To give up work and become a SAHM?

[YouAreMySunshine9]

This is more of a 'what would you do' but I suppose I am posting here for trafficking Have name changed as the figures I give will out me.

First DC is due soonish and I'm thinking, after maternity leave, that I should give up my job because financially, it's not worth it and I want to SAH with DC as it'll have more benefits to it?

Myself and DH are both low earners. I earn just under £20K, he earns £21K.

We aren't entitled to anything with us both working, but, somehow top ups would make us better off if one of us didn't work?

I'm quite a poorly person, I have an autoimmunity disease so I have a feeling working just to pay childcare (if it even ends up covering that?) and missing out in DC's first for it will send me into despair.

My concern is... The whole career break thing. I would go back to work when DC is a few/3 years old but I'm not sure how it'd impact my job prospects. I work as a Medical Secretary in the NHS.

I would say work part time, but I'm not sure we'd get any help there either and it's a lot of huge effort just to fork out to pay for childcare.

What would you do?

I'm really worried

Good point, prosecco

"That what benefits are for"

I very much doubt that's why they were introduced.

When I was a child, my dad worked 8-4 while my mum watched us and at 5 she went to work until 10. This continued for 8 years for 6 days a week.

Nowadays some people are not prepared to make these sacrifices.

If you are too ill to work then that is a different matter and what benefits are for.

If you are too ill to work then that is a different matter and what benefits are for

I agree that if you're too ill to work, benefits are there to help. But, that cannot be the only thing they're there for.

Looking after a child under 5 whilst one partner works is also a very smooth application to make - No questions about health even come into it

They were introduced to keep children out of poverty and out of the workhouse, amongst other things.

Child/working tax credit was introduced by a labour government to support families on lower incomes and, with at least one usually working.

I'm sure they don't but am not sure why this is the case. It certainly wasn't in the 70's because I am sure my mum could have done without working every night after a full day with a child and my dad could have done without the childcare after a day at work but that's how it had to be.

What's stopping the OP doing this? A more easy life claiming benefits?

And I find it disappointing, that it today's society, there are in-work benefits. Work should pay enough to live off, without needing these.

Exactly. The individual is not to blame

We should be looking at why employers can't pay people enough to support a family and pay their rent, we should look at why fat cats at the top are making thousands out of property in that light.

It seems unkind to call a person lazy because they feel they're unable to commit to a long commute to a full time job when they have a child who can neither walk or talk yet. This is not a 16 year old they have here. It's a baby. And it will be hard work at gome with it and not back to back Bargain Hunt or whatever.

Shame on society for applying that pressure

So who holds the gun to your head and forces you to work extra @sunshine? I highly doubt anyone works more than they have to because they feel a need to subsidise the rest of the UK. That's laughable, frankly.

If claiming a bit of extra tc's whilst having a full time working partner means you 'live off benefits, I guess all those earning just under 50/100k and claiming cb are benefit spongers these days too then [confused

OP

I get what you are saying, I am on PIP/ESA and husband earns similar.

It depends really on your outgoings and if you are claiming the above for your illness. If you have a mortgage you need to think of that also. Housing benefit can help with rent I believe.

I suggest you look at either entitled to or turn to us calculators, and also tax credits has a calculator too. the other thing you need to be aware of is universal credit is replacing tax credits and it is there for new claims in some areas. So you need to think of that as well.

"It seems unkind to call a person lazy because they feel they're unable to commit to a long commute to a full time job when they have a child who can neither walk or talk yet."

Yet plenty of people do this. And the OP is talking about using the taxes those working people to support her child because she can't be bothered to carry on with her job.

"So who holds the gun to your head and forces you to work extra @sunshine?"

Again, this is not what was said. The point, which has been explained clearly already, is that the more people who claim benefits that they don't need because they prefer not to work, the higher taxes need to be. And the higher taxes are the more hours those who work have to work just to take home the same net pay. They therefore get to spend less time with their own children because they are being forced to pay for benefits for people who do not need them.

I don't think anybody resents paying benefits to people who find themselves in financial difficulty due to an unforeseen circumstance (relationship breakup, death of a partner, sudden redundancy, ill health etc). But this is entirely different to being so irresponsible as to have children when you have no means or intention to provide for and expect everyone else to pay for you as well as supporting their own families. If you can't even see what's wrong with that, something has gone very wrong with your moral compass.

