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.

Nice try op at YET ANOTHER benefit bashing thread under a username I certainly don't recognise

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

"I am assuming she is in receipt of benefits." Aye right!

"She lives in a council house" and? Not everyone in social housing is unemployed! I'm in a block of 12 social housing flats every other flat the people work, I'm not working because I'm not well enough to. But I have been employed and in social housing.

"She’s single and doesn’t work" how do you KNOW?

"She also claims free childcare" I'm out of touch with current provisions but as far as I know it's still the case that you don't get SUBSIDISED childcare unless you're in work or full time education?

"The 15 hours is universal and not means tested. So everyone working or not is entitled to it." If everyone gets it I don't see the problem

"She has told me she does work" then why the fuck did u write

"She’s single and doesn’t work"???

NO WAY she gets 30 hours free childcare unless she is working or has a disability! And no you can't tell by looking or the fact she can walk the dog!

She told me she’s doesn’t work. Perhaps It’s just 15 hours per child (she as 2 at nursery).

Fucks sake you keep changing the crucial info you clearly have NO IDEA about this woman's circumstances

"It can’t be that difficult or they’d be looking for a job" oh ffs! How do you know they aren't?! All well and good saying "get a job" but even the govts own figures show there are far more people looking for work (last I checked think it was 40% more) than there are jobs available - and that's all jobs! Not just full time permanent! It's zero hours and what used to be called kids jobs (evenings and weekends no more than 10 hours a week) this govt also classifies "employed" as ONE hour per FORTNIGHT paid work - that means all teen babysitters are "Employed" 🤔

"I do not get the 15 free childcare hours for SAHMs on benefits when working mums aren’t entitled. This should be for working mums only." Its for the benefit of the children! The aim is to "break the cycle" of poverty, poor attainment etc

Yes being in work should make you better off but the fact it doesn't ISN'T because benefits are so generous (if u think they are then I suggest u actually try it!) but because wages are so poor! On another thread quite recently iirc I worked out that a single mum with one child living in my (very cheap compared to rest of uk) area would need to earn £16 ph working a 40 hour week to have enough JUST to live on (no luxuries, no holidays, no flash gadgets etc) and not need to claim benefits.

Wages are too low and living costs too high!

I am a single parent and most of my income comes from benefits, and it’s a fairly decent amount as one of my DC is disabled so I get DLA and carer’s allowance. I also live in a HA house and I get all my rent paid, but even if I didn’t my rent isn’t much. I work PT running my own business, but don’t earn much, usually around £130 PW.

From the outside, it looks like I have a lovely life to a lot of people. We have everything we need, I’ve been on four holidays abroad in the last year (all very cheap, I am the queen of finding bargain holidays). I have a horse (a very old, cheap one who I keep for free at a relative’s house). I do most of my work in the evenings once the DC are in bed, so my days are usually free. Living the dream, I hear you say.

BUT...the reason I got a HA house was because I was in a very extreme domestic abuse situation and we had to be rehoused by the police for our safety. This left me with PTSD which after years of being too scared to sleep, buggered up my nervous system and now I also have ME. I manage on my own with 2 children - 1 disabled, 1 awaiting diagnosis. I am qualified to degree level but because it’s been so long since I had a ‘proper’ job, any attempts I’ve made to get one have been unsuccessful. And my health is so up and down, I know that if I did manage to get a full time job with prospects, at some point in the not too distant future I would have another ME crash and be bedridden for 2 months. I have also only just got my eldest child back to school (part time at the moment) after 18 months of not going as I have had to get her an EHCP and get her into a special school as she couldn’t cope with mainstream.

I would love a proper career and everything that goes with it, and I’m aware that time is ticking away, and the gap of anything meaningful on my CV is past the point of ridiculous. I don’t own a house and I don’t have a pension. I panic about these things every day. But if you saw me at the school gates in my jodhpurs, you wouldn’t know any of that or the reasons behind it. The grass isn’t necessarily greener.

I think you have to remember that on paper she has no income. If you need a credit card, a new car loan or something in an emergency situation you can do that. Whereas effectively she has nothing and with the way things are going will struggle to justify not working long term.

