To not want to work for £3.58 an hour?

[DontHaveAGoPlease]

Going to get absolutely flamed for this!

I'm a single mum to 1, in regards to UC, I get the equivalent to a monthly full time wage this includes CM.

If I go back to work for 22 hours a week, I will be effectively earning the above an hour.

Do I just suck it up or wait for my DS to get his 15 Hours free??

I am desperate to work but I'd hate to look back and regret outsourcing my childcare all for the above. Shall I just suck it up and go for it or suck it up and look after my ds??

I've already braced myself for the flaming!

I just worked out I get paid £2.77 after childcare. I still think it's worth me working. No benefits at all here.

Off topic but I think it would do a lot for this country if there were high quality low cost crèches/nurseries as there are in other European countries.

I just worked out I get paid £2.77 after childcare. I still think it's worth me working. No benefits at all here

Good for you having a partner who also works. Perhaps you could explain to OP how to go about that. Did you kidnap him and torture him until he agreed to be a decent man or was he one to begin with? Only OP's ex-partner clearly isn't a decent man. I

The nurseries and creches in other countries may be 'low cost' to the end user (my friend who lives in Spain says that people generally don't pay more than 150 euro a month for a full time nursery place) but for them to be high quality, they will be heavily subsidised by the tax payer, which or may not be a more efficient way of doing things than the UK system of paying full price and then lower income families claiming some of the cost back via tax credits, or have conditions/ratios that UK parents would find unacceptable.

Will you still receive the same amount of benefits if you worked 22 hours? So the £3.56 per hour you mentioned is effectively an extra £78 per week?

Or are you financially neutral?

That makes a difference I think.

So if you get say £250 per week now in benefit (I have no idea of the total number this is just an example) but would go up to £328 for working 3 days then you should work.

If you will still only get £250 but he is at Nursery for 3 days then maybe you should as he will get some interaction from Nursery and you will gain a life that could benefit you in the future

If less than £250 you would be daft.

Folks may not like it, but you are Entitled to them.

I despise that word ‘entitled’ benefits are not a lifestyle that you are entitled to, they are an emergency stop gap or a means to a comfortable life if you are disabled or sick.

Any working mum misses milestones and time with their children, I know I have over the years.

But it’s where the system is all wrong, it should never be allowed as a choice, I have to work to provide, if you choose to be and are lucky enough to be a sahm through a partners salary then that’s fantastic, but if not, I’m afraid I hold the view you have to work for it.

Barbara yes childcare is comparatively cheaper (here in Spain) because childcare workers aren't paid that much really and the places are subsidised. When my children went to the municipal nursery we paid €50 a month for my DS (730 am to 1.30 pm no food provided) and then with DD it was free because we had a very low income. It's means tested and then subsidised. Even those not entitled to discounts for low income only pay about €150 a month for those hours as the local government funds it.

But it’s where the system is all wrong, it should never be allowed as a choice, I have to work to provide, if you choose to be and are lucky enough to be a sahm through a partners salary then that’s fantastic, but if not, I’m afraid I hold the view you have to work for it

See, where I think the system is wrong is where it pushes women like OP into low paid jobs with no prospects or realistic chances of increasing their earnings over encouraging education and apprenticeships.

If OP takes this job now, she will forever be reliant on top ups to bring her wage up to a livable level. She will never be a net contributor. If she decides she can't hack the panic every time a dreaded brown envelope lands on her doormat and leaves work or reduces her hours to retrain and enhance her future earning potential, thus lowering the top-ups she will need to survive, she will be penalised for voluntarily giving up her job.

That makes no sense to me. Sure, not everyone wants to be a higher earner, some people are happy in low paid work and that's fine, society needs those people but OP is not one of those people. She'll take less from the system overall if she relies on her current benefits for longer and trains for a better career with a higher earning potential. Surely, it makes more sense to look at the bigger, long term picture?

Yes I should clarify that clearly I meant low cost at point of use.

Will you still receive the same amount of benefits if you worked 22 hours? So the £3.56 per hour you mentioned is effectively an extra £78 per week?

It’s highly unlikely on UC that it would be extra How it works.

She’s also likely to fall into the not publicised or talked about childcare element issue.

Lone parent using at least 22 hours a week childcare is highly likely to not have her childcare covered at all unless she can get the childcare for far less than she’s earning. The minute her cc costs hit anyway near her after tax salary they refuse to pay even a penny towards them because they say it’s not a reasonable cost. And yep they are allowed.
The we cover 85% of up to a set amount is a load of rot

It also isn't a "lifestyle choice" it is in fact a stop gap because you're only allowed on income support until your children are school aged. Younger than that if on universal credit.
What is the actual difference to you if OP works part time and receives more "tax payer" money or stays at home whilst studying etc and receives less benefits whilst doing so? It honestly sounds like you want her to work a dead end minimum wage job out of spite, totally illogical.