We are only talking three years here, though, not a lifetime. It is not wrong to see your own child through its pre school years. You can't lump them in the same pot as 'benefit scroungers' What is the point in outsourcing your own child when the government is willing to support you to look after him yourself, which is actually cheaper anyway . Things like childcare vouchers come from tax relief, there is the childcare element of tax credits too? In Scandinavian countries, attitudes are very different, with considerably longer maternity leave than here and people are happier and healthier as a result. These countries aren't on their knees, are they?

There's nothing wrong with my moral compass. My moral compass just believes it's perfectly acceptable for a parent to take a few years out of work to raise their kids whilst they are very small. Op has paid her taxes until now and intends to resume work again in a few years. I think being a sahm in the early years is hugely undervalued in today's society. If the government didn't think it was ok to have a working parent and a non-working parent doing childcare within a household, op wouldn't be entitled to the benefits she can receive. Presumably this is why on the newly rolling out UC, the lead childcarer is not expected to be actively available for work until the child is 3/4, in line with their caring responsibilities or actively seeking work until 5 when the child will be in full time education.

'Outsourcing your child' ffs.
You're not abandoning your child.
You are outsourcing some aspects of the day to day tasks involved in looking after your child. You don't outsource the child.
You are still the parents, you continue to be the primary influence.

This emotive breast beating is pathetic. At least try to stick to facts

The main point from this thread is that it will cost OP more to work than stay at home.

What is the point in outsourcing your own child when the government is willing to support you to look after him yourself

No, it is other taxpayers, including working parents, who are forced to pay for it.

"Outsourcing your child" You should be ashamed of that comment.**

Why should she be ashamed of her comment yet the benefit bashers shouldn't be ashamed of theirs? (Scroungers?)

Parents not the state should be keeping their children out of poverty.

It is lazy to not work when you can and claim benefits, millions of people manage to parent and work. Children don't suddenly render their parents incapable of work. Which is a good job as the OP expects other parents to go out to work to fund her life.

It's highly unlikely to remain at three years, there will be another excuse when the OP decides they can't find term time part time hours to avoid paying childcare not to mention the odds of the relationship of a barely turned adult lasting the eighteen years of child rearing.

Well unlucky for you because i think op has made up her mind and good for her. You'll just have to sit and fume up there in your ivory tower.

Talking about outsourcing your child is vile.

Anyway, crack on OP- you're nuts to be relying on benefits; good luck getting back into the job market when you decide it suits you.

I don't understand the logic. The person being paid to look after op's child would not lazy, but she would be for looking after her own because she's not getting an income?

These parents earn the same so I don't know why the mother is being lumbered with career sacrifice. She is not very well so would presumably find being at work in London as a medical secretary at lot easier than struggling at home minding a baby whereas her husband could more easily do the home thing surely?

I suspect many of us men and women ful time working tax payers who do not get any tax credits probably feel a bit resentful that people are going part time off the back of our full time working efforts and that was not how the system was originally set up for.

If you do this you'll find it hard to get another job in the NHS as a medical secretary, they're sought after positions.

I don't think you should do it either, I agree with the moral argument that benefits shouldn't be a lifestyle choice. But also you can't predict the future, the birth of a child in when a lot of relationships break down, your husband could lose his job and be on benefits as well.

In my opinion it's too big a risk. The NHS is better than Alot of employers for partime or flexible working so when you child is 1 I'd investigate all that first.

No it wasn't, Lucysky, but the resentment should be placed with the government for taking away a provision useful to so many that's now available to so few .

It would be out sourcing childcare surely. If op is full time with a commute that's 10 hours or so of childcare a day, 5 days a week not including holidays so that's a fair amount. About a third of a child's week, and a larger chunk of their awake time. Children don't just stop needing to be raised during those hours, they need comfort and care and guidance and stimulation as much as any other time. That's fine ofcourse, it takes a village and childcare is part of our modern way of sourcing that village, but if it is of value for a childminder or nursery to provide that care it's of value for a parent to do so.

Op it does sound like you are at risk of being vulnerable with so little work history. If I were you I would consider several options including retraining. I would not ruin my health by working away from my child for that amount of time if I could avoid it. Long term your child needs a mother with secure finances but more than that they need a mother whose health is stable enough to provide and care for them long term.