Do you judge single mums who claim benefits to be able to stay home with DC?

[username00000]

Specifically DC before school age.

I do, I work full time and run a business to pay for 2 children that I'd love to be at home with but can't afford to be

Bluestitch
stop it now, you are twisting my threads and my posts who were a reply to specific post, not a random rant coming out of nowhere.

I can't be bothered to argue with you, just don't make me say things I didn't, or take a sentence out of the context it was written ok? Even if it strangely makes you feel better. thank you

myDH

Sounds a tad jealous You can do it too. Cut down your family income to less than 26k (well in our case), then you too won't have to work.
But bashing those with kids with sn is diabolical. (Not my situation, though)

No I read your posts very clearly. You are trying to backtrack and pretend you weren't being nasty and judgemental. I don't blame you, I'd be ashamed too. But people can read what you wrote.

Those who very blatantly do it as a lifestyle choice and actively want to avoid getting a job, yes I do. I have to work, so begrudge those who play the system because they cannot be arsed to get a job and pay for their own children.

Those who are re-training, have been left in the lurch by a partner, made redundant and are job seeking, are disabled, or cannot find a job that actually makes it worth coming off benefits for, no I don't judge them in the same way at all.

Bluestitch

The original post was I can't work because my child is only in childcare for 15 hours a week.

I stand by my reply.

but bonus point for trying to start a fight

No. I don't think so. I mean, even from just a really cynical pov, financially, a taxpayer probably pays as much for a single mum on a low income in top up benefits and childcare entitlement for her to work as they do for her to sah. May as well leave that job open for someone else.

@rickjames
Anyone earning less than 30k gross is a net taker from the system. Not saying these jobs don’t have social and moral value but anyone earning less than 30k isn’t even paying for their own pension (or healthcare or education) never mind anyone else’s.

I earn less than 30k and rely on top up benefits, but I do have qualifications and a career of sorts so will hopefully not fall into the benefits dependent trap that some single mums are at risk of - the benefits stop when the children are 18. Good luck finding a job if you’ve been sat at home for 18 years, at best you’ll end in a min wage zero hours job. I’m a single mum and I’m my case, I haven’t pushed for promotions and advancement as I didn’t want the overtime/extra pressure. Kids are 10 and 15 now so I am going to push myself a bit more as I’d like to clear my mortgage and pay more into my pension. But I’m in this position because other than Mat leave, I have always worked.

Cut down your family income to less than 26k (well in our case), then you too won't have to work.

It's a very sad state of affair if that's actually true!

'If you don't want to work, clearly you don't. Just don't come and pretend you have no choice'.

'You are making excuses, I get that. I am glad you have time to relax on MN in your very busy life.'

Just a couple of your posts to somebody who had explained they are the full time carer to a child with complex special needs. Like I said people can read.

No. I don't think so. I mean, even from just a really cynical pov, financially, a taxpayer probably pays as much for a single mum on a low income in top up benefits and childcare entitlement for her to work as they do for her to sah. May as well leave that job open for someone else.

But that's really short term thinking. You might pay as much in childcare, but when her kids are older, the single parent will still have been maintaining their CV, skills etc, not to mention potentially paying into a pension. Very different from someone who has 2 or more kids and is therefore home for 5+ years and has no recent experience and likely lacking in confidence to get back to work too.

I don't judge the sahm as it can be the simplest decision or best financially but think that benefits should be designed to encourage single parents to stay in work, even if it's very part time.

Honestly? Yes. Would I ever say anything to anyone? Of course not. Nor would I change the system as I'm sure there are genuine reasons for many and they should be protected. But I don't believe being a SAHM should be a choice funded by the government, it's a lifestyle choice.

^ this.

Bluestitch
I can't work because my child is only 15 hours in childcare.

Again I stand by my posts.

HTH

Oh, yes, Blue, don't forget the comment about how one can become a seamstress or bookkeeper just like that and the dosh will come rolling in.

But that would be her choice and I wouldn't judge her over it. Either this single mum or another person will be in this theoretical role and all of the subsequent roles that it might lead to. All those jobs will be taxed at the same rate.

