How the hell everyone is supposed to cope?

[Oink38]

Having a bad day of mass anxiety.

so, hubby and I earn ok wages. Not huge but we both work for charities so probably earn between 50k between us

childcare is killing us- nearly 1k a month for 3 days a week. We have no family or friends support. Now that the new funding has come in people who aren’t entitled due to being 3 shortly and not getting that funding until September will have to no doubt have their nursery fees raised again.

no pay rises in sight. Meant to be putting into work pension and also saving but honestly where the hell are we supposed to find the money

desperate to move but can’t cos nursery fees are too high.

fed up with this government. Not entitled to any benefits barely surviving month to month. Haven’t had a holiday in 9 years. Drive old car. No fun days out. Barely have anything left to do anything with. Utterly fed up of working for basically shit.

no can’t get other jobs I am specialised in what I do and hubby earns well for the field he is in.

and no we don’t buy take away coffees or avocados

just a massive rant really. Suppose aibu in thinking how the hell people are supposed to survive when everything is going up and no positivity anywhere

Hi Op@Oink38

I think many posters have purposely misunderstood your post because they can’t fathom what it’s like to do a job you love & put that above financial gain. I think it’s really sad that people feel the need to do this. In doing this they have completely missed the boat too.

Fact is we have been living with gross government mis-management for some time now and that has made life incredibly hard for ordinary people, like you and I. As you & some others pointed out, it simply isn’t possible for everyone to be top earners to negate this government incompetence. Inequality is rampant, and worse in relative terms than it has ever been in the post-war period. Many people simply don’t understand this or worse, choose to ignore it.

It is very well documented that those of us who are mid 40’s & under are the first generations that will not do better than the generations that came before us. Progress is supposed to mean each generation does slightly better than the one before. So we are actively regressing now and those of us aged mid-40’s and under are baring the brunt of that regression. Many people won’t admit this as it makes them feel uncomfortable. But it is true and the evidence is there for all to see.

I honestly don’t see things getting better any time soon. I have spent a lot of time reading around this topic and unfortunately I think our generation is in for a very rough ride. The only consolation for me is that I do a job I love. It might be low paid but at least I am not miserable and under immense stress every day, 46 weeks a year. As I said in my previous post, I have been in that position before & it almost killed me. From your posts I know you have too.

What's more, It’s likely many in our generation won’t get a retirement, at least not in the way those before us have had. It really gets under my skin when people spout the importance of pensions. Of course they are important, but most employee pensions are now glorified saving schemes. The amounts you need to put in to get anywhere near enough out just aren’t possible for the average person. With wages/salaries as low as they are & living costs sky high, I don’t know how the average person is supposed to pay anywhere near enough into a pension.

On the plus side, life expectancy has been declining for the past decade, again for the first time since the post-war period, so many of us will likely be dead before we reach retirement age (the latter is said with sarcasm, it’s actually a disgraceful situation). This is hardly an incentive to get us to save when it’s likely we won’t see much of it. The ever increasing retirement age is another sign of the regression I spoke of earlier. I think the government is in for a shock because many of us just won’t be in good enough health to keep working until we drop.

You have my sympathies OP. I understood your OP and it’s completely valid.

@CagneyAndLazy it is absolutely not a baseless claim - it is an empirical fact backed up by countless numbers of economic papers. I should know I am trained in economics!

Nonsense
My DC are mid /late 20s and their nursery years were just as much a strain. We hardly had any holidays, didnt smoke and had the same car for years. We didnt get nursery help until they were 4 and because they were september babies it was only for 2 terms.

Taxes are worth it if they are used properly.

Agreed. I was earning £18k at 20 and didn't have kids, but certainly couldn't have paid full rent, bills, car, socialising etc on it. That's what, £1.5k p/m before tax?

Tax Free Childcare? This would knock 20% off your childcare fees each month.

I don't if still available, it was upto very recently but you could buy childcare vouchers as salary sacrifice which essentially gave you tax free childcare
edited to say, probably not enough to pay full time nursery

I am in the same boat as you! I also work for a charity and there is no private sector equivalent. Its rotten that doing a job that helps people and improves lives of the most vulnerable is so poorly paid

To be honest, the UC calculator is crap. When my husband left me, I put it in there, and it said that while I might qualify. I earn about 30k per year and work full-time and it said I could get about £80-£90 a week which I could live with. I was faced with having to pay rent on my own, as well as all the bills so looking at having a nearly £1000 extra coming out of my bank account every month. I did the application, went to the appointments and waited. When they eventually sent me the email saying that they were going to pay me something, it ended up being more than anticipated and without it, myself and my two children would’ve been homeless. Despite what the calculator says, there’s no harm in applying, even if it says that you’ll only get a tiny amount, you might be surprised. UC has been a lifesaver for me. I appreciate that between you, you might earn more than is allowed to claim, but the way I look at it is that it doesn’t hurt to enquire.

@Wouldprefertobereading thanks for explaining

I had no idea social housing was misused this way. The problem is that "government money" is our hard earned money, it's taxpayers money, it's not an independent money source, and it's limited so we obviously can't spend it on absolutely everything we'd like.

I 100% support government funded housing for the most vulnerable and those genuinely unable to work and have no other way to support themselves. Plus support for those with significant disabilities.

It's however completely unfair for tax payers who many of them themselves are struggling with rent prices, housing security, and cost of living to fund this other category of people to live better than the rest of us! Plus it means fewer government funded houses available for those most vulnerable and in need of it. Very unfair all round.