No one is pushing OP to work though Frequency??

I do agree with you however on the training subject. When I say benefits should be a stop gap until life improves, I would include training within this stop gap. While the benefits are being claimed, an effort is being made to go on to better things. I wouldn’t begrudge my taxes to someone who within a year or so of claiming, had gone on to achieve a qualification and a step up career wise and support themselves.

It’s the whole idea that just because you are a single parent, you are any more entitled than the rest of us to stay home with your child for every milestone. If you are training with employment at the end, benefits will just temporary as they should be and not a way of life.

But I suppose you are right that it may or may not be cheaper overall. I suppose it depends what incentives you want to drive.

If OP takes this job now, she will forever be reliant on top ups to bring her wage up to a livable level
The wage might be livable for someone who didn't have to pay childcare. The cost of childcare blocks people (mostly women) from lower paid work because their salary won't exceed the cost of childcare with enough left over to make working worthwhile. As such the issue mostly affects a certain class of women whose job prospects are at the lower end of the salary scale. You don't see doctors and solicitors deciding not to go back to work because it isn't worthwhile. As such it is very much a class issue.

I also agree with the other point that was raised about there being insufficient support available for those on low incomes to improve their prospects. Not just parents but everyone. There's no support for additional qualifications (unless you do a degree and get a student loan). There's no support to breach the gap between benefits and making a profit from a new business. And there's no support for work experience (as a youngster I was offered 1 day per week work experience and couldn't accept because my benefits wouldn't cover the bus fare and there was no help available). If anything, being a parent actually gives you a breathing space to upskill that wouldn't be available if you didn't have a baby.

OP, do you need or want the extra £300 a month? If yes, then go back to work. If no, then don't.

That's all there is to it. Very simply.

@bookmum08 many of the middle class people with terrible opinions on here are probably paying for those who have low paid or non existent jobs to have their choice to stay home. That's why they have a valid opinion.

username I paid tax too in my low paid retail job. So I can have an opinion too. As I said earlier it turns out I would of been entilted to some benefits. I didn't know that then because as far as I thought I had a full time 'proper' job. I didn't even think that I would of been able to claim something. So I have saved the 'tax payer' a bit over the years but I am costing the nhs a little bit because of my mental health that stems from my working experience somewhat.

See, where I think the system is wrong is where it pushes women like OP into low paid jobs with no prospects or realistic chances of increasing their earnings over encouraging education and apprenticeships

@Frequency the low paid jobs still exist so if "women like OP" shouldn't be pushed in to them, who should? Somebody's got to do them, and until the government puts something in place to stop subsidising employers to underpay staff, should we just keep importing foreigners to do the low paid work so OP can stay home, or should we make the disabled do the low paid jobs, or children perhaps?

Until 4 months ago, I was a tax payer.

I'm not some long term benefit claimer who doesn't want to work.

@bookmum08 hope you're getting the help you need. Life is tough for lots of people in different ways, and your assumption that middle class people on this thread have terrible opinions was really rather divisive. You can be working class and think people should work if able to too; that opinion is not the sole prerogative of the middle class.

I've just turned down a job where I would be earning £20 for an 8 hour shift - then spending that money on paying for childcare. I don't care what people say about me, there's no way I'm missing out on dds childhood when I'm the only parent she has. I'm retraining next year and will happily pay taxes and join the rat race again after that.

"She'll take less from the system overall if she relies on her current benefits for longer and trains for a better career with a higher earning potential."

I see your point, but why should OP get free training and not anybody else. I can't leave my job to go on benefits as there's no way I can survive on a single person's benefits so I have to stay in my non-career job.
Better and cheaper training opportunities, absolutely, but why only for mothers on benefits?

@hehitmeanditfeltlikeakiss unless you're not in the UK you will not be earning £20 for an 8 hour shift. Assuming you are over 25, you'll be earning around £60. The NI/tax you pay will go in to the pot to pay towards the NHS, pensions, education, welfare etc. I really can't see how you would earn £60 and pay £40 in deductions though...

Apologies username for making reference to 'middle class'. I haven't been on mumsnet for long - but sometimes it does seem like a very odd middle class alternative universe to the world I know. I am enjoying being on mumsnet though!!!

I think some are ignoring the fact I was childless and working full time, trying to better my prospects whilst in work but not actually able to do much because I needed to earn. I didn't get free training, free courses either.

Did I sit there moaning because my friends had 4 kids whilst on benefits?? No I didn't.