Also you may not need to use your house is pay for care so it is likely your child will get some inheritance. Being a home owner is something to be very proud of.

The free hours nursery thing is annoying, but it’s there for the children. Uneducated people on benefits are less likely to socialise their children at playgroups etc. and are assumed to have less resources when it comes to supporting their child through the early years. So whilst it’s unfair it’s better for the kids from less fortunate backgrounds, personally if it means they don’t miss out I’m happy to have my taxes spend on this- it’s an investment in society.

You have choices in life, she doesn’t

Agree it's rubbish and the system is a mess and whilst it is the governments fault for providing this option, some people are at fault for taking the piss.

As stated above, I guess the only answer is to look at the long game - once childcare costs stop and mortgage payments reduce/stop you will be in a better position.

Also self-respect, self-worth and contributing to society. It's good for you but it's also good for your children.

But yes, I know how hard it is, and it's hard not to feel like a mug for going out and working whilst other people seem to have a whole lifestyle funded for them.

"I don't get to keep my home if I decide to become unemployed."

Right, and she's presumably in the same situation where she can't buy a home so ??

Why not get pissed off at the people at the top who can buy 10 homes instead?

I am pretty sure a life on benefits is not great. I live in a council house I am a single parent and in a fortunate position that I am only entitled to child benefit so I live off my salary.

My neighbour is in her 40's and a single parent to a 3 year old on benefits. She can't afford to go on holiday, she has to budget and she struggles.

I waited 10 years for this house and when I moved in 3 months ago I was fortunate enough to be able to redecorate top to bottom, buy carpers outright and blinds etc. My neighbour has lived in her house 2 years and has had to gradually do her house.

I have never been on benefits myself but it certainly doesn't look easy to me.

I agree actually OP - when they are preschool age the sahm on benefits v working and paying the fees seems desperately unfair. As children get older the tables do turn though and the working parents generally start to have better quality of life etc so that hard graft will eventually pay off .

I think we need more funded childcare so there's a real choice as many do get stuck being the sahm simply because the cost of childcare takes them out of the job market - but long term it's a big a great place to be

Its UC now which is very different to the old system.
Its specifically made so being in work pays and there is a tapered system where the more you earn, the less benefits you get and is month specific to stop overpayments.
Alot of people who are working are better off. Alot of single Mums have lost 100s of pound a month.
UC pay up to 85% of childcare (up to a certain amount), and they expect you to prove you are working or looking for work for16 hours a week when your youngest child is 3. Theres is now a 2 child limit on the child element.
Most the things people complain about on these threads have already been addressed and changed by the government and should be live and in all areas within the next few years.

I probably look "comfortable" to the outside world, I work PT and get tax credits. We do have holidays and all the other things. But that's only because my ex pays £500pm maintenance for DS which makes a massive difference. Plenty of women in my situation don't get maintenance.

It's all a bit of a mess. I agree a lot of work just isn't worth the cost of childcare. I'm currently a SAHM (though we don't qualify for UC) and likely will be at least until we qualify for the 30 hours. Once at school I'll probably be limited to term time only work or being self employed for pocket money due to the school holidays.

I think unless you have a good or high paying job you just get stuck between the crap options like going on benefits and being at the mercy of government policies or working flat out, barely seeing your kids and the stress of "juggling" the holidays and sick days.

The problem is that those who work hard for little reward are being encouraged to see those on benefits as the enemy.

They’re not the reason your wages are low, your hours are long and your costs are high.

That is the fault of those who are in charge.

Making other people poorer isn’t going to make you richer. We’ve had the biggest cuts to welfare over the last 9-10 years and are you any better off?

No, because a shit load of the country’s wealth is being sucked up to those at the very top. It certainly isn’t trickling down.

@Acidburn the 15 hours free at pre school is for the benefit of the child not the parent. It's not childcare it's for child development and welfare.

At the preschool stage there were times I felt like you for sure. After nursery and mortgsge I didn't really have much at all. I went without meals to give my children a normal life after I left abusive ex.

But a few years down the line I realise it was worth it - I have had several pay rises, the house has substantial equity and I have carved out a niche at work that means I can work my hours around the children's school day/bedtime so I have zero childcare costs.

