Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

331 replies

mummycanthavealife · 02/04/2010 20:21

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.

OP posts:
TheCrackFox · 02/04/2010 23:22

Who the hell would want to be a childminder nowadays - they are being Ofsteded to death. IMO this has been done on purpose so everyone has to send their DCs to a nursery instead.

gtamom · 02/04/2010 23:23

"By mummycanthavealife Fri 02-Apr-10 20:21:54 Add message | Report | Contact poster

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. "

What do you mean by better quality of life?
They are under 5 years old. What do you think they need that you cannot provide for them now?
Do they have adequate food, housing, health care when needed?

If you are talking about cars, vacation, lessons, eating out you are definitely BU.

Go to work when they are in school full time.

I suspect it is YOUR quality of life you feel is not what YOU want, not the kids "quality of life". In which case you should go get a outside job and realize it may not help things financially, but maybe you will be a happier and therefore better mother.

ChippingIn · 02/04/2010 23:28

AnnieLobeseder Fri 02-Apr-10 22:18:57
ChippingIn and ericnorthman - guess I earn less than the average wage then, cos nursery childcare for one is just about equal to what I earn....

AnnieLobeseder Fri 02-Apr-10 22:48:01
ChippingIn - I said that childcare for two, not one, was more than I earned. When only DD1 was in nursery, I took home a pittance but did take home something.

What it comes down to is that you chose to have children. You could afford to live on one wage, supporting 2 children - why do you think the tax payer should pay either of you to not look after the children you chose to have???

TheCrackFox · 02/04/2010 23:31

"What it comes down to is that you chose to have children. You could afford to live on one wage, supporting 2 children - why do you think the tax payer should pay either of you to not look after the children you chose to have???"

Going by your argument the whole WTC should be scrapped.

gaelicsheep · 02/04/2010 23:33

But ChippingIn - that is exact|y what the Government wants!! That's the who|e point of their ridicu|ous TC system! We are being pena|ised because one of us chooses to |ook after the chi|d we chose to have.

maristella · 02/04/2010 23:42

what ChippingIn said

the tax credit system was designed for low income families, for many low income families it does work, or at least improve the family's financial situation. if a family earns above the threshold they are deemed to be earning enough not to be classed as a low income family.
the idea that high income families could use this system to subsidise childcare, based on the lowest earner's earnings is ludicrous.
there also seems to be a notion that work is only available during the usual working day. absolute crap - if you want so badly to work there is work available outside of these hours, it may not be quite so desirable. i fully appreciate that when the main earner does shift work planning childcare for a second income would be a complete headache.
the fact is that tax credits are for low income families, if you earn above the threshold you have something to be grateful for.
gaelicsheep - none of that applies to your situation, i really don't understand it! have you tried the online tax credit calculator for each financial eventuality?

mumof2children · 02/04/2010 23:45

agree with gtamom.

gaelicsheep · 02/04/2010 23:47

I have in the past mariste||a. This time I used entit|edto.com . The resu|ts are the same. Essentia||y a coup|e sharing the work and the chi|dcare have the same entit|ements as a sing|e parent working fu|| time - as |ong as the sp|it means they both work more than 16 hours a week. We cou|d do this and spend our respective days off |ounging at home with DS in chi|dcare and get the taxpayer to foot 70% of the chi|dcare costs!

Perhaps someone e|se might |ike to try the same experiment?

ouryve · 02/04/2010 23:48

By AnnieLobeseder Fri 02-Apr-10 22:31:05
"I'd like to point out that I don't think childcare should be free or anything, just subsidised to the point of, say, the same as a woman would get on MA - £106 a week take-home pay (or whatever it is now)."

Heck, Annie, that's more than double what carers get "paid", right now.

TheCrackFox · 02/04/2010 23:50

If a couple play their cards right they could work the SAME two days a week and get the tax payer to pay for the childcare. They can then play the Waltons Family for the other 5 days a week.

Seriously, this "system" is complete bollocks".

gaelicsheep · 02/04/2010 23:54

Precise|y TheCrackFox. I don't think this is common know|edge at a||, otherwise peop|e might not be so praiseworthy of the TC system.

TheCrackFox · 02/04/2010 23:57

TBH I am a bit annoyed because I too couldn't bloody afford to work but I could have persuaded DH to work 3 days a week and I could have done 2 (got the taxpayers to pay for childcare instead of muggins doing it) and been a whole load better off - financially and emotionally.

It stinks.

Quattrocento · 03/04/2010 00:03

Things are a lot better now than they were.

To the OP, you might think about working for a couple of years even if it doesn't make any financial sense - just to keep those skills honed.

gaelicsheep · 03/04/2010 00:03

Oh and here's the abso|ute best bit:

DH works 15.5 hours a week - our CTC drops from £43.63 a week to £10.50 a week. No he|p with chi|dcare costs or anything e|se.

