To want to work but cant because of crippling childcare cant I have a life?

[mummycanthavealife]

Really want to work but kids under 5. my dp works long hours so never sure when he will be home, I was offered a job but had to turn it down because my hourly rate would of paid for my two children to be looked after so turned it down.
I really want to work give my kids a better quality of life but what is the point should I wait till my children are at school advice greatly appreciated,dont think im entitled to any help either,thanks mn.

thisisyesterday - if UK childcare costs were in line with the rest of Europe, I'd obviously have less to complain about.

Also, knowing the way things were before I had children didn't make me any happier about it. Now that I'm back in work, I'll still rant about it, because to my mind the situation is wrong!

AnnieLobeseder - totally agree re. single mothers/low income families, but am in agreement with ericnorthmansmistress that the government (ie. us) should not be subsidising families where there is a high earner.

I guess if you do have enough family income to work for a while at break even (or even a small loss) it comes down to how much you want to work/how much you enjoy your job, and how supportive the initial earner (the DH?) is.

I was going to post that I'm not talking about men who are super-high earners, so that the family can afford to take a loss if childcare comes to more than a woman earns, but rather families who fall into the "no WTC bracket" but still find the monthly bills a bit of a struggle.

But then I realised, I'm not. I'm talking about all women, married to men of all earning potential. And the other way around, of course. If childcare comes to more than either member of the couple earns, and the couple would be out of pocket with the lower earner in work, they should get help!!! No-one should have to face the decision of not working when they really want to, or having to pay to work. It's insane!

I agree that childcare is expensive but the government already does subsidise it for those who need it, via the tax credits scheme.

If you don't qualify for tax credits, then you have a high enough income as a family that you can choose to either have both parents work and be financially no better off but with the woman taking the benefits of being in the job market, or you can have one parents stay at home, which is a luxury that some cannot afford.

DH is SAHMing 4 days per week from May. He would like to be working more. But he doesn't actually bring in enough to make it worth paying for nursery for, all things considered (tax credits, housing benefit etc)and we are trying to save and pay back debt, otherwise I would encourage him to work more since he really enjoys work.

Them's the breaks.

This attitude that 'one should have thought about the cost of childcare before' really annoys me. If one is striving for an equal society, between men and women and with less of a class divide the society HAVE to provide affordable childcare.

I'd say childcare costs are high in UK because it is generally of a higher quality. Ofsted has certain carer-to-child ratios, staff are mostly trained. There is an expectation that nannies are qualified.

If you look at other countries, you will find that carer-to-child ratios are higher or not regulated. Or families are allowed or it is culturally acceptable to import cheap unqualified live-in housekeeper/nannies (or maids by another name) to look after very young children.

I'm a distinctly not high-earning full time working mum (less than the national average wage). My DH is stuck at home because he can't find work that will do more than cover the childcare. No help available other than childcare vouchers - we don't qualify for childcare tax credits. Consequence is we really struggle financially and DH climbs the walls.

affordable childcare just about equals slave labour for those working in nurseries,nannies etc.....why? its an important job,yet people think its too expensive!!

BTW, that post was mainly to point out that you don't have to be earning a high salary to be ruled out of help with childcare.

Even if we did qualify, it is blardy hard to find a part time job that guarantees that magic 16 hours. Under 16 hours and you get no help, no matter how low the family income - I never ever understood that.

Having children costs money.

But surely equality would mean pooling the FAMILY income so that both partners could achieve what they want - whether that be both working, or one SAH.

Equality surely doesn't mean both partners keeping their moeny separate with the woman bearing the brunt of the childcare costs and being restricted as to working (if that is what she wants).

(Disclaimer - I reaise this could only be the situation if at least one partner is a middle to high earner).

Dhinarod, benefits have to be paid for, by the rest of us who don't qualify for them. If child tax credits are negated then you aren't any worse off, you're just not dependant.

OP, why turn down work if it doesn't actually make you worse off?

I really don't understand the POV that benefits should be calculated on only one of the parents incomes? That's barmy.

If you 'break even' or 'only take home a small amount' after childcare it is still an option to go to work if it's what you want to do - if you don't enjoy being at home with children or feel your career will suffer. Feeling 'it's not worth it' is another thing altogether. It is 'worth it' if it's what you want.

