To think I can go on benefits instead of returning to work?

[UniversalCreditOrNo]

NC for this.

Let me start off by saying this....up until
February last year, I have never not been in work. I got my first job at 13, was working full time and living alone at age 21 (before which I worked 25 hours a week alongside my studies) and it was only last year when I decided to go travelling that I ever found myself without employment. I got pregnant at the end of my travels, and here is where I find myself.

My daughter is now 6 months old. In 3 months time, I’m supposed to go back to work. How do people afford to do it? Childcare is £56 a day where I am. On my current minimum wage job that’s a take home of around £30 a week....before tax and NI.

My partner is on around £20k and I can rely on family for 1 day a week childcare. So here’s my AIBU. Can I go on benefits, instead of going back to work? Is that a thing people can do?!

I don’t know how it works. My area is universal credit....is there even such a category for this? It’s not jobseekers as I wouldn’t be looking for work, and it’s not like I’m signed off with illness or disability.

My partner is convinced we can because he doesn’t earn a lot and ‘this is precisely what the benefits system is for’. However....his mum is a serial benefits user....everything from being a stay at home single mum until her youngest was 15, until now where she’s signed off for an injury from 3 years ago she still claims is affecting her work ability All I can think of is the stigma behind choosing to go on benefits, but right now I can’t see another option.

I'm in the same position as you, OP. Currently I'm doing agency work, and bits here and there, because that's all I can get around my husband's work hours. We don't receive any benefits, but we get by.

You know in the Netherlands you are actually paid a little to be a stay at home parent, for bringing up the next generation of work force. It's pretty apparent (from the comments on this thread) women are punished for wanting to be at home to look after their children in this country. If someone who's husband is earning 50k+ , why is she more entitled to be a stay at home parent than someone who's on 20k?. Why should you have to work a shite job away from those precious first years of your childs life because the loud mouths on this thread say so. I'm a tax payer and I'm happy for you to be topped up with a little tax credit if it means that someone else is happy.

Anyway, I am waiting until both my children can receive the 30 hours of free childcare, and then I'm going back to college to re -train, and get out of the minimum wage cycle.

women are punished for wanting to be at home to look after their children in this country

This is so true, on so many levels.

I was ‘lucky’ to stay at home to raise my children until the youngest turned 7, we received no benefits. They benefited massively from this.

But look at the messages woman are getting - they should work, they should be homemaker and child rearer, they should achieve everything!

My mothers generation could afford one parent in work and one at home with the kids without relying on benefits because they were paid a living wage. It’s sad that so many working people need benefits to survive. The minimum wage just keeps people in low paid jobs because employers don’t give pay rises for experience or effort anymore. There’s no incentive to move for better paid work because it all pays the same.

I agree with your point about wages GreenTulips. I think the NMW should be enough to live on without any kind of top ups, and I also think pay structures and tax thresholds should be such that they incentivise people to move into higher paid jobs when they can. It’s Ludicrous that people who are well qualified and capable don’t Always have the incentives to maximise their skills.

However the problem with your point about women staying at home is that a) it assumes it’s universally believed that having a parent at home is ‘best’ and b) it assumes that that parent is by default the mother.

On an individual level families may decide that having a parent home for 1, 3 , 7 or whatever many years is best for their family. But you simply cannot extrapolate from that, that it would be beneficial for all families

Personally I worked part time, just 3 days while my children were babies and up to age 4, but that was more to benefit me as I was keen to not work full time then- I’m sure they’d have been fine. I don’t believe my children were disadvantaged in any way by my working - there’s certainly no evidence of it - and I’m equally sure they’d have been fine if I (or dh) had been a SAHP too.

The reason this age old debate continues is precisely because there is no evidence that any one way - both, one or neither parent working - is ‘better.’

Nursery workers aren't 'strangers' past the first couple of settling in sessions..

Also, YOU don't have £30 a week left over, your joint finances have £30 a week left over, plus DH's income. Childcare is not a sole bill.

I work 4 days a week, DD is in nursery those 4 days (and loves it), it's a hit to the finances of course but a bigger hit will be in 4 years when she's in school and I struggle to get back into my career.

The reason this age old debate continues is precisely because there is no evidence that any one way - both, one or neither parent working - is ‘better.’

