To wonder what’s the point when I’m left with this after bills?

[ReLOa]

In a stressful job and single parent to nursery age child. I have 570 left after all bills and childcare and petrol, excluding food. What is the actual point in this?! We can’t do much at weekends and holidays are out of the question. I’m supposedly in a highly paid job (earn 70k) and I feel like giving up. Just been paid and looking ahead at the month I’ve already had to turn down some things like an adventure park day with friends as it was 28 pounds entry and a 35 mile round trip. I feel like I’m failing yet not sure what more I can possibly do?!

The figures given were for a scenario where all the children were born before April 2017. That's when the 2 child limit came into place but any born before that are all still eligible. UC is a very confusing place sometimes.

For the TA friend a pp mentioned (claiming that OP should be grateful because the TA friend had it much harder) I assumed children between 7-14 years, since I doubt working would cover the childcare for pre-school children. I know OP wouldn't get the same now.

Emmmm, gosh it's late and my brain doesn't work haha. Right, let me see. Would probably have to drop the child element to £287.92 because I think the OP's child was born after April 2017. Add that to the single element of £393.45 and I have no idea what childcare would be for 2 days a week but basing it on my kids who attend private nursery 2 days a week and their monthly cost is around £600 each which would be a childcare element of £510 on UC. That all comes to around £1200. With a salary of £28k and keeping the pension contribution at £75 a month, that would be a monthly salary of £1913 and £14k would be £1073. That would result in deductions from the UC award of £682 or £220 respectively. So that would leave £518 or £980 UC.

Then there's the £100 ish child benefit every 4 weeks.

So that would be a total income of £2531 for a £28k salary or £2153 for £14k

Bearing in mind that if childcare was no longer required, she would get very little UC because it would drop by £510 a month. And obviously if she was only working one day then she would actually only need one day of childcare so it would be even less than the figures I've given here.

UC would be on your case if you only work one day too, expecting you to up your earnings. That happened to my sister in law although her children are in infants so maybe that's a school age thing She says it's nothing like old tax credits were though. I really don't thi k being on benefits would heat warning 70k

Your figures still seem wrong and even if they're right ... You're talking about four children here as opposed to one. You're begrudging this money for four hypothetical CHILDREN not a hypothetical mun you're all ruled up to hate. I don't get this. People love to be all gotcha to other hypothetical mums. I'm self employed and have had snide remarks from other mums about "not working and being on benefits" just because I do pick up and they don't know my story. I claim nothing and work my behind off long after they're asleep but yeah I just don't get this determination to judge others and also catch the more vulnerable put and hate them.

You have to work 30 hours a week from when your youngest child is 1, if you're a single parent, in order to be eligible for universal credit (you'd have to go to weekly jobcentre meetings and apply to any job they told you to apply for, though reasonably it would need fit in with what childcare was possible).

They would get 85% of childcare paid

Pretty sure this isn't true, I'm sure it's 4 they have work 30 hours

The government just changed the law.

Ah sorry, it's age 3 you have to work 30 hours, but have to attend jobcentre meetings from age 1.

I already accounted for that in my calculations. They would receive 85% of it back in their UC award then have to pay the bill themselves.

You have to earn £892 per month to be put into "light touch" which means you wouldn't be expected to look for more work or better paid work. There may be some occasional meetings at the job centre but not frequently. It's the equivalent of 18 hours at minimum wage.

It's not so much begrudging money, it's that I find it mind-blowing that a single mother on £70k - an amount of money that most people would say puts you right outside the realms of any sympathy for not having enough money, as we've seen on this thread - ends up with the same amount of money as someone on minimum wage. Someone who may have 3 extra kids to look after, but also has significantly less childcare (all school age rather than nursery age).

I find that utterly insane.

If we really think that's the minimum amount the TA needs to live a basic OK life, then how is it that someone earning top 5% of income also only gets to keep the minimum amount of income to live a basic OK life.

That there's practically no difference in how much disposable income a single mother has regardless of whether she earns minimum wage or top 5%

That's just nowhere near fair, in terms of how we organise our society.

I've heard people say on another thread recently that it's a problem that such a tiny proportion of our society are net financial contributors, but this shows how it plays out.

I do think long-term we need to move to be closer to the nordic model, where everyone pays more tax but it's distributed more evenly across the income spectrum - so lower earners are actually paying in too. And subsidise childcare properly (not the unfunded free hours, which made nurseries close and costs actually rise for most parents).

In the meantime, OP: I think I'm changing my advice. Do the numbers for yourself, and if it makes sense for you then see whether you can drop right back to 1 or 2 days for a few years - I know that in some high-paying jobs that's impossible, but if you're good at your job and explain the situation they might be willing.

If you go down to 1 or 2 days a week, I think you'd only be about £45 per month worse off, maybe better off depending on your commuting costs.

