is this a reasonable amount to live on?

[ilovehens]

Or would it be classed as a small amount?

£20,280 (net) for a family of four - 2 adults and 2 children under 12.

This is after small housing costs.

Just want opinions really.

I would hardly say my child has a dog's life, when we needed them we claimed them. When we didn't we did.

Dp works part time and gets paid accordingly, I am not sure whether they would be amused to have him looking after a baby when he should be working. I think he is lucky to have the arrangment he does and that he would be pushing it too far and would then risk losing his job.

I have very precarious health, I am at the moment clinging on by my fingernails. What if we were to both lose our jobs?

Lack of money is not the only thing stopping us, but it tend to be a factor in all of the other reasons as well.

Sorry when we didn't need them we did not claim them.

Katy I grew up poor and yep, DH and I were certainly poor

Sop I know what you mean

I just think-' we will find a way of coping whatever' has become more of our mantra: and a fairly accurate one at that.

Becuase people do. And they are happy.

Katy even if you lost your jobs you would cope

it's happened to us- I am a carer, no options there, DH was amde redundant

Now, we certainly never planned that with DS4 (the fact that it is CTB we are not claiming might give a few clues there LOL) but fact is if it does happen and you have a baby it would actually be easier: much as people lament it that's how the system works (I am not sure I lament it, I value that all babies in our society have access to enough even if I don't want to encourage benefit dependeny)

But otoh if your health makes you think you won't cope- ah well. That's an entirely different kettle of fish isn't it?

The reality for a lot of people, particularly among middle earners, is that financial restraints will influence how many children you have.

In the school where I teach, generally speaking, the larger families tend to be at one end of the spectrum - either very well off, one high earner, and SAHM so no childcare costs, OR they are living wholly or partly on benefits. (Note: of course there are exceptions to this - I am making a general point).

For people in the middle, who can't afford to have a parent at home, but struggle to meet childcare costs, it's often the case that you may have to limit your family, or have age gaps that you wouldn't naturally choose.

I would have liked to have 4 children. TBH, 3 was an indulgence (and achieved only by all of one salary going on childcare for a couple of years). 4 would have tipped us over the edge.

Poor health and a precarious job as principal earner and then working until 40 weeks say adn then just taking off 6 weeks on 90% pay etc might not work too well . I was lucky always to have good health but also I have never been too risk averse and that distinguishes me from some other women. Do something and usualyl it works out later. Take the plunge etc. Not everyone has that personality.

I do recommending bunching children up though. We had a 3 yrs, 1 yrs and a baby and both worked full time years ago so the one person who looked after them did them all and now they're all leaving university at the same sort of time/age. You concentrate the cost in a way and then having twins is the most efficient of all and in my view much easier - they were great. I'm very lucky. Best thing I ever did. The £1m on their school fees and may be £500k? on childcare... much rather have spent that than bought a yacht or posh car or whatever. And of course you can do it much much cheaper.

Violet - that's very true. From my DC's friends, of those who are from families of 3+ children almost all have either one high earning parent/1 SAHP, or both parents work but with family to provide free/cheap childcare.

I also know quite a few families where they have a gap of 4+ years between their 2 children because they couldn't afford to have both in full time childcare, and had to wait til eldest was at school before having second.

Exactly mjinhiding!

Take two parents, both working at similar level jobs, both earning good but not amazing incomes. That's a very common situation, given that people often partner someone of a similar educational background and working at a similar level, and given that relatively few jobs are on mahoosive salaries - most are going to be around the average.

It's utterly ridiculous that such a couple may well be better off by one of them giving up work. Utterly daft. The chances are they both want to work. The chances are, they have similar aspirations, they are both trained to the same level, and neither wants to totally jack in their career (amd equally, neither wants to have responsibility for being sole earner while the other has all the home responsibilities).

It would be far better to make childcare more affordable, than push one half of such a couple into giving up their career, then spend money on topping up the other partner's income!

That's an interesting theory, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were lots of manipulating of figures going on.

Just purely from a human viewpoint, it seems so wrong that so many people are forced into this ridiculous situation.

The truly well off, who can afford to work, or not work, have 6 children and live in a huge old house.... there will never be huge numbers of those. They will always exist, but they are a relatively small sector of the population.

