AIBU to stay on UC instead of working

[Lulubon]

Hey I'm looking for outside insight...

We are currently receiving around £950 UC/Month
this is made up of a standard couples amount, child tax and housing benefit. Plus £84 child benefit

My partner works full time, he earns around £1400/ month
Our rent is high but standard for our area (£1075/ month for a 2 bed flat)
We cant move due to contract + we would have to move quite far to lower rent, meaning further from partners work- costing more in travel etc which would make it around equal we've checked this...

We have 1 child aged 1.5 years

We struggle with money but make do- usually dipping into the overdraft to afford food shops/ petrol though. We dont spend on extra luxuries, no dinners out/ new clothes, I try to buy everything second hand. Though I do spend some on toddler groups with my son (usually 2x a week max)

I have a 0 hours job but we cant afford childcare (£100 a day is standard in our area for nurseries/ £7+/ hour for childminders, though ive never managed to find space anywhere!!! I'm 190th on the waiting list for one nursery!?) so I don't take many shifts.

I'd like to work a part time job in order to come off UC as it gives me huge anxiety relying on it, we'd also like another child soon but obviously I'd like to earn more before we took this step. My issue is, even if I work full time, im not going to be bringing in ANY extra money, in fact LESS!?

We have estimated that we will be WORSE off if I return to work due to childcare costs... what can we do?! I feel so trapped! how do we get out of the hole of UC?!

The most I will make a month on a part time job is around £930/ Month
and childcare will be minimum £400-500/month

With a full time job could potentially earn £1400/month with childcare around £900/month min, meaning take home would be £500 after childcare costs.

The upside is, my partner has just completed a qualification meaning he will be eligible for a higher paid job but its marginal and will take from our UC but we should end up slightly better off... and it depends if he lands a better job too.

can anyone help?! am i missing something obvious???

@Villagewaspbyke

Also I do think that people have a general point about how people on middle incomes often can’t afford to have extra children but those on benefits can. It does seem unfair.

Of course these couples could afford it as they would be entitled to the same benefits people already on benefits receive if their income was the same. They usually could anyway, they perhaps just couldn’t afford to keep their lifestyle and have a 2nd child. I say this as a non benefits claiming family, yes we couldn’t afford another child and maintain the same lifestyle but that’s not the same as saying we couldn’t afford to feed, clothe etc another child

@Villagewaspbyke

I used to work in tax affairs for high net worth individuals op. The billionaires that you slate are paying huge amounts of tax which is paying for your benefits. On the other hand, anyone not in the higher rate tax band (40%) - generally is not paying enough tax to pay for their own benefits.

Not saying people shouldn’t claim what they are entitled to, but I do have a problem with the whole concept of let’s criticize big business/ billionaires who are contributing loads but still doing well rather than those taking out of the system. If we didn’t have big business and wealthy people to pay the disproportionate amount of tax they pay, we would have much smaller public services/ welfare.

100% this. I have no idea where a lot of people think that the money to run the country comes from? The top 1% pay over a third of all income tax.

I would stay on UC until your child is school age and work around your partner so no childcare costs. Makes no sense being worse off unless you have a career that would be negatively impacted by taking a break. There is a whole life time to slog on with working, raising young children is only a tiny chunk of time. Personally I think helping parents financially during those early years is an investment on those children who will one day be supporting us in our old age.

@Tumbleweed101

I would stay on UC until your child is school age and work around your partner so no childcare costs. Makes no sense being worse off unless you have a career that would be negatively impacted by taking a break. There is a whole life time to slog on with working, raising young children is only a tiny chunk of time. Personally I think helping parents financially during those early years is an investment on those children who will one day be supporting us in our old age.

This is such a short term view and makes women make financially stupid decisions.

In my experience it is so easy for women to stop working and so hard to get back in to work at anything like the same level

It’s all about priorities. This myth women can have it all, you really do have to pick. I picked kids and I don’t regret it one bit. I can do the career thing when they have left in 10 years time. We’re going to working until 70 anyway!

Have the kid at the right time for your Tamika day try and get work to fit in around that. No one lies on their death bed wishing they had built up an extra 6 years pension.

• for your family

There is nothing at all stupid about prioritising bringing up children over climbing the career ladder. It is a perfectly valid choice for some people. Some people choose one; some the other. To say that someone who makes different choices from you is being stupid is inappropriate.

OP has already said that she is not wedded to climbing the career ladder and enjoys being a SAHM. This is a good thing to foster. Time enough to climb that ladder.

I see so many professional people, both men and women, who claw their way up their career ladder and have this as their priority in life and then get to 45-50 and burn out and wonder what the hell they are doing. And realising what they have missed, especially when it comes to time with their children. But by then it is too late.