I’m not suggesting what’s ‘best’ more that people had the choice, precisely because they could afford housing on one wage. The cost of living is so high now, needing X3/4/5 both incomes for a mortgage.

I mean OP going to work for less than £30 a week isn’t a great choice is it? Less than a £1 and hour

And those saying it’s ‘joint’ money and ‘joint’ childcare and missing the point - working 5 days a week for someone else to look after the baby and only be £30 a week jointly better off is not worth doing.

If you are not married then maybe you have a better chance at claiming benefits.

It makes no difference if a couple are living together, married and unmarried couples are treated the same for benefit purposes. A couple on £20k, with a child and rent to pay would almost certainly be entitled to some Universal Credit, unless their rent is incredibly low.

OP, depending on your rent, you may be entitled to some UC anyway. If you go back to work you may be entitled to help with your childcare costs. You may find you're better off dropping a day or two a week (especially if you're repaying a student loan).

If you have a CAB near you, it might be worth popping in and asking them for advice. They use the same specialist software as I do at work and it makes it really easy to compare different scenarios and combinations and see which works best for you.

I totally get that new mums want to stay at home while their children are babies, but it's important to remember that your skills and experience can get out of date very quickly, that you're in a vulnerable position if your relationship breaks down, that you're not building a pension and so on. It might not be easy to get back into work when your child is older. We're in uncertain times and could be in a full-on recession by then!

I had a boss once who employed woman with children - he understood these people had skills! Could organise, could budget and get the best deals, were on time and worked hard.

Woman had a whole different skill set that businesses are beginning to understand.

If OP wants to work after a few years at home, she’ll find a job.

We had the same.

My partner works full time and I worked around that. My dd is just 3 and I do 2 x 10 hour days to reduce childcare bill and work a weekend bar job to top up whilst he’s at home.

Not on it so not sure but am recalling it being mentioned/blamed on another thread for trapping women in abusive marriages because the total for the household is paid to one member of the household, so if your husband gets all the UC and isn't good with money or good to you, you're basically fucked

This is going to change, apparently. They're proposing to pay the benefits to the partner that is the main carer of the children. No details as to when that'll start though.

@GreenTulips my boss does this too. All of us in my office are women with children, most of them have worked there for over 10 years and their children are grown up now. The two of us who still have school age children are employed part time and our boss allows us to work school hours.

In answer to your question, yes you ate being very unreasonable. If you want to stay at home do it but its your partner's responsibility to support you and his child not the state's. However, i don't think you should give up work. You need to start working your household income as a household not i pay for this bit, he pays for that bit. Work out your household expenses. Include childcare and other child related costs. Then look at your earnings. Pay an amount into a joint bank account that's proportionate to your earnings. So if he earns twice your salary and your monthly costs are £300, he pays 200 and you pay 100. All regular household costs come out of that account. Next look at savings and contingency costs. Again pay into this account proportionate to your incomes. The money left in your account is yours to spend. Don't forget to look at domestic tasks and childcare and ensure that these are divided up equitably. You should both have equal amounts of downtime and enough money to enjoy a hobby and recreation.

If you want to stay at home do it but its your partner's responsibility to support you and his child not the state's

It wouldn’t be the state’s responsibility IF jobs paid a living wage - don’t you see the irony!

Oh and childcare is ridiculously expensive here. Crazy that two working people are struggling.

Childcare costs in this country are very high; and it is simply a fact that work doesn’t pay for many mums.

Especially when you factor in high rents, too. It's crazy that you can be on an average income and still be entitled to state help.

GreenTulips I still think the whole issue of ‘choice’ is more complex. You’re describing an age when it was the norm for couples to buy a house on the basis of the man’s wage alone, but hand in hand with that were far poorer prospects career- wise for women. There was also a lot more societal pressure for women to be housewives and to either not work or just do pin money jobs. My mum fell into the category you describe, so yes in one way it was easier for her because the mortgage and bills were paid by my dad as sole Earner. But she was equally as bright as him and it would probably have done her good to have a career.

I’m all for choice but I really don’t subscribe to the view of a ‘golden age’. If we want society to progress I think it starts with recognising that men and women both have great skills in the workplace and as parents.

My son is under 1 and I’m unemployed (no maternity leave). My partner earns under 20k and we get no benefits- your question is answered

My colleague is single, on £20k (possibly more), has one child and gets around £300 UC + child benefit. Her rent is about £600.