Whereas people who earn average to reasonable incomes are the ones who have little choice. Why is it so difficult for the Govt to understand that couples in that situation want to work? My DH and I work in the same field. We are educated to the same level. We earned the same amount in the years before we had kids. Neither of us wanted to totally give up work. Neither of us wanted to have to be the sole earner. Surprising as it may seem, we both made the decision to become parents, so we both wanted to be able to continue on an equal footing. This was in pre-tax credits days, so I just thought, to hell with it, I'll work and if it uses all my income on childcare, then so be it - at least I have a career still going. These days, I can see that I might well feel pressurised to give up work, if that meant that our income dropped radically and my DH's earnings were topped up by tax credits!

It's SO wrong!

we mange on 12k a year.

I wish we had that much to live on after paying the mortgage! We'd be totally screwed if DH was made redundant though.

vh, depends on the career too. I knew i'd work very hard for 40 more years and would be on a lot more in 20 years' time than wen I was in my early 20s and started so the fact we could one of us work at a loss for a year after the cost of paying one person to look after 3 under 5s in our house (buy the way that sort of care is you have a lot of children is cheaper than 3 nursery places) is a kind of future invesment. f you just look to 5 years you have under 5s and think I'd work at aloss rather than if I stay home I am losing the chance to earn £XXXXX for 40 yerars after that that's very short sighted unless of course you woudl have so little you could not eat.

Absolutely Xenia.

Which is why I really disagree with any system which encourages people to look at the short term, and maybe give up work because they will be temporarily better off. The aim should be to encourage people to look at the bigger picture, not the next couple of years.

I don't regret staying in work, because its meant that I am now in a senior position, as is my DH, and we both have good investments and pensions.

However, I can see why people may find it hard to look at the bigger picture, when the Govt is effectively saying, 'Give up work and stay home, so you're on a lower income overall and we'll top up your earnings so you can get by'. Far more sensible to keep people in work, in the career they have trained for and worked hard to get into.

SO in a way the system causes sexism whereas in my day 25 years ago when I had my first baby, no maternity rights (you had to be employed 2 years to get them) and then only 6 weeks at 90% pay as now and no tax credits or subsidised child care etc women benefited. Even then I said enhanced maternity rights for women but not men keep women home, keep them out of jobs and damage women but over 25 years that still remains a much maligned view. If instead we said men get x months on £XXX and that is not transferable to women tiw ould be benefit women longer term.

The Ian Duncan Smiths, the Frank Fields (it's always men) and the Camerons with £150 a year if you become a housewife etc they will all end up keeping women at home if they are not careful and they are across all parties these sexist men with their sexist policies supposedly helping but actually setting female careers back.

Anyway as tax credits may well go for those on more than £26k of whatever gender may be more women will go back to full time work just as is happening in this mancession anyway which although they may not like it nw in 20 years' time when they chair the board etc they may be rather glad they did get forced back in 2010 because of economic necessity.

I think it's complex, but yes, to some degree there's some truth in that Xenia.

Enhanced maternity rights etc may appear beneficial in the short term, but in many ways, it was simpler back in the day when you were back within 3 months.

I have two friends who are currently into their second pregnancy, having had a year off first time round, and having only been back at work a matter of months. It may be their right, but in terms of their career, its not going to do it much good.

I totally agree mjinhiding, if dp could take some paternity leave we would be fine. But he can't and if he did it would be the final nail in his career coffin which is almost dead now anyway as he has decided to work part time from home.

6 months full pay in that state sector... no wonder the country is banktrupt. In Camerons custs on 22nd we should give public sector staff 6 weeks on 90% pay only and same sick leave and private sector and age 65 retire not earlier.

Laboiur was planning from next year to give men more paternity leave by the way and I think the regulations were drafted so that's still a possibility.

As a teacher I get:

first 4 weeks of absence:full pay inclusive of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP);

next 2 weeks90 per cent of a week?s salary inclusive of SMP;

next 12 weeks: half pay plus £124.88 SMP (not exceeding full pay);

next 8 weeks: £124.88 SMP.

I acknowledge it is better than most, but as major wage earner that means I cannot go past 18 weeks and that will be hard.

I sometimes feel like I have been conned to be honest. I worked hard at school and university and have strived all my life to support myself. I read all the feminist books went on the courses and was determined to forge my own way rather than rely on a man. Everything I have I had to fight for, no one has ever given me anything.When for a brief time I was supported by a man I gave myself a good metaphorical slap and rectified the situation.

Ironically my life would have been much easier if I had just stayed with my rich man rather than attempt to live the feminist ideal or if I had not struggled to escape the poverty trap.

I am tired, pissed off and very low at the moment, so the above is probably untrue and I apologise if I have offended anyone.