Both work and we claim UC but still can't afford to live.

[Mocha1]

We have 3 kids, 2 who aren't at school yet, my husband and I both work 30 hours a week for charities so not highly paid. We also have childcare for part of the week and then juggle the kids between us the rest of the time (We don't want to work more as we dont want the kids in fulltime childcare). We rent and down't own. We claim UC but we are still really struggling to make ends meet. We really try to live to a tight budget but I have no idea how to lower our expenses any more.

Am I missing something? Is this normal? does anyone have any tips for saving money/ making more income somehow? I feel a bit at a loss as we keep dipping into our savings for just day to day expenses and we're nearly at the end of those.

Our income at the moment (I'm on MAT leave) - £3980
Outgoings- £4250

Do these outgoings seem like a lot for a family of 5 living in the south west? I've been going over our budget and I have no idea how to save any more unless we literally never bought another birthday present or went to a soft play ever again.

They are actively / purposefully not working full time as they believe their children benefit developmentally from them being home more than working full time allows -
which as an ideology is fine, but not when it means you are moaning about lack of finances
most people have to compromise their ideals for being able to manage the cost of living and not be dependant on benefits -
that’s why the kickback here -
why should society subsidise those who who are happy to take from those who are working / paying taxes / making compromises and cutting their cloth accordingly

I think all these responsible, hardworking parents who didn’t have the third child that they wanted is a problem. Something is wrong with how we are running our society. These missing children are a great loss.

The missing children are great loss? Really? When we can’t feed the population, house the population, provide decent water , sewerage and education to the population we have ? Nuts

I agree, it's the responsible, hardworking people who should be incentivised to have a third child.

while I agree with you about child care, you are both only working 30 hours which is a luxury. Unfortunately one of you needs to work more. If this isn’t possible in your current roles then you need to look for something else. While the children are little it is a little bit of a juggling act.

Everything is a trade-off, OP.

The only way to stop using your savings is to search for additional ways to make your money stretch further:

• look at your food budget - eg porridge is filling, relatively cheap and everyone can eat it; ditto Greek yoghurt; drink tap water; make soup and spaghetti last by watering it down so one pot can last several days; no eating out or takeaways, including coffee; parents can skip meals - don't recommend it, but needs must;
• travel - walk instead of catching the bus, even in the rain, even when it takes over an hour
• unnecessary subscriptions / costs - no tv and therefore no subscription charges; borrow books from the library instead of buying them; free activites like the park or craft from recyclable items you have at home like empty egg cartons, toilet rolls etc.; make do and mend when it comes to clothes; use comparison websites annually to make sure you're on the best internet/water/gas/electricity deal for your needs; double-check all policies and their inclusions to make sure you're not doubling up or paying for more insurance than you need;
• get second jobs - there are two parents in your household, so one or both of you can get a second job in the evenings
• sell what you don't need/get freelance work like dog walking or mind other people's children
• alternative childcare - are there any other options e.g. would it be cheaper for 2 or 3 of you to pay for a shared nanny to care for all your kids a few days a week, instead of nursery? Is there another parent you trust who can watch your child one day or afternoon every week and you watch their kid in return on a separate day/afternoon?
• Increase your working hours - At least one of you needs to work full time
• Work in a different sector - One or both of you get jobs in the corporate (ie better paying) sector

You might not like any of those options. In that case, all you can do is continue using your savings.

If you choose to work around 80% of the potential hours you could, you have around 80% of your potential income. It's not hard to work out. Childcare is an issue, I'm sure, but far less so now with funded hours.

Deciding to have children not in full time nursery comes at the cost of you being able to properly support them.

I guess if you were working full time you wouldn't get UC though and that's as much part of the story.

Probably because going full time will cut their UC to nothing

Thus is the mindset of some, pick the lifestyle they wish to have - and let the tax payer fund it

I genuinely find it surprising that anyone feels financially secure enough these days to have more than 2 children. We stopped at 1. We have good jobs, own our own home (with mortgage) and have decent savings but the cost of living is so high, and I fear how quickly everything could unravel if one of us was made redundant (not unlikely in our sectors) so I don't feel we can be responsible for any more children. Perhaps we are too risk adverse but we're definitely not alone - in our wider social circle of mostly well earning professionals everyone has stopped at 1 or 2 kids (except for a couple of families with twin second pregnancies).

Or work more.

I know you don’t want to, but you don’t have that luxury. Either you/your husband gets a better paid job or you both work more.

This.
I’m really shocked that there are people who have the arrogance and selfishness to work the minimum they can get away with to maximize their ‘benefits’ -paid for by fthose who work fulltime and responsibly have only the number of children they can support, without leeching off others.

Why are you shocked? This is a very very common scenario. I regularly see people posting online asking after work ‘but no more than 16 hours as it will affect benefits’.

I’m shocked that you’re shocked frankly!

I'm sorry, but I think the answer is both to work more hours and to look for better paid jobs outside the charity sector.

I know it sucks. Everything is a compromise.

We managed to both work full-time but only use two days of childcare by juggling flexible working around each other, and doing weekend work. It was a slog and we have almost no time together for a few years, but it was worth it and things got easier as the dc got older.

We can afford to do all those things. What we can’t afford to do is feed, water and educate the world and subsidise the feckless and lazy.

It is tough. But one of you needs to get out the third sector and work full time hours.

Frankly, once you're out of the charity sector, you'll have greater job security too.

OP just because people have e said things you don't agree with it doesn't mean they are "unpleasant"

This.

well we are stuck with them so need to include that in our budget

All this 'have fewer kids' nonsense? Shutting the rich husband owned stable door after the show pony has bolted much?

Unless Op posts expenditures it's difficult to say.
But on that amount of money they should be able to make ends meet.

If they've got 3 in private nursery then their outgoings may make sense but I would assume these costs would decrease over time.

Eh? Who has a rich husband? Or a show pony?

It is well know stats that children growing up in poverty are statistically most likely to continue living in poverty means very unlikely to become contributors. Especially those ones who see parents not working or working part time and claiming benefits.

The kind of person many people on this thread are insanely jealous of. Or pretend to be?

I would never have even one child without having my own home let alone 3! What sort of financial decisions are people making here? InAustralia no one gets tipped up by the government if they work and neither should they. You earn enough to pay your own bills. Honestly children living in low socio economic situations suffer. The parents are just lazy and selfish.

Oh yes...

But that was back when you expected a fair number to die in infancy; when you needed those children to work; you had someone home all day to raise those children (and probably work from home at the same time).

Since the 1960s the average family size has been 2 children!