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?!

That's a lot after bills paid. Lots of free things to do in your area. I'm afraid I've only done free things. Remember nursery fees only temporarily so it be better soon. Can you save Abit per week into an account it can just be five pounds it all adds up. We take own drinks etc out. Never been into a coffee shop as expensive so could you save Abit that way

It depends on your idea of fairness, I think.

If OP has sufficient skills that she can earn £14k by working one day a week, then shouldn't she benefit from that?

It all depends on individual circumstances. I couldn't comfortably say that if someone on benefits is earning just over the £892 per month to avoid being forced into working more hours by the job centre then they're doing something wrong because a) that's the amount set by the government so they arent breaking any rules and b) they could have very good reasons that working more isn't feasible for them. Although I have no doubt that some people are indeed hovering just above that figure to avoid being left alone by the job centre because they don't want to work more hours.

And people will always make the choices that they legally have available to them which best benefits their families.

We can't - and shouldn't - expect otherwise.

The key is to design the tax and benefit system so that people doing what's right for the country also ends up being best for them.

Which is blatantly not the case for high earning single parents of young children right now, as we can see with the OP.

And that's a problem.

My comment was relating to the Job Centre pushing people to take more work. I don't see a problem with that.

Is the £892 p/m an official government policy or a guideline for Job Centre staff, so that they concentrate their efforts on those that don't work at all? It seems bizarre that the government would have an official policy that they only want people to earn £892 and not more.

The system is clearly wrong if the OP is worse off than somebody claiming UC - especially when fringe benefits such as free prescriptions, cheap broadband, etc, are factored in.

The OP would benefit from lower taxes and, from a motivational point of view, cuts to UC entitlements, so that there is a clear, tangible benefit to working.

She currently pays 3x more in tax than she has left over after paying essential outgoings.

For part-time UC claimants to end up with the same take-home money as somebody on £70k is obscene.

There needs to be both a tangible benefit to working and an incentive for UC claimants to increase their hours and progress their careers.

Children also need to see a benefit to working. If they go without 'nice things' because their parents don't work, that's an important life lesson for their future. Maybe some pester power from the kids might encourage parents to go out and earn some extra money.

Yep the £892 is the actual rule. If somebody earns more than that, they are in "light touch". It's called the administrative earnings threshold

Well quite. Which is why these threads are wrong. Take the poster who came to kick the boot in. Tells op to cut her cloth. 2 adults - only one working on a lower wage. 4 children. Two teens, two primary. One disabled child. So UC for a family of 6 plus disability, plus careers and everything else. The harsh truth is - that poster will be clearing the equivalent of a high salary after tax. Even if you take the disability elements out. No childcare, no commuting, minimal tax.

But op deserves a kicking for being in the top 5% of earners? It is obscene and it’s wrong.

1 to 10 is not childcare there's no care going on it's throwing food at them saying no that hurts and changing nappies

They already have relaxed the ratios. Was 1:3 now it's 1:4. This means SEND kids are being excluded as they require too much care to be met in mainstream settings at this ratio but there isn't anywhere near enough specialist settings. That lack of early education has a knock on effect to their school years. I'm sure I'm the long term it will cost the tax payer more.

Pretty sure teachers are not changing nappies.

Ignore that. I misread it.

Which is what happens at home in normal family life. Not every minute needs to have a form of entertainment/learning.

I am not paying my nursery to educate, I’m paying them to just keep the child safe, warm and fed.

Children in Poland don’t go to school until they are 7, many can’t read/write at that point. It has absolutely no bearing on outcomes later on.

Well, the more you work the better off you are as you get to keep more UC £ for £ (especially as I have no childcare costs) so I work full time, I'd be worse off if I only worked 18 hours a week!

Oh and I don't get free prescriptions either, that's not a blanket thing for everyone receiving UC. Same with free school meals, you have to be earning less than £6k per year to get those things.

The more you work, the more is deducted from the UC award. But yeah most people are better off working more hours in the long run. I guess for some 18 hours is sustainable or they really can't work any more than that.

It depends where you live in the UK

I know, I get UC myself, but they deduct something like 60p for every extra pound you earn, so you're always better off working more.

Yeah it's 55p in every pound. I also claim. And don't work for health reasons.

But that's only the case for people on UC, not in the overall tax system.

If OP goes from earning £14k to earning £70k (£56k better off) - which is a realistic option for her, comparing working 1 day/week or 5 days/week - she gets to keep £15k of that: 26p in every £1. Nothing like as generous as what your 40p for every £1 you earn.

But if you include her childcare costs (which you really have for for a single mother of a nursery age child) she's only £540 per year better off. She gets to keep less than 1p for every extra £1 she earns.

How can you possibly think that's fair? Or that she should choose to do that?

Do you do your grocery shopping at Harrods or something? How can you possible spend £40 a week on that?

I’m useless at budgeting and finding bargains, but even I think that’s crazy.

Show me where I said it was fair? I wasn't commenting on OP's situation here.

This was you at the start of the thread.

*You have to view childcare as a temporary evil.

I earn less than half what you do, but I have about £1000 per month disposable income because I have no childcare costs any more. It doesn't last forever.*

Someone on UC having more disposable income than someone in the top 5% of earners is infinitely wrong - no matter how you swing it. It is relevant to op because this is why women get pissed off and leave the workplace.

Again, show me where I said it was fair? Life isn't fair unfortunately.

I have more disposable income than OP because I have no childcare costs. That is the crux of the issue - the fact that childcare is so expensive. Also housing costs. I likely live in a much cheaper area than OP.

Leaving the workplace wouldn't make OP better off though as she has a mortgage.

We didn't even include her housing costs in this. No help for OP with her housing, no matter how little money she has left since she's 'so rich'