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.

Of you think ya so great, perhaps try it
You might love the lifestyle change
Try it for a while
And see what you think
If you don’t enjoy it you can always return to work later

It also depends so much on what you do. I am not a single parent so appreciate that this isn’t entirely relevant to me, but I’m working part-time. My kids are at school and CM and we pay out about £800 for childcare so after deductions I net £900 ish.

However when youngest goes to school I can go back full time so suddenly, I’ll be taking home more like £2700.

That won’t happen if you’ve been on benefits for years - you won’t walk into a well-paid job immediately.

Working is an investment in your future.

I appreciate this is differential you work for a low wage.

@Rainbowhairdontcare

There are two big problems in my opinion - the cost of housing and childcare. If you live in an area with cheap housing then it’s likely that job/career opportunities aren’t great. We should decentralise the economy away from London but that is another thread.

My point still stands though - the benefits are there to house and feed the kids, we don’t live in Victorian times when children had to beg for food in the streets. The benefits system provides the basics for children. I know of two single mums working 16 hours a week in minimum wage jobs and they aren’t doing anything to upskill themselves. It’s a situation that doesn’t seem to be discussed - they will be living in poverty when the children are old enough not to be deemed dependents.

You're never going to get anywhere on here with this topic op. There's too many of the type of people you're talking about on here.

Everyone can say 'oh yes they have it so easy living on benefits, you try it'. Sorry but you've clearly not met the ones that the rest of us have met. They do like their life, they like not working and getting everything paid for. They like scrounging. Now, thankfully, they are I think in the minority. But they do exist whatever you want to say. It sounds like this woman is one of them. I've met several of them over the years. I've actually seen people refuse a job because it was 'too far away'. It was one bus ride, or a 20 minute walk. The buses are regular. They had no excuse, they were lazy.

I feel sorry for the ones that are obviously uncomfortable being on benefits and would rather be working but can't afford it or they would be worse off. That shouldn't happen. They should be better off working, they shouldn't have to feel stuck. But sadly it's not working that way currently.

Look at it this way too op. You are paying into a pension, you have your own house. She has neither. And that will kick her in the ass at some point. People who make these decisions right now will not feel it, but they will as they get older. It's a shame they won't listen, but thats their choice.

I do get where your coming from.
I'm sure that life isn't all rosy for this lady, but when you have little ones and working full time seeing anyone seeming to have it a little bit easier does make you think why am I bothering!
After 30 plus years of paying a mortgage we are now free of it but it will only probably go towards care home fees in the future and it's a money pit in terms of all the things that have needed doing to it . my own parents and my dhs parents were council tenants and got everything done in the home for nothing, but it also means we will never inherit anything either so nobody envy's us at all! ( no trust funds for us! )
It's a difficult one as your not feeling any benefits to working at the moment, but one day you will!
I'm sure that being on any kind of benefit isn't easy though and certainly not a kings ransom either! It's also been made more difficult for people as well.

I see it this way... I work to be better off £180 a month (because of childcare and commuting costs). If I didn't think that one day I'll move from here and my career (and salary) will continue the way it was (or that hopefully my employer will pay me a fair salary given my skills) then I'd rather stay at home writing or doing other things I love will also taking care of my DS

I think what gets forgotten is for many their wages aren't going to go up. Not all jobs come with career progression or wage rises for everyone.

@SnuggyBuggy I don't think it's forgotten perse but perhaps accepted that that is largely a personal decision. Not for everyone, some people will have obstacles to progression or not want to, but generally there are options if you're willing to act up, get additional experience, gain qualifications/training or change jobs. People will be gaining transferable skills and building experience and knowledge in NMW jobs that could see them progress, perhaps not internally but externally too. I'm sure many of us started on NMW at some point or not far from it.

pimbee I believe that only comes with certain types of jobs. My DH has worked in retail for many years, to be a manager he'd have to kiss some butt (not everyone's cup of tea) at 40, he's still on £10ph.

I personally think that the DWP needs to make it clearer - the benefits are to provide for the children and will stop when those children grow up. Offer help with training courses etc.

There have been a couple of threads recently started by women who were shocked as their benefits had just suddenly stopped due to their child no longer being classed as a child for benefit purposes.