Please allow OP to have her opinion and make her own decisions without introducing the word stupid. Those who choose to prioritise their career have that choice and that is fine. But it is not the only choice - both are valid.

@Mischance

There is nothing at all stupid about prioritising bringing up children over climbing the career ladder. It is a perfectly valid choice for some people. Some people choose one; some the other. To say that someone who makes different choices from you is being stupid is inappropriate.

OP has already said that she is not wedded to climbing the career ladder and enjoys being a SAHM. This is a good thing to foster. Time enough to climb that ladder.

I see so many professional people, both men and women, who claw their way up their career ladder and have this as their priority in life and then get to 45-50 and burn out and wonder what the hell they are doing. And realising what they have missed, especially when it comes to time with their children. But by then it is too late.

Please allow OP to have her opinion and make her own decisions without introducing the word stupid. Those who choose to prioritise their career have that choice and that is fine. But it is not the only choice - both are valid.

It’s fine if the OP doesn’t want to climb a career ladder but she is putting herself in a vulnerable position. She is not married to her partner so if he up and leaves he has no responsibility to her. She is dependent on the whims of the state. A job is security.

I worked for 800 a month in a fulltime job. Took home 1600, but 800 went on childcare . Then petrol costs of driving to work and parking was another 40 a week. So I had 160 after a full week's work. It was like this for 3 years until my salary increased. I went for every promotion going and now earn more. Working is worthwhile if you play the long game and have opportunites for promotion/changing jobs in your locality.

Unfortunately while you are playing the long game you are leading a frantically busy life, wearing yourself out and missing out on time with your children when they are little - a time that passes in a flash. They will be spotty teenagers before you can blink!

We cannot always live for the future - sometimes we have to seize the day, take a few risks and live for the moment and have the fun of the children when they are small. Enjoy them without being exhausted. The future that people work so hard towards may not be all you hope it might be; and may not be worth the sacrifice.

It may be that a job might feel like security. But at what cost? - life spent as a wage slave - when middle age arrives you may wonder what it was all about.

I spent 5 years at home with my little ones - money was tight (just as it would have been if I had been at work and paying child care costs) , but we coped. My OH then became ill and had to leave his secure professional practice and go freelance so that he only worked a few hours. We had to sell our home to release some cash. At this point I returned to my career part-time and had no problem getting a job. We shared the child care. I then took a huge risk and started a new somewhat precarious career that made less money but more happiness. My OH then became even iller and eventually died. How glad I am that I was able to help him leave work and have some time with his children and that we did not prioritise the career ladder for either of us.

Honestly, you do not know what is round the corner - I never dreamt that his illness would turn our lives upside down as it did - but if we had concentrated on our careers and good money rather than quality of life, he would have slogged himself to death (quite literally). If we had thought only of the future, he would have missed out massively, and so would I and the children.

We think we have control of the future - we do not. What we map out may not happen as we planned. There is a case to be made for seizing the day and enjoying what you have at this moment. By all means take sensible steps to be as secure as is reasonable, but do not throw everything in that basket. Life truly is blooming short!

@Lulubon I sympathise with your situation and hope you find a solution that works for you. However, I just want to say it is a luxury to stay at home and look after your own child as you can have universal credit. Not everyone is in this situation. And yes people do work to earn £300 after paying £500 childcare as it keeps their career going.

No system is perfect but having lived in a country where there is zero social security, you are truly lucky to be able to rely on the government to help support your family. After all it was your choice to have DC and your choice to stay at home - but you wouldn't have this choice if someone who is not you or your husband is not paying for it.

@Mischance I’m so sorry that happened to you. Life is so fragile and you’re right you can’t control the future. It’s very sad that we live to work and then die, I’m so glad your husband got that special time with you as a family and it does just things into perspective.

@chopc yes although actually pre baby we were in a fabulous situation, lots of money coming in, loads of saving etc we were so ready to have a baby and knew we were financially stable… then the pandemic hit, my partner lost his job (a restaurant chain district manager) and I was unable to work due to having an extremely high risk pregnancy as well as hyperemesis (sickness that lasted my entire pregnancy, sick 20+ Times a day, over 30 hospital admissions) my partner has to look after me, I couldn’t even sit up for go to the toilet on my own for months on end. Our saving disappeared, our jobs gone, and that’s how we got to where we are! My partner is now in a new career, more stable but starting from the beginning ( though he’s just finished training to help him climb the ladder) and so although I might be lucky to be at home with my son, I never expected to be down this road, we’d never been on any type of benefit before my son, I still have little understanding oh how it all work 🤷🏼‍♀️

It has always been the case that going back to work and placing your child in nursery makes no financial sense - this was me 20+ years ago working in the accountancy profession at manager level, big 4. That's a consequence of having children. That's why it was common to take a career break, often after child #2, until both kids were in school.