I can see I'm going to have to log on to my work network and crank up the calculation software!

I think your partner being on £20k a year means you wouldn't be eligible although you'll get child benefit which is £82.80 every 4 weeks. You'll also get tax free childcare which means the government will pay 20% of your childcare costs. So for example, you go back 3 days a week and put your DC into nursery 3 days a week at £56 a day. You pay £44.80 and they'll pay the rest. So your childcare bill would be about £134.40 a week. What can you earn if you did 3 days as an example? Minimum wage would mean you could earn around £197.04 doing 3 days a week. So you'd be working the 3 days to take home like £63 a week. However, you said mil could do 1 day a week childcare so take £44.80 off the childcare bill and that leaves you taking home £107.80 a week after childcare. Does this make it sound more worthwhile? I wouldn't go back full time, it wouldn't be worth it. You'd do all the running around and be exhausted for little monetary benefit. You could always go back full time when the 30 hours free funding kicks in when your DC is 3 years old and combine it with tax free childcare to make your childcare costs minimal. Hope this helps

The average earnings is about £22K

There must be a hell of a lot of p/t workers. The average f/t salary is over £36k now.

If you calculate you’ll only be £30 better off working then you’ll only be that £30 down if you quit work? So why the need for UC?

Not saying don’t claim it, just maybe I’m missing something!

And if you were taxed to shit on £35k a year you need to investigate if that was right. It’s not in a higher earning bracket (unless you got a massive bonus which pushed you over).

Oh and also, you can turn off the notification emails if you don’t want them anymore.

Back to repeat the solution, then turning my notification emails off as pp suggested (thank you!)

Have been to the job centre who have very kindly told me my entitlement. I will go back to work two days a week, using family one day and a child minder the other, and my earnings can be topped up by UC, bringing them up to what I am currently on with SMP. It's not much, but enough to not starve and still spend these precious early days with my little one.

Thank you all for your suggestions and help, it's all come in good use and is much appreciated.

@UniversalCreditOrNo another thing to consider about staying in the workforce (in a way that works for your family) is the long-term benefits to job history/career and pension.

Compound interest means that money paid into your pension now works harder and reduces the amount you'd need to pay in as you age.

I returned to work part time but compressed hours and paid for childcare and it has really benefited my family.

I'm now also at a stage in my work life where I can be more flexible and now the kids are older it matters more (somehow) so I work from home and my DS loves to see me there when he arrives home (cycles) from secondary. He doesn't bother me, grunts at me, raids the fridge and then disappears off to his room but me being here, now is more important than being there daily when he was a baby/toddler.

Each age and stage is important but the older they get, the less they remember about the younger years.

Remaining in the workforce meant I was able to get into a position with flexible, home working hours.

My pension is ok (took a hit because I dropped to part time) but if I had stopped work I'd have nothing saved there.

Remain open to options (it sounds as though you have) with the awareness that remaining in the workforce is a vaccination against future poverty/abusive relationships and a way to protect your financial independence.

Glad you have found a solution OP. Good luck!

There should be proper social affordable housing for hardworking families so she can stay at home and raise her child.

Abso-fucking-lutely! It's in everyone's interests, long term, to make it financially viable for people to have children AND keep a roof over their heads without skinting themselves. The birthrate in the UK is close to the level where it will cease to maintain the current population (2.1%). We have virtually full employment and shortages in many types of employment and/or geographic areas.

We need social policies that will support those who choose to have children, and make it as easy as possible. I think that if people want to spend the early years of a child's life caring for them f/t, that should be possible too.

These children will be the ones who, in a few years' time, will be providing our essential services, and paying much of the tax needed to sustain our society. They will be our doctors, nurses, carers, firefighters. They'll be mending our roads, servicing our cars and building our houses. We need them.

And for those who love to bleat on about not seeing why they should work and pay tax so someone else can stay home, the proportion of public spending that goes on benefits for working age people is small. We all pay tax too - vat on an awful lot of the stuff we buy.

And before anyone accuses me of having a vested interest: I'm child-free by choice and have always worked and paid tax since I left school 47 years ago. I've never claimed a penny in benefits, unless you count statutory sick pay (which is paid by employers anyway).