The money should be instead spent on other priorities e.g. the dire and urgent situation that is Elderly care considering we have an ageing population and a rock bottom birth rate which means not enough working age people to fund society long term.

With respect you have rather missed the point, that being that everyone deserves a decent and secure home. Social housing is not just a safety net for the very poorest in society. It offers the same type of security for those who rent as those who are able to buy. As you are no doubt aware there are many who for a number of reasons can’t get on the housing ladder, are they to be condemned to the lottery that is private rented accommodation.. subject to massive hikes because mortgage rates have risen or evicted because their landlord wants it back? I also work with older people and manage care services so I’m well aware of that crisis and frankly they both need addressing urgently. So, it isn’t misuse of the accommodation, it’s giving everyone a decent home .. or it would if it was properly invested in.

@Wouldprefertobereading With respect, I haven't missed the point at all. I think you've actually missed my point : we can talk all we like about all kinds of scenarios but if the taxpayer money isnt there to fund it long term (and therefore fund it to the detriment of other needs), it's all moot. It's simply not possible to create and give most of the UK population social housing, even if we wanted to (which we shouldnt). We don't have enough babies being born to cover pensions, let alone free/subsidised houses for people who dont need it.

You can't have what you're proposing without huge shake ups in the tax system and the vast majority of tax payers don't want to and shouldn't be funding people like the previous poster who's in social housing yet enjoys £1,000 surplus money each month(!!) This is an absolute abuse and misuse of social housing, especially considering the long wait lists.

I used to work with vulnerable people in crisis who had essentially become homeless through no fault of their own, with no one else who could take them in, and it shocks me that such people like the previous poster can be allowed to use up social housing when there's others who need it much more. No wonder we have a social housing "shortage".

Yes everyone should have a decent home but in the UK, everyone (with some exceptions who should be covered by social housing) is already able do this. The place they live might not be as big as they want or in the place they would have ideally wanted, so they have to live within their means in an area that fits their budget, but that's life. People have no right to have what they want, when they want it, where they want it and to expect other people to pay for it. If we all decided to pack it in and just depend on other people to pay to subsidise our houses and our lives, our society would collapse.

It's right for landlords to be able to sell their houses and there are many reasons why a landlord might need to sell. There are however laws that can be changed to make certain living situations better and more secure so that's what should be the focus.

I think you've fundamentally misread what I said.

If you are lucky enough that the job you love pays enough to raise a child, then by all means stay in that job.

My point is that following your dream career can no longer be the number one thing in your life once you have a child. For many, it's not possible to make things work because there are no highly-paid jobs in their field.

For hundreds of years, men laboured down mines to feed their children because the pit was the only employer in town. Those men didn't have the option of following their dream careers. The mines may be closed but tolerating work in order to live is still the reality for most people.

I suggest that you read this book.

You can't have what you're proposing without huge shake ups in the tax system and the vast majority of tax payers

The huge shakeup needed is called "introducing land value tax" and what it would do is force leeches like the Duke of Westminster to pay some fucking taxes! He doesn't own all that Grosvenor estate directly, it's held by a trust that he's the sole beneficiary of to avoid even paying inheritance tax. The current payers of tax would not be burdened by LVT, but the current tax dodgers would, and rightly so.

Huge numbers of low-paid workers are sofa-surfing, camping, and living in vehicles. They need social housing.

I use it so it’s definitely still available. There is a limit on earnings but no I think it’s pretty high. There’s a limit I think on how much you can get towards childcare over a 3 month period but I’m unsure how much because I’m from the North West and childcare, although a lot, it’s not as bad as in some regions and I only use it for 3 days per week.

But every little helps.

Rubbish !
I’m on UC and I’m fortunate as the house was paid off before my circumstances changed. I honestly don’t know how anyone survives on UC alone… I wouldn’t be able to afford to live if I didn’t get DLA & carers allowance for my daughter…. Even with that it’s a struggle.

The median UK salary is about £34k, so you are both in the lower part of the income mix, as that would be £68k for a household where two work - which means things will be tighter for you than most.

Is there any way you can bring in more money even if it is eg cleaning work or taking in ironing etc? Also there are (seasonally) often jobs going doing things like marking exam papers.

It's so, so shite, but everyone I know who works in the charity sector is from a wealthy family. Much like the arts, it's increasingly only viable for people for whom a wage is just pocket money. It makes me angry and depressed but that's the reality of it.

Inflation may have fallen but if it's greater than 0 then things are still going up! It's literally the amount that things are rising by! Lower inflation means that things are still getting more expensive, just not as much as when inflation was higher.

Things aren't still going up.
Inflation has actually fallen for the past few months.

For prices to fall would require deflation. Prices are still climbing.

@Dartmoorcheffy presumably because she is actually working and not answering 4 emails a day between caring for the child .

would you be better off if one of you gave up work?? No childcare fees and would you then qualify for benefits?

I feel like I'm only just surviving!
We've got £65 for a months food for 7people and according to the government that's all we need! Stupid benefit cap means a couple gets paid the same as a family of 7. Bills are either the same or rising and they just say tough. I can't make time go quicker and the holiday season to start any sooner to go back to work!?! Its all crap whichever way you look at it.

@CagneyAndLazy it's not a baseless claim at all and is entirely correct. The low birth rates are a full on global crisis. Overpopulation is a myth. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521.amp

Anyway of finding work now?

Just it lifts the benefit cap if you could.