To ask if SAHM on benefits also have it hard

[Tryinghardereveryday]

I am not generalising, making assumptions or trying to offend.

This morning a was taking LO to nursery,
Which costs me a fortune. I am considered to have a good wage and I work FT. I own my own home.

A woman was walking her dog with her children. She lives in a council house, Her home is identical to mine.She’s single and doesn’t work. I am assuming she is in receipt of benefits.

I thought what’s the point of working so hard... I get limited time with DD whilst she gets to see her children full time. If I don’t work my home gets repossessed. I pay council tax, childcare fees and receive no financial help with anything.

Am I better off than those who have financial help? Does working FT provide me with a better lifestyle? This woman is not struggling. She also claims free childcare. A part from my annual holiday away (which I am grateful for) I don’t think I have anything more than she does and I don’t think that’s completely worth it.
The good thing about working is the contribution to my pension. But poorer older people also get additional assistance. Very few of us will get to pass inheritance to our children as our equity (anything above £23000) will possibly be used to pay for our care in old age.

I’m just feeling down and thinking what’s the point in working so hard. This is not an attack on this woman. It’s at the government, we live in a country where sometimes working does not pay for middle rate earners and we are constantly told it does.

I'll give you an example...

Our net household income after tax/NI/commuting costs is £1950 (we both work FT btw). We own our own home so UC is heavily reduced. Our bills including childcare are £2200-£2300. We get around £250 on UC (childcare element).

So we have no money left for birthdays, Christmas, emergencies...

If my DH didn't work, we'd have around the same £300 on UC and our bills would be reduced to £1500 give or take. Our income would be of £1450.

The system is beyond broken. As a PP said free childcare entitlement should start earlier for working parents.

We're seriously starting to consider for my DH to either become a SAHP or to go part time. It shouldn't be this way at all, but so it goes.

I agree you’re probably no better off now, but when you’re no longer paying for childcare, have no gap in your CV (so higher earning potential) and - eventually - have paid off the house so aren’t paying mortgage or council rent...you will be better off, surely?

@PooWillyBumBum I agree that's the case for ME. But not for my DH who barely finished secondary school as has only been on retail/manual work. His career prospects will always be limited. Him going PT would still pay for the mortgage. So the question is, what's best for him to look after our DS? Or for our DS to go to nursery FT? The same type of job will be available for him after our DS is entitled to his 30hrs of free childcare. It's only temporary anyways.

Sorry more aimed at OP. Agree in your case I perhaps would leave someone at home.

It does really come down to how much your earning potential is going to improve with a couple of extra years working which obviously varies depending on the person and the job.

Its a myth that work is a route out of poverty for everyone.

What a revolting premise of a thread Op, it would seem that critical thinking isn't a requirement of your job...

There are some really depressing comments on here from people that have no thought for the fact that they are one payday away from needing benefits themselves.

There are also some extremely sad stories on here and if the hard of thinking can't see why their set in stone ideas are wrong then there's very little hope for society.

Some people will never be able to find employment for various reasons and as a civilised society we should be supporting those people. If they spend their money on booze and fags then it's not our business to question this, we have no idea of their upbringing and life.

I don't think the issue here is people who actually needs those benefits / free childcare. I think the problem is the people who ABUSE the system by claiming what they don't need anymore. There are quite a few threads here demonstrating this issue - I personally remember the one where the author was wondering whether or not she should move out of a council house, as she can afford to privately rent, but doesn't want to loose a secured home. This example purely shows that the system is broken, because council houses should be given to those who CANNOT afford to privately rent, and this applies to all the benefits/ welfare. When I mentioned earlier that I know someone who doesn't work but claims 15 hours free childcare a week - I am happy it's for the benefit of the child, and not this woman. But my problem is that I know for a fact that her DP has been successfully cheating the system - he is being paid under the table by his employer, while in reality he makes enough money so his wife can afford not to work at all. And this has been going on for years now, and no one checks or suspects anything. And on top of that she gets bloody 15 hours a week! How on Earth is this normal?

@Acidburn that's not how social Housing works, if it were full of unemployed people only then it wouldn't have the social mix needed to make communities work.

Where we live you can earn £60,000 and register. There's no shortage of housing here. You'd be allocated an 80% of full market rent property. They don't want housing full of unemployed people, they like a mix of incomes.

ANOTHER benefit bashing thread. If you think it's THAT easy op, divorce your dp, sell your house, give up work and live off the state ...ffs.
You clearly envy single mums so become one

Here @Acidburn Educate yourself for the love of Christ.

www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-rise-and-fall-of-council-housing-56139n

The policy shift reflected a political division between Conservative politicians who believed council housing should properly be reserved for the neediest (the market would provide for the rest) and those on the left who saw it as serving ‘general needs’

The concomitant collapse – or destruction – of the traditional manufacturing economy and loss of jobs that went with it was, in this context, just a bonus.

All that made for, in one word, residualisation: the increasing confinement of council housing (and by this time social housing) to the poorest of our citizens and, disproportionately, those classified as ‘vulnerable’ in some way. (That estates continued, in fact, to house a cross-section, albeit a narrower one, of our community goes without saying.)

