To find this universal credit situation unfair

[happypickle]

Myself and DH have 1 child and pay the equivalent of a 2nd mortgage on nursery. We are talking about having a 2nd child but we have to wait to be at a point where our first would be on their way into school as we could not afford to pay for 2 nursery places.

In laws who are in universal credit, have no such constraints and are in a position to try and conceive before us as SIL does not work and is a SAHM to 6 month old. They get a fortune in UC and have their rent paid and actually have more disposable income than us in professional jobs.

Don't know what I want from this post but just feel it's so unfair that we are constrained by finances but those on benefits are free to plan their family exactly as they want and they will have the ideal 2 years age gap which we would have loved to have done.

I understand why you feel as you do @happypickle but it's important to retain perspective.

When my small children were both in nursery/with a CM I became a single parent. I too had a mortgage. To keep my job and my house I had to sell quite a lot of things to top up my income because of crippling childcare fees. There were many times when I went without food because I was so skint. I definitely would have been better off on benefits. I did. The calculations and had some single parent friends on benefits and in social housing who had way more disposable income than me.

However, fast forward a few years and the situation is very different. Because I kept working my career progressed. I kept my house. Childcare costs eventually stopped. My income and my confidence now is way higher than my friends who didn't work because sadly we live in a society where occupational status and income seem to be valued far more than the essential job of raising the next generation. I also have a fair amount of equity in my home in a market where many couldn't even hope to get on the property ladder any more. By choosing to stay at home initially you have the reward of spending more time with your DC and giving up the stress of working but my goodness society doesn't half make women pay for it in terms of long-term financial stability.

I actually wish being a SAHM was better valued and given more financial protection. Until that happens I am glad I made the choices I did. I'd recommend you try to adopt the same perspective.

It’s also not raining, ☔️ that’s life. She won’t have any career progression, won’t be able to earn more when uc says she needs to work, likely they’ll have less money, and less stable finances than you will, and no home of their own.

I had my first 2 sons 4.5 years apart for this reason, I was a student still with ds1 and quite young, we did have our own house and got some tax credits I think and paid for a childminder for me to finished uni then I had ds2 just before my eldest went to school. I went back to work (first job) as a nurse when he was 13 months. My ex had a really good job though but still not enough for 2 nursery bills together even v expensive then, (23&19 now) you need to worry less about what others are doing and more about you and your own life, life often isn’t fair but maybe there is a way you can make it work but a bigger age gap was fine, they got on and still do. It was nice to be able to have the time with my older son before he was a big brother too. then with ds2 whilst his ds was at school.

Has your sil said they trying for another baby?

Thanks for this reply, it's really helped

Yawn

Sell your house, resign from your job, have another child. Sorted.

You could become a single parent - as a single parent to 3 (then aged 10ths, 7 and 9) UC paid 80% of my childcare bills

i mean I still paid 30% plus all the bills, mortgage, school dinners, fed and clothed them and worked but it was so worth it having childcare paid for! 🙄

I mean have another child, rent a house and give up work so you can have an easy life or leave your husband - you have such tempting options

The benefit system seems to be a minefield. I don't like that people on benefit can often seem to be better off than those working full time and making it a lifestyle choice. On the other hand I'm not sure other tax payers should subsidise child care any more than currently, having children is also a lifestyle choice. In an ideal world everyone would have enough income to support them in reasonable comfort, but it's a hugely difficult balancing act. Different people prioritise different aspects of life. If you want another DC I would consider being a SAHM for a few years if you reckon the finances would work out better that way.

20% obvs

But in 2.5 years time your SIL's youngest will be 3 and she'll have to look for work after 5(?) years out of the workforce.

And you'll have 5 years of experience, pension contributions etc and be in a much more financially secure position.

^ THIS. Don't underestimate the value of a private pension. Plus you'll have a financial asset (your house) to pass to your kids potentially giving them future financial security.

Check you are using all the childcare vouchers you are entitled to. It's painful but it's not for long.

In the long run you’ll be better off, it’s worth it OP even if it feels unfair at the moment.

OP I don't know how old your DC is but my DD timed having her 2 DC so elder DC at nursery she went back to work after 6 months then saved up for having a second DC. She got pregnant with second DC when first DC was 18 months. When she was on mat leave she reduced nursery hours for elderly DC and gave him lots of attention taking him to petting farms etc. Then she kept elder DS home 3 days a week after she had younger DS so elder son got free hours and she hardly had to pay anything for him. She stayed home for a year. She only had about 1/2 term of double fees because she took off accrued holiday before both DS's went to nursery then after 1/2 term elder son started school. You could do this. Stop focusing on in-laws and enjoy your own lives. Your family will ultimately be far better off once all DC in school.

How will.they change ? We get quite a bit in UC despite my dh being in full time work because I'm a care for our severely disabled child
But I remember feeling the same as the Op when my oldest was a baby I went back to work when he was five months old
And seeing parents,who were on tax credits having an if not better life comparable life to me this was in 2007 under labour
Labour were far more generous to people living solely or mainly on benefits ,then Conservative, single mothers were not required to look for work until their youngest child was 16 .

it may feel unfair to you but stop thinking about it.

Or pack in your jobs, sell your house and claim UC. With all the uncertainty that brings (pressure to get a job, paying bills, insecure tenancy)

You must be on a canny whack to not get UC help with childcare for 2 children.

Can you say what you would consider fair @happypickle

Do you want the government to pay your mortgage?

It's not comparable, you have the choice to rent, not work, have more DC's.

YABU. You are free to sell your house, quit your job and go on benefits.

But I wanted to point out something else: you’re also free to TTC now, and it might not be as difficult financially as you imagine. If you get the 2y gap, take 6 mo to a year off work for mat leave - that saves you some nursery fees. Then by the time you go back to work, the older kid will be entitled to some free hours. You then have one awful year financially with 2 in nursery - it might make sense to go part time for that - and then the older is 4 and ready for school or at least school nursery.

Being on UC is not the land of milk and honey you present OP.

It's really not that much money, renting is not as secure as owning a home and your SIL will be forced to look for work at some point.

If you want to have another DC now then do it but do you really want the long term insecurity that is part and parcel of being on benefits? The grass is always greener...

You must be higher than average income not to get any childcare help.

You have a mortgage and they don't.

It's not comparable.

UC doesn't pay your rent, you can claim a sum towards it but it is based on the cheapest rent in the area years ago so rarely comes even close.

Don't believe everything you read in the right wing media

You can’t have it all ways, OP. You want the advantage of having stable jobs that allow you to have a mortgage and provide a pension for you.

But then you also want people on benefits to tone down their lives because of the life you have chosen to build for yourself, which will overtake theirs massively in a few years. The money that they get is temporary - yours isn’t.

You’re not hard done by.

Reality of live on universal credit is brutal, wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Technically, this is actually dependent on whether or not you are in social housing. The housing element will do 100% of social housing rents, but only LHA for private rentals

Presumably they receive lots in UC because they have high rent and the one who works is on a low wage ? You have a mortgage and will be much better off in the longer run.

The majority of families we know have a 3 year gap to make the most of the 15 hours funding (it’s 30 hours now isn’t it?). Personally I think a two year age gap is the absolute worst. Once you’re passed the expensive childcare years you will be in a much better position with your own home, and pension. No point comparing on a snapshot in time. I’m the long term you will be better off.

It's unfair in the present/shirt term. I was there and felt that strong of injustice.

In the future/long term, you will see how much you financially benefit from the choices you are making.

The longer term is much longer than the present. Hold on.