So, it might be in her best interest to take the job but from the I'm a very important taxpayer standpoint, it makes no difference if the single mum is in this job or someone else.

JessieTalamasca
Ah, I understand, the idea of training for something to get a qualification is what bothers you! Sorry, some of us had to do it.

yes, completely random examples without knowing anything of a poster, if I had her CV I am sure I could help better but this being an anonymous forum, we'll have to stay vague won't we?

Before school age no. I would judge however if they deliberately got pregnant thinking the state would provide though (am aware this is v v rare nowadays).

Yeah it does help that you stand by your posts, everybody can see that even after tonsil explained how much you upset her and how difficult her life is you saw no need to reflect on what you'd said and would prefer to continue being an arsehole.

I will say though that being a full time carer for a disabled child can be exhausting and isolating. Parents in that situation deserve better than being trolled for kicks by goady fuckers like you.

Yes. Why should my taxes go towards supporting those who make lifestyle choices which depend on others supporting them?

Getting pregnant is a choice. It's not something which happens to you.

So yes, I do judge.

Others will disagree, as is their right. But I don't want my money being spent on others for no good reason.

And deciding to sponge off the state because you chose to have a child isn't, in my opinion, a good reason for you to take my money.

Bluestitch
You are very bored and looking for a fight, are you!

as much fun as your rude and unpleasant out of context posts are, my working day is nearly over so I leave you to rant and find someone else to abuse because I have a train to catch.

I know it's easy to call someone goady when you don't agree, but try to find something better. Have a nice day

No I don't judge but I do think that this is not in the best interests for you or your family in the long term. Which I suppose is a judgement but I guess its human to disagree with some life choices, whilst still understanding why someone makes those choices.

I was raised by a single mum who initially worked in a low paying job but in our home, providing for your family and self worth were linked.

For my mother the idea that she would stay home and in her words 'indulge myself and my children rather than provide and set an example' was just not an option.

We never felt neglected as we would almost have been embarrassed to survive on welfare, working was just what we did in our family. In retrospect living off benefits would probably have been far easier on Mum but definitely led to worse long term outcomes for us (all Uni educated, strivers etc)

As a mother of children she was great, ironically enough she struggled to let go as we grew up !

Ridiculous. We are humans. We're going to reproduce. It's not a lifestyle choice. It's biology. It's inevitable, and we do need MORE HUMANS.

Are you 100% behind free childcare Outoutout? (so that the cost of childcare is not borne more by the mother?)

Ok @myDHhasahobbyanditsnotcycling let's talk about what I do in those 15 hours shall we?

3 are taken up by a volunteering role for the local food bank, which I can do from home.
At least 3 are spent in the car picking up/dropping off DS.

Nine left?

3-4 hours cleaning the kitchen and bathroom throughly - because I can't do it when DS is at home.

At least 3 hours tidying/sorting clothes/hoovering - again, things I cannot do with DS is around.

Ok well I admit I may spend two of those hours drinking cups of tea and staring at the wall.

I have around another hour to sit wasting my time on Mumsnet. Ok I hold up my hands to that! Hello!

My son receives the highest rate DLA, which means he needs 24/7 care. He's awake in the night. He needs constant supervision. He cannot use the toilet. Or speak in sentences. Or dress himself. They don't just dole that out high rate DLA without a LOT of supporting evidence.

You ARE ignorant. And rude. And you've been called out on it.

@lovethelakes - i didn't know that. Buuut... It still can't be right to stop having children?

I went back to work when DS was 4. I was (am) in a European country with a European DH so all my GB qualifications and experience were worth zero really. I did some retraining in between child juggling, had some lucky breaks and now have an own business.
I look back though and DH was away constantly on work trips and stuff. With no grandparents or close friends (we moved a lot) I don't know how a single mum would have done it. I had financial support but nothing at all in terms of childcare until he was older.

@rompecabezas
No we don’t need more children. AI will take care of the low and non skilled roles and we’re going to end up with a lot of people scrapping over benefits / at the bottom end of the employment market.