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.

Sassybeast makes a good point, that you have to take a global view of these things. Sometimes there are phases, maybe lasting a few years, or maybe particular times of the year, such as school holidays, when you are working at a loss or just to break even, but take a bigger view on it. I worked for nothing for several years but if I hadn't kept my skills and experience up to date, I could be struggling to get a foothold on the career ladder again now.

I know people with school age children who don't want to work because they'll have periods of time such as in August when their childcare bill outstrips their earning. They ignore the fact that the rest of the time they are working for profit because their kids are at school all day.

To a certain extent it's about an attitude of mind. Some people refuse to work unless they're making a really significant amount over and above their outgoings. Some people take a wider view and see it as a long term investment.

I agree btw that childcare costs are a lot for many parents, but at least things are moving in the right direction. Working tax credits are a phenomenon which weren't around for many people when their families were young. And the thought of having childcare vouchers would have been a dream come true for us when our kids were small. Of course people would always like to keep more of their hard earned wages, that's always going to be the case, but tbh I things are way better now than at any time previously. Also, women tend to take longer maternity leaves now, which cuts down the time they need to use childcare. If you take a year off, and then get childcare vouchers which will contribute part of the cost from your child's 3rd birthday, then actually it's not a huge amount of time you're paying full price is it?

Last time dh and I were that poor was when we were students. But you're right, have to play the long term game. My job is the best I can find in this area and it would be short-termism to become a temporary SAHM and give that up. If dh earned more maybe it could be an option but you work with what is. But when my work is very very stressful, like now, then working for very little is dispiriting. But them's the breaks.

But DinahRod I appreciate it must be very frustrating to see your SIL and DB better off then you despite your earning more. I know I have my moments where my sister who earns less than me seems to have "more" than me etc.

But in the long run once your children are at school you will be better off than them I assume? Also if it was a struggle you could both take lower paying jobs in order to qualify for more benefits.

You sound really reasonable from your post so this isn't aimed at you but I get the feeling that some people on this thread think that living on benefits is easy. I've been lucky enough never to need extra help from the government but I have friends who struggle to make ends meet every month. Benefits are there for a good reason and we should no begrudge them to people. It may mean someone receiving benefits has it better than you but realistically this is only ever going to be the case for a few years (unles of course their cheating the sytem).

I just think we have so many choices in life but with the materialistic "must have" society we live these choices are almost invisible to some people.

No, you're the one who said women should be happy to stay at home and mind their own children. You're the one being offensive. What about choice?

Why the fuck have we fought long and hard for equality in the workplace, for longer maternity leave and the right to return our jobs after this maternity leave, if we have to resign from these jobs at the end of maternity leave and live off our partners because of childcare costs?

Thousands of people, women, and as we've seen from this thread, men, who want to work are being forced to give up jobs that they enjoyed and were good at because of childcare costs. How is that right?

There are pletny of ways in which taxpayers' money could be better spent, and loads of people getting help who don't deserve to.

Not everyone who doesn't qualify for WTC is living the luxury lifestyle. We have a 16yo car, don't go on holiday, live in the smallest house in the area, don't go out, don't buy new clothes, don't buy booze or meat etc etc. If I had gone back to work before DD1 was at school, it wouldn't have been about making a few sacrifices, it would have been about losing the roof over our heads.

Thats not what I said, look again.

What about choice? Most of us can't afford a choice. Your choice was to have children, your choice was to live in an expensive area, now your choice is how to pay for them.
The sense of entitlement in the UK never ceases to amaze me. I want to work, you should pay my childcare, I want to stay at home, you should pay me to do that....whine whine whine.

Get a grip and join the real world.

AnnieLobeseder I know nothing of your financial state obviously. But the boundaries at which these benefits are determined are not plucked out of the air. Is is perfectly feasible that someone who earns too much to qualify for WTC should be able to sustain a modest lifestyle and pay for childcare.

"if we have to resign from these jobs at the end of maternity leave and live off our partners because of childcare costs?"

These women chose to do that. There are many other routes that could have been explored. The DH changing shift patterns, sell your house, move to a cheaper area, don't send your children to the best school in the area, sell your car, stop paying your pension for 3 years etc etc etc. I resolutely refuse to believe there is no other way. There is.

AFAIK this argument is futile as once you're earning too much to qualify for WTC I basically think "tuff luck".

Life aint easy, you have to suck it up.

When you're worried your gas meter is about to go and you've got no money literally (so no house you could release funds from, nothing in the bank, nothing on a credit card, no savings, no parents, no inheritance, no business, nothing nowhere not one solitary pence) for the next 2 days, then come back to this thread and tell me how, "taxpayers' money could be better spent".

Actually, navyeyelasH we had DS1 9 yrs ago when there was no WTC and we also had "no money literally (so no house you could release funds from, nothing in the bank, nothing on a credit card, no savings, no parents, no inheritance, no business, nothing nowhere not one solitary pence)". If you can claim WTC then the state is giving you a massive amount of help so a lot of people can "suck it up."

