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

Sunshine some people will never afford children by themselves. Do poor people have a right to a family?

I wouldn't really describe having a family as a 'lifestyle' It makes it sound so banal like having your nails done or something . People have been doing it for approx 3 million years so a bit more than that

Work it ,listen to what karma says OP

Work , save and prepare for the fact that benefits will dry up and you need a pension

And your kids really truly won't remember this time

I didn't see anybody say that the OP should not have children? People are saying that it is wrong for her to choose not to support her child financially and expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

State pensions are tied to Child Benefit. As for private pensions, yes, fair point but op was not planning on stopping forever

People on MN moan all the time about men behaving like that (refusing to pay maintenance, for example) but somehow when a woman does it, it's ok.

Eh? She's not refusing to pay maintenance? Just debating whether it's worth going back to work to pay all of her income plus some of her dh's on nursery and travel with a health condition that could be aggravated by the stress of full time work and caring for a baby

But people are telling her to work because they do even though their situation is different .

And I have worked since dd was 11 months but do not begrudge those who haven't. My choice accrding to my own circumstances

Refusing to pay maintenance and refusing to work to support to your own child are comparable because in both cases it is usually with the expectation/ intention that the state (i.e. other taxpayers) will pick up your bill.

I know what it's like to have DC, a chronic health condition and work. It's exhausting. But it's not right to just decide you can't be bothered because you can get the state to pay you the same amount of money or more for staying at home. That is a completely different situation to doctors telling you that you must stop work because you are too sick to continue, in which case state support absolitely should be provided.

I would not make any rash decisions until your maternity leave is due to run out. Then decide.

FWIW i quit work due to prohibitive childcare costs but it is not easy to get back into work. I am highly experienced in what I do as a profession (or did) but the industry has changed even in the two years I have been a SAHM and suitable jobs would involve a major commute. In addition, I would be in competition with others who do not have a two year break in their career.

Therefore, I have started to look for other types of work such as part-time unskilled work and I think I am, for want of a better phrase, over-qualified, and get rejected. Coupled with this, a lot of part-time, less skilled work involves zero hours contracts and a ridiculous amount of flexibility. Again, this precludes me most of the time due to childcare issues.

Finally, being a SAHM is damn hard work!

Keep your job for now at least and enjoy maternity leave. Can you not request flexible working for when you return?

If after having returned to work to try to keep the job and do the commute, it is really proving to cause financial hardship then consider again being a SAHM and/or look for other options available more locally.

You've got a while yet to consider the options if you haven't yet gone on maternity leave

"What happened to the Mumsnet mantra of family money is family money?"

Well spotted littlepotof rosie.

I spotted someone saying that no NI contributions means OP will not get a full pension.

Yet older MNers and the odd WASPI ive seen posting on here get told that their NI that THEY were paying way back when was paying for the pensions back THEN.

It cant be both.

This thread is showing up the middle class privilege of mumsnet and its not pleasant. There's no shame in claiming benefits, as more than one person has said they couldn't because they're too proud. Not everyone has a high flying career. Some people work their whole lives in a low paid job but according to some they shouldn't have children until they earn more. Some people dont have the ability, education or opportunity to earn more. society will always need people in typically low earning jobs. The purpose of tax credits is to support low earning families just like the op's.

Alittle, I disagree. I bet a lot of the women here saying to stay in her work and stay off benefits are on the breadline each month. Those women know more than anyone how important it is to keep even a low paid job after children. Firstly for family earning power and secondly for independence in case something happens to their partner. It's wise advice. I think if the only way to have kids involves benefits then people are justified in going ahead in this day and age where people are being forced into cycles of poverty through no fault of their own. But the OP is talking about dropping a job she already has, I don't think she realises how pivotal to her whole future this decision could be.

The NI contributions point was corrected Helena. OP will be able to claim contributions as a CB recipient whilst her child is under a certain age. Not that it matters much as the bloody thing won't exist by the time millennials get there, or will exist but it'll be 42p a year for the over 90s. However I presume the person making them was under the impression that OP would be getting no credits at all if she's not working, which if it were true would not be a value judgement. It would be a useful point if it were correct information: the reason it's not a relevant consideration is because it's wrong.