DH works 16 hours a week for the same money - CTC goes up to £54.67 a week p|us some he|p with chi|dcare costs and Counci| Tax Benefit (as in (3) ear|ier).

This is why DH gave up his 14 hour a week p/t job. It cost us more than he earned.

ChippingIn · 03/04/2010 00:09

CrackFox/Teaandcake/HobbNobb/Gaelicsheep etc

The system does need looking at - to see where the tax pounds are needed/best spent across the board.

My feeling is that if you choose to have children, surely you should work out how you can afford to support them, not rely on the state. All govt 'incentives' are 'unfair' because they aren't designed to be fair, they are designed to fit their agenda and there is no guarantee they will remain the same.

Why should someone choosing to stay home/go to work get credits etc when someone who chooses to do the same to kook after an elderly relative doesn't?

What really pisses me off are the people who have children then decide it's up to other tax payers to pay for their childcare because they don't like being at home with their own children. Even more so when they think the DH should be able to earn lots of money, but the other parent should be able to claim benefits if they are paid a lower wage. It's the sense of entitlement that really riles me.

TheCrackFox · 03/04/2010 00:10

The whole 16 hr thing is so arbitary. What difference does 14 hrs or 16 hours make. The nursery costs will be exactly the same.

maristella · 03/04/2010 00:12

going back to the op: being on too high an income for subsidised childcare does not render you unable to have a life!!!!!
night all

gaelicsheep · 03/04/2010 00:14

I agree in princip|e with what you're saying ChippingIn - the bit about other carers particu|ar|y. But what you are saying is that no one who doesn't have very high earning power shou|d be having chi|dren, which is a |itt|e mean-spirited to say the |east!

The Government has chosen to support fami|ies with chi|dren through the tax credit system, inc|uding fami|ies on what I wou|d consider a very high income. I think the |east they can do is make the system fair and not pena|ise peop|e who actua||y want to take responsibi|ity for themse|ves and not have taxpayers pick up the tab more than is abso|ute|y necessary.

I don't want to get more money. I am simp|y staggered that we cou|d do so if we were inc|ined to p|ay the system to our advantage.

ChippingIn · 03/04/2010 00:15

Sorry x posting a lot as keep getting interrupted!!

Crackfox, it really needs looking at in regard to it making a difference who is earning the money.

It someways it should just be 'joint income' regardless. You should be entitled to the same 'help' regardless if it's one person working 5 days or splitting it.

However, then I suppose you could argue that 2 parents on a low income need childcare whereas 1 parent earning a lot of money with the other parent at home doesn't - sigh...

gaelicsheep · 03/04/2010 00:18

I simp|y think that if the Govt is going to contribute to chi|dcare costs, then the amount of hours worked shou|d be irre|evant if the chi|dcare is required in order for that to happen. Converse|y, if chi|dcare is not required in order for someone to work (as in the case of shared working and care) then it shou|dn't be subsidised.

ChippingIn · 03/04/2010 00:23

Gaelicsheep - that's not really what I'm saying and I'm really not mean spirited. I am not sure how it should be, to be fair on everyone, what I am saying is that if a couple can afford to live on one wage but choose to have the second person working 'because they want to' then I object to that being funded by the tax payer, especially if that funding was calculated on the second wage only.

Also, you know the different scenarios you did before, regardless of how the money is generated (WTC/CB/1 wage/2 wages) and regardless of the emotion of it - which scenario gives you the most 'cash in hand '?

ChippingIn · 03/04/2010 00:25

GS IF the govt is going to contribute to chilcare costs then I totally agree with your POV. How would you prove that though?

gaelicsheep · 03/04/2010 00:26

I'm pretty sure the second one (ie the current one) gives us the |east . I'|| work it out. [smi|e] (GRRR, can't smi|e without my e| key )

ChocHobNob · 03/04/2010 00:29

I never once mentioned I expected the state to pay for me having a child. I was simply commenting on how expensive childcare is and it has increased since I had my eldest. When we first had our children we weren't as bad off as we are now. But unfortunately over the last 5 years, outgoings and expenses have increased by more than my husband's wages. (My second was unplanned). Plus its harder to find a job due to the recession.

I didn't say I wanted my tax credits increased. I just wish I could find a way to get back to work as I think it would benefit me, my children and the whole family financially (if we could get past the high childcare costs).

ChippingIn · 03/04/2010 00:44

GS - yes you ca just type : and ) next to each other!!

It will be interesting to see which scenario works out best 'cash in hand' wise.

ChocHobNob - I understand your sentiment (you'd be better off financially if you didn't have to pay childcare) and would like to give your children a 2 income lifestyle. I am intested in debating this (nicely ), but isn't that a bit like saying I wish I could not pay the mortgage (which is a sentiment I also understand!!)? Childcare is a cost, mortgage is a cost - why do people feel that childcare should be paid for/subsidised?

Genuinely interested in debating this and not having a slinging match

Swipe left for the next trending thread