I think most of you have been focused on the needs of the mother not the children. I would recommend Sue Gerhadt's (author of why love metters) new book The Selfish Society. She states that really children need their parents to be at home with them for the first two years of their lives - from a psychological point of view, this can impact the rest of their lives.

She recognises that the modern woman doesn't want to be tied to the home, ideally both parents should be able to work part-time so they can look after the child. Also parents need to be paid for looking after children at home.

Looking after children has been compeletely devalued - we are only willing to pay the minimum wage to look after our children in the most crucial part of their lives.

We have achieved women in the male defined workforce and work style. We have a long way to go as women. We need to redefine work and the workplace to incorporate the family. Our children are suffering.

YABU I don't think benefits should be there as a lifestyle choice, they should be there to fall back on if you find yourself out of work. If you can get work then you should work to support your children even if you are not better off at the result. All of those in work are having to pay for you to stay at home otherwise!

Agree with so much of what has been said on here.

I was a single parent for some years but work full time. I was getting tax credits to pay for SOME (not all) of my child care costs.

When I mentioned this at work, I was horrified at the level of resentment this caused one or two women I work with who have high earning husbands/partners and hence didn't qualify for tax credits.

Why should someone living in a household lucky enough to earn jointly at least £75k pa believe that they should be entitled to benefits? My colleagues couldn't seem to see that I had the same mortgage, the same utility bills, clothing, food, etc etc as them but with less than half the salary. Would they have preferred that I stop work, go on the dole and get a council house instead?

If you are lucky enough to be married to someone who is earning a good salary and you don't actually need to work (and hence you don't qualify for benefits), then PLEASE don't envy people who earn so little that they are reliant on Government top ups to survive!!

but afaik there is no regional assessment of wtc which explains why I am entitled to partial hb whilst only getting the minimum wtc. And poss fall into higher rate tax bracket. Now that's a ludicrous situation.

It is a struggle and costs in London and the SE are extortionate.

I agree with you wholeheartedly annie and don't think its got anything to do with a sense of entitlement.

its to do with women having a real choice and about gender equality.

Next someone will be saying having dcs is a lifestyle choice. Soon we'll be means testing people before they have children.

also very disheartening to see all your salary go in childcare costs - it's like you are getting no reward for your efforts at work - am sure if a motivational theorist were to study it they would find that.

A family's income is what they have coming in, there is no distinction made between whether you earn it or your partner, it's all the same. It isn't just about income ever - it's about making sure you keep your skills up to date and that you have a decent working track record. I think the costs of childcare need to be thought of as a family cost, not an individual one - that's where the wrong-headed thinking comes in.

And I'm mystified by these massively expensive nurseries being the only option - I live in fairly central London in a 'nice' area where there are indeed hugely expensive nurseries but my DC don't go to the really fancy expensive one. There are always alternatives IME.

By navyeyelasH Sat 03-Apr-10 19:54:13
When you're worried your gas meter is about to go and you've got no money literally (so no house you could release funds from, nothing in the bank, nothing on a credit card, no savings, no parents, no inheritance, no business, nothing nowhere not one solitary pence) for the next 2 days, then come back to this thread and tell me how, "taxpayers' money could be better spent".

You have hit the nail on the head for me here. This is what we are like every week, some days when the gas goes out we have to wait the 2-3 days before we can have heating and hot water.

Its not an easy life to live and yes i chose to have children but i didnt choose to have to live my life like this, it happens and it happened to us. We didnt ask for it.

Utter tosh cranbury.

cranbury - this has been said a million times on here before but it's always worth repeating - women have always worked. The 'mother staying at home with children' is a late 20th century invention. Which is now being used as a big stick to beat women back into the home as far as I can see. I do wonder whether there would be this focus on how much damage we were doing our children if we were all still stuck in low-paid jobs with no security or benefits. I suspect very little ...

It's utter rubbish cranberry.

How do you really define the needs of the mother as opposed to the needs of the child anyway? I know loads of women who have chosen to give up work because they want to. They actually have no idea whether it's going to be best for their children or not. They do it because they prefer it. There can be a whole host of contributing factors behind that - maybe they never liked their job much in the first place, maybe they like the idea of a few years out of the workplace, maybe they have a deep seated yearning to be at home. I know quite a few women who would be horrified at the prospect of continuing as the breadwinner while their husband stays at home - they want that role for themself.

And the idea of 'ideally' both parents working only part time - ROFL, what planet is Sue gerhardt living on? Oh - and who pays the parents to stay at home? Get real - people like Sue Gerhardt are working for money - that's why she wrote the book y'know - so she's actually doing what she's preaching at everyone else not to do!!!

Here's the thing - life isn't fair!