There are two constant arguements on here - women who 'Can't go to work because they can't afford to' and others who 'Can't stay at home because they can't afford to' ??? What makes the difference? How much DH is paid? How big the house is? The standard of living? The number of kids?

To my way of looking at it - childcare costs less than the minimum wage (even for 2 children according to the 'national averages) - if you want to work you can - even if there's not a lot left afterwards and in many but not all cases, if you are in a partnership, you can stay home if you want to - downsizing, budgeting, evening work etc.

I think we all make choices and need to take responsibility for that. We are a generation where we are not willing to do as our parents did and 'make do', 'get by', 'scrimp & save' - and this is, what I feel, is causing a lot of the problems we have now.

I think 'benefits' should be generously handed out to people 'in need' through no fault of their own, not to people who could forsee the situation they are now in.

(Dons hard hat).

In our situation, we could both work 16 hours a week and get shedloads of money towards childcare, but potentially we actually wouldn't need it.

And this would be with the same overall family income. The system is utterly crazy!

I used to work full time 36 hours a week for a take home of £211 per month after childcare and that was before any travel costs. I didn't have the guts to quit, but I jumped at the chance of vountary redundantcy. I now work three night per week doing 17 and a half hours in the local supermarket, and I now bring home over £500 per month, and it also means I am home for the kids holidays, sports days, meetings with the teachers ect too

The system is a farce. You can have both partners working 15hrs p/w entitled to help with their childcare but have one partner working 50+hrts p/w and the other partner working 13 hrs and not entitled to anything.

Crazy.

Gaelic
you're saying if you both worked 16 hours you would qualify for WTC childcare element, but if one of you works 37 and the other 16 you get nothing?

Unless one of you is a very high earner that doesn't make sense. Of course you don't get help if one of you doesn't work (why should you?) but I'm surprised you don't qualify. Something not adding up.

what chipping said.

mumdrivenmad that's what i do. but many won't consider it.

By AnnieLobeseder Fri 02-Apr-10 21:48:50
... I'm talking about all women, married to men of all earning potential. And the other way around, of course. If childcare comes to more than either member of the couple earns, and the couple would be out of pocket with the lower earner in work, they should get help!!! No-one should have to face the decision of not working when they really want to, or having to pay to work. It's insane!

It is not insane for the government (AKA OTHER TAX PAYERS) NOT to pay for YOUR childcare because you want to work - you can afford to live on one wage and stay home with your children, you can end up in the same sitution financially if you work or don't - therefore the choice to work or not is yours - why should the rest of us pay for you to work???

By gaelicsheep Fri 02-Apr-10 21:54:39
I'm a distinctly not high-earning full time working mum (less than the national average wage). My DH is stuck at home because he can't find work that will do more than cover the childcare. No help available other than childcare vouchers - we don't qualify for childcare tax credits. Consequence is we really struggle financially and DH climbs the walls.

If your DH can cover the childcare by working then he is not stuck at home. He is making the choice to stay at home. If you are financially equal whether he stays home or works - then it's a choice not to work.

Dh worked nights for a few years when dd was born too. As you say not many people like the idea of that but needs must.

First I'll say I have not read the whole thread. I have been in this situation myself. It's insulting when people say that they wish they could afford not to work. This is only true if you earn loads of money to start with if not you have to pay all your wages on childcare.

And as for dh/dps paying for the childcare-well I'm all for it if they earn enough, but that's the point isn't it?; Who earns enough to keep a family and pay for childcare out of 1 salary? well I have heard that some people can, but not in our family dh has a good job but it's still not enough to pay for even after school club for our 2 dcs.after everything else he pays for.

I have worked since ds was 1, but always evenings and weekends. I think this is the only answer unless you are some sort of a high flyer.

Yes crackfox but if the second scenario couple can afford to pay the childcare themselves why should they get help? You're looking at 2 days nursery costs there, and if the other earner works 50hrs plus on anything above minimum wage they should, combining both wages, manage to cover the childcare.

Do you think it's wrong that two p/t parents get help with childcare?

EricNorthmansmistress - having posted, something's not adding up for me either so I'm checking as we speak! It's a long time since we looked into it and I could be talking out of my rear end!

surly your oh doesn't work 7 days a week...perhaps you could get an evening job or weekend work.