It’s all about priorities. This myth women can have it all, you really do have to pick
It's not a myth at all. I did it as a single mum and so did other single mums I met. It's hard work, very hard work but can be done.

We cannot always live for the future - sometimes we have to seize the day, take a few risks and live for the moment and have the fun of the children when they are small
And how many families who did exactly that are the ones who are now living in fear of the increase of the costs of life, wondering how they'll pay for food and heating, petrified of aren't increase it worse, being evicted?

Life is a gamble. You can invest in it or not. You can lose whichever choice you make but all in all, you are much more likely to gain if you do invest in the present for the benefit of the future. If anything, you are much more likely to be in control of your life and that of your family.

I know the chances aren't that high but what would happen if you got hyperemesis in your second pregnancy?

I don't know why sharing childcare with another local Mum isn't more of a done thing. So you can both work part time and watch each other's kids

Unfortunately while you are playing the long game you are leading a frantically busy life, wearing yourself out and missing out on time with your children when they are little - a time that passes in a flash. They will be spotty teenagers before you can blink!

Part time or even full time work won’t stop the OP seeing her children to the extent she never sees them.

I’m sorry about what happened to your husband but financially you were in a different place from the OP - you had a home you could sell when you needed to.

I know, the OP is talking about working, what 15 or 20 hours a week. When 15 hours childcare will kick in relatively soon for her - with the proven benefits to children of socialisation (of course it's not the only way this happens) and posters are talking about her not working herself to the bone, frantically running around and missing out on her children growing up. She's not talking about a 50+ hour job with a commute. She's considering taking steps to financially contribute to her family - which given that her DP has already had a setback in his career, it may make sense for her to do so.

OP I know absolutely nothing about UC or benefits.
I always earned just above the threshold for any assistance. DD got no grants nothing at university. Younger by 2 years DS is working in a successful enterprise didn't go to uni.
We did it ourselves. Me slogging my guts out.
I wish I'd stayed at home with them when they were little. Money doesn't cut it.
The guilt is immeasurable because you will never ever get that time back.
Go with your heart 🌷

You live to work and then you die.

We all have to find a way through this and make our own decisions as to how to deal with it.... find ways to get the most out of life.

OP would not be wrong to have her second child now and receive UC rather than leaving the second child till she is back at work and receive Maternity benefits. Under the first scenario she gets time with the children during some very crucial years of their development - that is to be highly valued.

In parts of Europe the idea of financially supporting parents in order to let them concentrate on their children for several years is not a source of guilt: it is a given. It is a part of their society's investment in the future.

Being at home with my children for 5 years was in no way to the detriment of my career - I was of course "behind" those who had not taken a break, but why does that matter? We have skewed perspectives I think, demanding that children pass milestones at a certain age and that we are at a certain point in our careers at a certain age. Why? - just why? I simply do not get it; and from the perspective of middle age it feels deeply wrong.

Live for the day is not a bad adage; temper it with some common sense of course, but having that on your list of priorities is not wrong. It seems to be on no-one's list. The brain-washing of achieve, achieve is so ingrained.

I know that I was "lucky" that we had a house to sell when hard times hit - we downsized big time and we all gave up a lot when we made that move - but we prioritised family life and my OH's well-being. Our careers did not follow the prescribed pattern but we were able to bring up 3 happy children who had learned an important lesson about priorities.

I wish I'd stayed at home with them when they were little. Money doesn't cut it.
The guilt is immeasurable because you will never ever get that time back.
Go with your heart

I can only reiterate this.

@Lulubon I am so sorry for what you have gone through. It just brings home how easily shit can hit the fan! I hope you find a way forward that works for you. Social security is there for circumstances such as yours and I hope you are able to find a way forward and actually helping your family would be a good use of tax payer's money.

I have actually been put in my place and humbled.

In theory you should be better off working than on benefits as you still get UC top ups depending on income- but...do what is best for you and your family! I went back to work as I enjoy it and its a good balance for us, but if being a SAHM works for you at the moment then I wouldn't rush back to work. You might find it more manageable when the 15 hours kick in? It's worth looking at options and plugging some scenarios into the calculator to see.

Of course being a SAHM is a valid and valuable choice. If I was independently wealthy I'd do it in a heartbeat. But like every choice it has risks. I'm thanking my lucky stars at the moment for my well paid professional job. I've spent years building it up and now the shit is hitting the fan, it's all worth it.