@Rainbowhairdontcare

You don’t have to answer this but why do you live in an area where you can’t do the highly paid job you trained for?

@Rainbowhairdontcare there are plenty of transferable skills in retail. He doesn't have to stay where is, internal promotion can be difficult, I've never managed it because the opportunities haven't appeared, so I change jobs every 2-3 years to increase skills and salary. I'd still be on NMW now if I stayed in the same role I was in 10 years ago, I know to this day there hasn't been an opening the level above.

Mackerz the DWP do make it clear though. This is why I don't believe all these people that go on about people living indefinitely on benefits with school age children, because it does not work like that. You are MADE to look for jobs when your youngest is in full time education.

As I said, I was on benefits before DS started school. I had to attend the jobcentre every 6 months to talk about my future plans. The MINUTE DS started school I received a letter saying I was being switched over to JSA and must now look for a job. EVERYONE gets transferred to JSA when their youngest turns 5 and is expected to attend training courses and job search. DWP come down hard.

And that was under the old income support system. The new Universal Credit is even stricter, it is now 3 years old not 5.

@waxonwaxoff0

Work just means 16 hours a week in a minimum wage job though - my point is that if you spend years working in an unskilled job on minimum wage (not earning enough to live off so heavily subsidised by benefits) what do you do when the children grow up and the benefits stop? There is little / no help available to single adults with no dependents.

It's also the numbers, I mean take everyone on the shop floor, they can't all become managers, someone has to do the minimum wage work.

Also not all progression is created equal. I used to be in NHS admin, thought I'd want to progress as most people do but the pay isn't great when you consider how much stress the managers are under (constantly of sick with stress). You'd have be be really thick skinned and maybe driven to reach the top of the food chain I reckon. Its not for everyone.

@pimbee he actually changed jobs about 3 years ago, that's how he ended up with £10ph, plus more family friendly hours, it's something that at least IME you have to take into consideration too especially when you have no family around to help.

@Mackerz shared custody. It was frowned upon by absolutely everyone for me to eitherI've to London on my own and leave my DD with her DF or take her away from him so I could work in London. It is depressing to say the least to earn £18k when I should be on at the very least £50k. I'm now with a company that at least is my same field. I'm about to go on ML so can't demand a pay rise, but even here the highest you can aim for is £35k. Rents are crippling too. If I wasn't very career oriented I would definitely rather stay at home or write my PhD (although I'm aware that won't bring me any extra income)

I took the tc OP. I'm probably one of those you'd have seen with their kids ft, mine are older now though.
For us it wasn't worth me working as one wage would have gone on childcare. It seemed silly to pay someone else to mind them when i could do it myself and it be free.

Mackerz that was the old system. Under UC you now have to work 25 hours when your DC is primary age and 35 when they turn 13 (unless there are good reasons why you can't).

It's common sense that benefits stop when your DC grow up. That's why there's no point envying people in that situation.

I rely on benefits and am a registered carer to my 4 year old as well as a student. Getting stuck in the rut of home everyday is miserable. Fearing a calculation error and thus a HUGE overpayment is miserable. I know what I would rather be doing.

@waxoneaxoff0

I’m not benefits bashing by the way. I don’t want to see children begging on the street and I think that every child should have the right to a safe home and food etc.

There are still people on the old system though. I think women have been conned a bit into thinking that they can live a decent life on 16 hours a week and not everyone thinks ahead to what will happen when the kids grow up.

I have an acquaintance who is in this situation. She has a 3 bed housing association house, 2 children aged 12 and 10. She works 16 hours a week in a supermarket. She has a degree that she got in 2006 but has never worked in a “career” just unskilled jobs. She said she’s starting to get worried now as she’s been applying to jobs related to her degree but is being rejected due to her work history over the last 13 years. Her income will drop by about 50 per cent in a few years time with the ending of the benefits and the bedroom tax will kick in. I think there will be many women in the same situation.

I doubt very much that it's very easy to be a single mother on benefits, no. You have your career and are in control of your future, whereas I would imagine that it's pretty scary relying on government assistance in the current climate.

Yellowpolkadot

I’ve not really looked into the benefits system but as a teacher with 6 years experience working 4 days a week I earn circa 28k, then pay off student loan, NI etc. We send DC to nursery for the time I’m in work costing us nearly £1000 a month. It often seems like me working is a pointless exercise.