I wouldn't want to be dependent on UC in an era where the conservative party is swinging so far to the right.

Op you should be eligible for tax free childcare unless you earn over 100k.

Waxonwaxoff0
You know what I do find interesting? That a lot of people on here believe that being a SAHP is harder than going out to work. But seemingly only if you have a partner to support you financially. If you're a single SAHP on benefits then you're lazy. Not sure how that works, especially when a lot of those single parents don't have any help at all from the other parent.

I think wax has hit the nail on the head.

OP, what a poor attempt at benefits bashing. If you envy her life so much, you can quit your job, sell your house and go to claim benefits.

I don't think it's benefit bashing. It is v hard to stay motivated when it feels like you don't get much at all to show for it during those pre school yesrs. I don't know what the solution is though.

I'm a single mother in a council flat with a 9 month old baby. I get £98 a week including child benefit to pay everything. Rent, bills, council tax, everything for my daughter, food etc. No help from her father or my family. I lost my job while pregnant and my ex left me, this wasn't the plan.

I don't think it's benefit bashing

Of course it is. The OP is effectively asking why is someone on benefits having a better life than me

As opposed to wondering why housing costs are so high (historic and ongoing government policy), why are wages so low (historic and ongoing government policy), why are childcare costs so high (historic and ongoing government policy).

It’s easier to moan about the people you see, when actually it’s those you can’t who are the problem here.

@Iggly

Totally agree, there's only one bunch of freeloading, lazy scroungers that I resent and that's parliament. They claim expenses for anything going, pictures of them asleep while supposed to be working, they're all as bad as each other. It's a self serving, self regulating bunch of crooks.

My best friend is a single SAHP to her two children. She too lives in a council house and she worries about money every single day.
She is NOT comfortably off with benefits and maintenance from a father who earns an average wage.
She can't wait until she can go back to work but at the moment it isn't viable.
I wouldn't swap places.

• Uneducated people on benefits are less likely to socialise their children at playgroups etc. and are assumed to have less resources when it comes to supporting their child through the early years. So whilst it’s unfair it’s better for the kids from less fortunate backgrounds, personally if it means they don’t miss out I’m happy to have my taxes spend on this- it’s an investment in society.

We ‘earned too much’ to qualify for free childcare. We are ‘uneducated’ too, but employed
We earned over the cut off for any free childcare so actually ended up worse off because after we’d paid our bills we didn’t have anything left to afford to pay for even a few hours of nursery for our DC.
So we, even though we were working, didn’t have the resources to socialise our DC.

Wages need to be better, benefits don’t need to be cut.

@Iggly yes, exactly this!

My MIL's DH left her for another women when their boys were young.

He paid nothing in maintenance she she had no help. She borrowed £2000 for a deposit on a house and got a mortgage, then the interest rates went sky high. She had to work three jobs and 80 hours a week to meet all the bills.

When she asked for help from her council, they told her she'd be much better off not working. She thought it was a better example to keep working.

But she never saw her boys, and the relationship between the brothers was weak. They were left to their own devices and as their mum worked even on Christmas day, they'd have to find a friend whose parent was happy feed them.

Both the boys grew up to be extremely hard working and successful and they respect their mum hugely, and can now reflect on her sacrifices. Through work she gained a solid set of friends that she still sees. She's only just retired, but lives quite a busy and independent life. She has a house worth hundreds of thousands, (the same house) a very good pension and a rich social life. I don't think she'd have those things if she'd been a SAHM.

She's an amazing MIL and I love her dearly (I married her youngest) and while I can see lots of disadvantages in that her son's aren't very close and she missed out on seeing them grown up, there are many, many advantages too.

I partially agree but I think the problem above anything else is childcare. We're a couple with 4 kids, although 3 love with us 50%-40% of the time so to the government at least 2 of them don't count. We bought a house as it was substantially cheaper than renting (50%). In a year's time we'll have childcare to pay, with two close to MW wage jobs CS and all other loving costs to pay we get live day to day.

When I said I'd like to work from home to save on childcare I got bashed for that because it was considered terrible work ethic. But at £18k , £4.5 ph for childcare is a very high price to pay.