OP I'd be interested to hear about your housing situation. I think that's something you might need to factor into your plans but, additionally, as I've demonstrated, if you were living with family or were an owner occupier (ie no HB) you'd potentially be costing the state more by working full time than you'd get in child tax credits on a 22k salary and a SAHP.

@Batoutahell i get that. I'm referring to the posters that simply cannot fathom that its not that easy to get a better paid job just like that if you don't have the necessary skills and the statement that you shouldn't have a child you can't afford (even though that would rule out a lot of low earning families and that's the reason tax credits exist) and the suggestion that claiming benefits is shameful. Thats what im referring to. In op's situation i would be trying as hard as possible to get a job closer to home but its difficult now she is pregnant because what employer will take her?

I think it's interesting reading the replies. Until 2008 a single parent could stay at home on income support til their youngest was 12yo. Now many people think a mum of a baby/toddler should be back working asap when there is another adult in the household already working full time anyway!

Unless you love your job and have the ability to move up the career ladder within it leaving work for a few years isn't going to hurt too much. Don't forget the younger you are the more likely it is you'll be made to work into your 70's or beyond with retirement ages rising. A few years to raise a family isn't going to have a massive impact on your working life.

I'd be a sahm for a while then look for work again when the youngest gets nursery funding at 3.

I think the main issue is the cost of childcare in the UK; I heard a news report earlier in the week saying that it's the most expensive in the world.

Other countries subsidise or provide as part of the state: Australia, Scandinavia.

In most of the UK, you need to earn over 20K to break even on childcare.

Are we saying that people who earn less shouldn't have children?

I know so many people who have given up work after the 2nd child, as they will run at a loss. How many family incomes nowadays can afford to take that hit, especially with high housing costs?

That's the real scandal here - the cost of childcare. And that only those earning over 35/40K can afford to have 2 children.

It is shameful to claim benefits when a person is able to work but doesn't want too. They should be a last resort in desperate times, not seen as a cashpoint because peoplethkngs they can't afford i.e. children and to not work.

If her DH left and refused to pay child support she would be moaning away I'm sure.

I agree with most of your post moreprosecco, but not necessarily the 35-40k point. The high costs of childcare intersect with the high costs of housing to make a perfect storm, but because housing costs aren't batshit everywhere, the sort of salary that makes childcare unaffordable in the south east doesn't necessarily put it out of reach elsewhere. Of course, it's harder to earn that salary outside London.

This is definitely something we as a society need to look at though. A long term view, rather than a short term one because, as I've demonstrated several times, it's absolutely possible to cost the state more in top up benefits by working than you do by SAHing. Our analysis needs to reflect this, but also the fact that it may be a wise investment to pay more in childcare subsidy to people like OP for a few years than they put into the pot by working.

If her DH left and refused to pay child support she would be moaning away I'm sure.

Not comparable because if he'd left the family home and refused to pay her child support, the child would be with her. Ie she'd be providing care, he'd be providing neither care nor income.

Thenightmarecometh I'm in Scotland & it's £50-60 a day round here for a CM or nursery (little cost difference between the two). So it's not just SE England.

I wonder if all these posters saying that you shouldn't rely on state benefits have received child benefit, the 15hrs "free" care etc?

That's a lot. CMs here in Manchester are usually less. But what I meant is, the south east is the place where high housing and childcare costs intersect. So for example if you can get a decent family home for 150k or for £700 a month rent, you'll have more left over for high childcare.

That said, I realise Aberdeen and Edinburgh have some very expensive housing, comparable to SE England in places, so perhaps should have included areas of Scotland in my analogy. I can see that Edinburgh would have more in common with London than Liverpool in this respect.

SunshineAndSunflowers engage brain. A deadbeat dad who doesn't pay maintenance isn't contributing anything, neither is he looking after his child equally. If he was, maintenance wouldn't be due anyway. As such it is hardly comparable to a Sahm, who is forgoing financial contribution by making a contribution of a different sort, in childcare which would otherwise cost.

So the two scenarios are entirely different, and I'm not sure why you are conflating them.

I know exactly why she's conflating them...