I pay almost all my salary in childcare (I have a fairly good p/t job but have 2 DCs in nursery) and DH earns a (low side of) average wage. Colleagues of mine (who are junior to me and have basic administrative jobs with little responsibility) take home considerably more than me because their parents look after their kids. In fact (amazingly) I am the only woman in my office who pays for childcare (and I am the highest earning - pro rata - woman in my office). I could whinge about this all day long - but I made my choices, I had kids knowing I had no family support nearby.

With the exception of those who have had unexpected circumstances IYSWIM (those with DCs with SN, widows, single parents, ill health, redundancy etc), we have all made our choices. And quite probably made sacrifices (for example having kids close together and taking a career break or having them further apart so only paying for one lot of childcare at one time).

Having children is a choice. If you make that choice then you should have worked out, in advance, how you are going to fund that choice. It is no different than choosing to buy a car, then expecting the other taxpayers to pay for your petrol.

Violethill yes, some people choose to work in lower paying jobs because they want to - for 'intellectual stimulation', 'artisitc needs' or whatever - fine - but if you choose that, it is ridiculous to then expect other tax payers who have chosen better paying jobs, to pay for your childcare.

Annie as a microbiologist you weren't getting paid more than £8 ph? You are back at work now, happy apparently, so how did you achieve that after MP? 'Mary' is not now a 'single mum' - the children's Dad just lives in another house - he is still equally responsible for the children's welfare.

You say "Sorry, I can't ever see it as right to tell someone they should be happy and grateful that they have to stay at home and be supported, and that their worth as a working human being is not as much as their partner's." - that is not what is being said. What is being said is that you make the choice to do the job you do, you make the choice to have children - if you choose to have a job that doesn't pay well or if you choose to have children - then you need to work out how to pay for those choices - and not expect the other tax payers to pay for those choices for you.

AnnieLobeseder This whole 'the low-earning partner should stay home and sponge off the high-earning partner instead of the taxpayer' is insulting and derogatory, mainly to women.

By AnnieLobeseder Sat 03-Apr-10 18:55:46
And it is completely insulting and derogatory to me to suggest that a woman should stay home like a 50's housewife and mind the children while her husband pays the bills!!!

AnnieLobeseder And what some people absolutely fail to grasp is that myself and other are not for one moment suggesting that chilcare doesn't come from a man's salary too. We're talking about when a couple, with joint income, are worse off by a significant margin, when both are in work

Annie are you and a friend posting under the same name - your posts are quite contradictory.

Sassybeast/NavyeyelasH/Porcamiseria/Runnybottom/Pitterpatterfeet/DinahRod etc - it's great to see that not everyone has this sense of entitlement that is pervading the country. That some people still see their children as their responsibility

Sincity - having children is a choice. If you then choose to go out to work and have someone else look after those children, why should other taxpayers pay for that? You could have chosen to work in a better paying job, you could have chosen to (shock horror) save up before having children and you could have chosen not to have children if you couldn't afford to. So what if it is 'disheartening' to see all of your money go into childcare costs - you made the decisions that got you into that situation, why should other people, having made different choices, now pay for your childcare???

CheekyVimtoGirl - what do you feel 'happened' to you?

annielobester your posts resonate with me - thanks.

ChippingIn - I think you're reading people's posts and then adding a dose of your own ideas into them.

I entirely agree that it is people's choice to work in certain careers, and if you read my post you'll see that I never said I expect anyone to subsidise my choices. As a teacher, I decided that I would rather work for no net gain in the short term for the sake of long term gain - and its now paid off as I have a well paid management postion which is really interesting.

If I was just interested in money, I'd have remained in my first career, law, where I earned more money but increasingly found I didn't believe in the particular case I was dealing with, and furthermore, got seriously hacked off with all the private school wankers who had arrived in the legal profession through the old boys' network rather than through their own ability.

I have never expected anyone to subsidise my choices - not my DH or the tax payer!!

chippingin - I am trying to understand your statement "You could have chosen to work in a better paying job."

What kind of statement is that?

The roles and jobs and rates of pay are not simply about choice.

For example - there is still a wage gap between what men and women earn, do you think women just choose to earn less.

Also are you aware of the rates of unemployment?

EricNorthmansmistress - yes I was using entitledto. I'm now thinking that there is quite possibly a bug in the system when it gets to working out other benefits. Having tried to penetrate the mire that is the information/calculators on DirectGov I don't think we would be eligible for CTB under any of the scenarios. The 16 hour thing seems to revolve around whether you're paying for childcare or not. But as under that first scenario (where loads of CTB was apparently) due, the majority of childcare costs would be offset by WTC payments, it doesn't seem to affect the eligible income that much. Ghosts in the machine at entitledto perhaps!

If we would not be eligible anyway then that's a relief. It was the sheer inconsistency that I couldn't get my head around.

I have also double checked the working hours thing on the IR's CTC calculator. If we both worked 16 hours and avoided childcare costs then there is no difference to entitlement from what we get now with just me working. But if we do claim for childcare it is as entitledto said. As well as the childcare element that's payable, the CTC goes up as well. Still very strange...