And you'd get to enjoy time with your DC and be much less stressed! Entry to parks and things is also cheaper during the week. There's no educational need for nursery, which someone threw in (it's not bad, but it's certainly not better than time with an educated, engaged mother - and your DC will love being with you).

In a couple of years, once your DC is at school, up your hours again. Keeping your hand in with 1-2 days at work means you will be able to do that - that's the really critical part. And the earnings mean you're entitled to the UC and childcare support without having to apply for more jobs.

It's crazy, and it's terrible for the country that it works out this way (instead of paying 17k into the coffers, you'll be taking out about £20k). But that's what our tax system is.

100 this. Same advice I gave to the single mother who lost about £15k overnight for hitting 100k. Bang goes the personal allowance and funded hours. It was the only way for her to realistically survive.

It’s the tax and childcare system which does it. Forces so many women out of the workplace.

When people quote income here. They don’t account for tax and other penalties which significantly reduces income. Yet when its benefits…all the tax free top ups are left out which can lead to the equivalent of a decent salary after tax.

The problem here really is the childcare. This example absolutely shows why childcare needs to be subsidised substantially more, and not means-tested.

It's such a high cost that it throws everything else - all attempts at fair redistribution - completely out of whack.

The nordic model isn't actually really relevant here - it isn't what's causing the problem, since the benefit top ups dwarf tax on the lower earner anyway. But I do think that extra taxation (including that needed to properly fund childcare) needs to come from everyone, not only top earners. If we're a society, then let's actually act like one.

They definitely expect you to work more than 18 hours, I went through it last year when I was made redundant.

Although my DS is older.

Just to say that 2 salaries bringing in 50k between them Will be very similar take home to one of 70k due to higher rate of tax and loss of child benefit. Of course you have a lot mroe mouths to feed. Totally get how exhausting it is to think about each penny despite both earning though

If we want cheaper childcare, we need to relax the rules on the ratio of children to carer.

I attended a playschool as a 2 year old and I remember there being 20+ kids with only a couple of adults.

Everybody I know that attended the playschool looks back on it with fond memories.

The ratio of kids to adults kept it affordable for ordinary families on normal wages.

Well indeed. Under the Nordic model - higher earners are paying their fair share - everyone else needs to.

There are two issues. One the tinkering of the tax system. So removal of CHB and tax allowance. Nordic models keep these things as universal benefits.

Childcare - again a universal benefit. If more people are working - more tax - a well funded society.

The problem is here? Higher earners can’t possibly have anything for free because they earn too much. Greed - tax the rich.

It’s short sighted, envy driven politics. Not only is it harming the country -it’s immensely damaging to women.

The point in work is the long term.

Your dc won't need childcare forever, when you're in the midst of the primary school years, sometimes you can't see the light at the end of the financial tunnel. But it's over all too quickly and suddenly your childcare costs are non existent. Your mortgage is reducing and you'll be paying, at the very least, into a work place pension.

So come 20+ years you'll be earning at least 70k, have paid off your mortgage, so have £900 extra, your dc have flown the nest or in education, and won't need childcare, so you'll have that £1200 back, and you'll also have a pension of sorts.

Honestly op hang in there. When my dc were young I had £100 a month left after bills, food and petrol. It was awful and bloody relentless as I was also a single parent. Fast forward I've a small mortgage left and a lovely house I can call mine. No childcare costs and a really good pension which I can use to retire early.

They really shouldn't. Most of the job centre staff don't know the UC rules properly.

But shouldn't people be expected to work, rather than just the bare minimum in an attempt to maximise benefits for the minimum effort?

It's definitely worth:
1.keeping a position where you can work again once your DC is at school. Ideally keep part-time work. If not, think about how you'll get back to the same level afterwards (easier if you have qualifications, experience and it's a short break)
2.making sure you keep your own home

It's really OK to take your foot off the pedal for 5 years out of a career of 45 years.

But it is hard to get back into work if you've left. In some fields you would be OK - especially if you have a qualification which limits who can do the work, like Dr, nursing, solicitor. You might go back at a lower level initially, but can soon get it back if you want to.

I think the real risk is if you do a job where it's all about you continually proving yourself, where you're only ever as good as your last project. If you're in one of those, then you need to find a way to stay with the same employer - so that in 4 years you'll have the chance to prove yourself again.

What’s the alternative quit work, no money and in an even harder situation? How would you pay your £900 mortgage? Bills? Food? You need to put things in to perspective for yourself. Yes it may be hard but £570 a month might be right for you but you just need to budget yourself each week. Nursery isn’t forever a few years (depending how old your DC is) then you will have a massive chunk extra each month you won’t be spending. You need to think long game, everyone wants it easy now and it makes it stressful for them but just think of the luxuries you’ll be able to afford further down the line