If you earn 28k before deductions and pay 12k on childcare then obviously you could earn less than 16k in a post that you don't need childcare for (if you could tag team with your partner for example) then you could have a less stressful job and the same money. However when your children are a little older you might struggle to get straight back into your better paid job if you wanted to.

I just wanted to make the point that we should try not to judge others and make assumptions without actually knowing the facts. If you knock my door and I answer in a dressing gown at x o clock you won't know I worked all night last night (waking night carer) The same if I open the door and my living room is an explosion of toys and mess and I look shocking you won't know I worked all night then minded my toddler all day and am desperate for my husband to get home from work so I can go to bed. I walk to work just before 10 at night and walk home just after seven in the morning so even some of my neighbours might not know I work.

• I'm working doing washing/ironing/cleaning/veg prep and client care for a ten bed unit not snoozing in a chair!

"Why not get pissed off at the people at the top who can buy 10 homes instead?" And who are probably tax dodging too!

But no, never see that thread started on mn!

Trying and failing to find that meme on the rich fooling the JAM into thinking its poor people's fault they're not better off! Would be great if someone could find that.

PrincessPain - you do know the actual reality for many if not most with UC is it's been a bloody nightmare and doesn't work well for workers due to many issues with the system? It can't cope with a calendar pay system for a start! People don't know how much they'll be getting from month to month due to issues like it can't cope if people's pay varies because they work shifts, or because income varies seasonally, or when 2 pay days fall in the same month or they are off sick or on annual leave and that makes pay different...it's been a disaster!

It's actually putting people OFF going into work for those reasons because there's no certainty and when you are on a tight budget I can tell you, you NEED certainty of at lest knowing you have enough coming in to pay basic bills!

"The problem is that those who work hard for little reward are being encouraged to see those on benefits as the enemy." Exactly! It's the meme summarising this I'm struggling to find!

"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" absolutely!!

"As opposed to wondering why housing costs are so high (historic and ongoing government policy)" look at how many MPs are landlords/property developers AND look at how those mps vote on housing matters!

"why are wages so low (historic and ongoing government policy)" again look at how many MPs are employers (outside of their mp role, execs of private companies) AND look at how they vote on wages and employment rights

"why are childcare costs so high (historic and ongoing government policy)." Look at how many MPs are men! Childcare is still very much seen as a "woman's problem"

"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." There are a few without their snouts in the trough but they're DEFINITELY in the minority!

Personally (aware I say these a lot so apologies if you've read this before) I would:

1 Make anyone wanting to be an MP live in basic social housing on the min benefits amount and having to try and find a job WITHOUT using privileged education/old boys/old school tie network for at least 6 months.

2 I'd abolish MPs expenses with the exception of REASONABLE travel expenses for those that live outwith a normal commutable distance to Westminster to attend for ministerial business

£76k salary is MORE than enough to live on and pay their bills - like EVERYONE else!

Make reasonable funds for staffing etc properly organised out of public money but not administered/decided by the MP employing those staff. - not sure I'm being very clear on that one can someone help explain?

Accommodation in London for visiting MPs need be nothing more than a designated building/complex which remains the property of the COUNTRY and NOT the MPs individually. Studio type accommodation is perfectly fine, with conference rooms and offices for informal meetings and kitchens and dining rooms for "entertaining" visiting dignitaries.

None of this 2nd homes bollocks with MPs getting a HOUSE on us, FURNISHING it at great expense to us and then selling it at a profit which they pocket! ESPECIALLY when they live in sodding commuter belt and don't even NEED additional accommodation!

Don't even get me started on House of Lords!

Anyone see the reports of the Lords peer who claims travel expenses despite WALKING to work of over £5000?!

3 I'd ban MPs from having ANY kind of vested interest in business outside of being an MP, and I'd include in that being a landlord! It's a conflict of interests and unfairly affects how they vote. Unfortunately we couldn't bar them sidestepping such a rule by making their wife the landlord or from profiting from how they voted after being an MP but it would be a start!

Someone (think it may have been dd) asked me once why rich people become MPs when the salary & even expenses are of no real consequence to them in comparison to the wealth they already have - I answered the power to make even more money, to pass laws that mean they and theirs profit.