In the 1980s, residualisation may have been a partly unintended consequence of housing policies pursued with varying ideological intent.

Since 2010, and more so since the return of single-party Conservative government in 2015, we’ve seen something further: welfarisation – ‘a conception of social housing as a very small, highly residualised sector catering only for the very poorest, and those with additional social “vulnerabilities”, on a short-term “ambulance” basis

We're seriously starting to consider for my DH to either become a SAHP or to go part time. It shouldn't be this way at all, but so it goes

We’ve recently made that choice.

Dh’s salary was £1400 a month. Childcare was £600 a month. We were constant rushed and stressed and have been like passing ships for years.

He was made redundant 6 months ago and we applied for UC not expecting that we’d get anything (my income is £1700 a month).

He gets £720 a month UC and when you factor in the £600 childcare and commuting costs we now don’t have to pay we’re actually better off with him as a SAHD...plus life is so much nicer with him at home. It feels like we can actually live rather than rush now.

I never thought we’d be the ‘type’ of couple to choose benefits rather than both work full time but this is a far better choice for our family at present 🤷🏻‍♀️

Not a chance I would move out of my secure tenancy unless I was buying, certainly not to be at the mercy of the private rental market.

We also had to be both working to qualify for ours.

Off topic but seeing as there are a lot of people clued up on this kind of thing I wonder if anyone can help me understand....

Why is it that people who don't work at all and are in receipt of certain benefits can get 15 hours funded childcare, and people who work and meet certain criteria can get 15 hours funded childcare, but my family falls somewhere in between therefore our kids can't have a funded childcare place?

My DH earns £40k and I am a SAHP.

We were just about breaking even with me working and paying for child care so decided until full time school that it made more sense this way.

It seems unfair that not all children are being offered the same opportunity. I just don't understand the system!

You often find the Tory tactic of pitting SH tenant against homeless person on this thread. All part of the residulisation you see.

Even if the tenant did move from social housing into private rental and the homeless person got the SH flat he would also automatically move from the position of " saint " to "sinner" in middle class MN eyes and within 18 months or so they would be saying the same thing about him as they did the previous tenant. RESIDULISATION. A lot of people here seem to have happily gone along with the re branding of housing estates as giant hostels!

THEN you see the same posters advising others not to buy a house near a SH estate because its a bad area, problems , drugs etc.

WELL WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN Why are so many on here so completely incapable of critical thinking.

@checkeredredshorts 2 year funding is only for families who's household income is below £16k. For the 30hrs for 3 years old both of you need to.be working, otherwise you only get 15hrs.

Ah ok

But why do families who don't work at all get it aswell as those who work and earn under the threshold?

@checkeredredshorts it's been explained a few times. Children from low income families are at a socioeconomic disadvantage. The funding is not for the benefit of the parents, it's to help disadvantaged children.

Ah I see.

It's not as black and white as that in my experience. I wouldn't say all kids of parents out of work are immediately at a socioeconomic disadvantage.

It's a bit shit that all preschoolers aren't offered the same opportunities for early years education.

My son will start school with children that will have had a couple of years of funded nursery experiences which he hasn't had.

Just wondered anyway as I didn't understand the thought process behind who it was offered to and why.

checkered you're right. When I was made redundant as a single parent I still had my parents to fallback on, my mc upbringing. But I didn't have money to send my youngest to nursery which I needed to job hunt, with a £40k income I'd dare say you might be able to afford nursery.

Yep... I have a friend who has DC same age as mine. She works P/T, gets maintenance from her EX and receives benefits (and everything else that goes with that). Her monthly combined income is more than mine & DH's wages put together. I don't know what to say OP but I understand your frustration.
It's not always the case though. Many people struggle.

You have no idea of our bills mortgage and other outgoings.
We can't afford it.
We just about manage to keep our heads above water and stick to a tight budget.
Which is why it frustrates me that not all kids get this same opportunity.

I was a single parent on benefits of 3 for many years, through no fault of my own. It was fucking soul destroying. Life became infinitely better as soon as my youngest started school and I could get a job. Still hard in many ways, granted, but nothing compared to how we had lived prior to that. I’ll never understand why some people think life on benefits is a cake walk. I’m self employed now and work 4 days a week, I have 3 teens, a toddler and my OH is self employed too. We work dam hard, but nothing will ever compare to the difficulties of being a single parent on benefits.

If free nursery hours had been a thing when my eldest kids were small I would have absolutely taken them, to look for work and for a fucking break. I hate these threads that assume benefits are ‘free money’, those on benefits have made a ‘lifestyle choice’ that everyone else foots the bill for and that sah parenting is so fucking easy!

I wasn’t going to send my 2 year old to nursery. We are entitled to the 15 free hours but seeing all the jealousy and resentment on here has made me decide to send her!

@PumpkinP

No jealousy or resentment from me. I just think all preschoolers should have the same opportunity. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Great critical thinking skills Pumpkinp