselves just under the tax threshold and reinvest the rest of their profits? SAHMs who don't work because they wouldn't be financially better off after childcare costs and loss of benefits?

My view is..

Meh