Am I missing something - childcare.

[Halie]

I'm currently on mat leave and thinking about what will happen once mat leave ends.

Initially, I planned to return to my job, but currently I'm struggling with how that would work financially. As well as that, I feel very negatively about putting baby into childcare / nursery aged 1. I know it works for some and that's great but for me it's going completely against my instincts especially with the things I read on the news about nurseries.

If I put my child in nursery it's approx £200 per week locally, so £800 per month. We're a 2 income home, but to simplify it, that leaves me with about £1000 left of my wage. However, if I quit my job I can look after my child myself and according to online calculators I would get approx £900 in universal credit and £100 child benefit.

Am I missing something? Why would I go back to work to pay for a stranger to take care of my child when I can leave, do it myself and have a similar income?

What are other people without a village doing and what led to your decisions?

Each to their own. I wouldn’t ever be the “primary caregiver” to our children as I see it as a fully shared responsibility.

It’ll be even less a life of luxury if you went on benefits rather than going back to work.

You can’t seriously think it’s justifiable to lose a £31-£38k salary and instead rely on state money, willingly, by choice, when you’re able to work?

Because the system recognises caring for very young children is an acceptable reason for a short career break.

Because she has been a tax payer for many many years.

Because even if she returned, our taxes would contribute to the government subsidising childcare. So either way costs the country.

Because its hard to see this as a choice when the system is forcing her hand by allowing more financial security but not returning.

Because the view that being able to work solely means physical ability is ignoring the abundance of reasons that makes attending work difficult.

Benefits are a short term safety net, I would argue taking 2 years out of FT work to care for a very young child meets that criteria.

I didnt either.

I'm not anti funded care, I am anti "I think I will give up work and let the state fund my time at home" You had a child, you should not be relying on the state for your lifestyle choice - which quite frankly it is.

You clearly wanted people to say "yeah you go gurl!! its your right" but a lot of people think that if you are able to go out and earn a wage, then you should

Lockean Tacit Consent.

Why do you think it's even an option for mothers, by the way? Your government permits it. Disagree with it? Well then you do something about that.

Nah, your rant hasn't changed my mind. Of course I think people should be helped if they need it. I believe in that. I believe in sick leave and carer allowance and affordable childcare. I do not believe that society owes families the right to opt out of working for years and years while I support them. There is nothing wrong with a dual working household and there's no shame in being part of a relationship where both people work. It is wonderful that there are a variety of flexible working options and even more wonderful that there are options to help pay for childcare.

I stayed home with my babies for around a year and am grateful I could do that - it is tricky to balance breastfeeding (if you do) and working so I'm glad I never had to do that. But I am very sure that (most) children benefit from nursery and very sure that society is enhanced by the parity that is achieved when men 'and' women have their own careers and own money and can take care of themselves and their children without relying on the state or their partner. I would far rather the money spent on enabling women to opt out of working go towards training opportunities, apprenticeships, seed funding for small businesses... all the things that would help to create a society of men and women who have engaging careers alongside raising their children.

And I would no more say that a partner of a SAHP isn't 'raising' their children than I would for a working parent. I think that's a terrible thing to say. Plenty of other phrases are less inflammatory.

If her partner was earning over the expected threshold then at the time she wouldn’t have been expected to look for Work. It’s changed now where they expect two people to earn one and a half Person salary.

If they can do that single-handedly that’s fine
If they can’t then the second person is expected to look for work but my goodness they’re lax in terms of enforcement. I mean realistically what can you do if somebody can’t find a job that fits in around school hours, Then that’s that

“Benefits are a short term safety net, I would argue taking 2 years out of FT work to care for a very young child meets that criteria.”

No it isn’t, unless you can fund it yourself.

How much does your husband earn a month?

The basic UC award for a couple over 25 with one child and no housing or childcare is £920.91. With you not working, your husband would have to be earning under £684 per month for you to have no deductions from the UC award amount. Do you have more children? Disabilities/long term health conditions? Struggling to see how you reached your figures tbh.

Also, are you aware that a) your husband will be put into the intensive work search category because of having such low earnings? And that if you are planning to become self employed that income will also be taken into account by UC and after a certain amount of time you will be expected to be earning a set amount which will be subject to deductions from UC even if you don't actually earn it that month?

But it does meet that criteria because it's permitted. Once a child reaches 3, support would stop and there is an expectation to work.

I told them I was looking after 2 small children. They said that was fine and I did not have to seek work until the youngest left primary school. When the youngest reached 12, they reached out to be to review the situation. They explained that I'd now be expected to seek work, i had already anticipated this so had started looking for work. By the time we scheduled a job seekers appointment, I'd already started a new job! I know lots of mums who claimed tax credits for the same reasons, and they are not expected to work until they left primary school. It's a fantastic support for mums who SAH with young children. It's important mums don't feel bad for claiming benefits, it is there to be used. As long as people are honest, it's fine.

i think something will be done about it, so your position will be vulnerable.
it used to work on morals and conscience, and I’m not sure these exist so much nowadays.

Tax credits are not the same as UC. They were very different and the rules have changed now.

As long as one partner meets the AET the other has no work commitments even after three.

Well, if we’re looking at welfare reforms, that would go on my list of things we could toughen up on.

A government that has no infrastructure in place to support families with young children is a recipe for disaster. Birth rates are already a huge concern and that will not alleviate that problem.

I do agree there are better methods of supporting families. For instance, Poland has recently passed a law that families with 2 or more children will have a higher income tax threshold so their retain more of their finances to fund raising children. Excellent idea. Encourages people to return to work without a huge financial penalty. Increases financial independence as families are able to fund their own childcare without the UC childcare element or tax free childcare.

What has been made clear throughout this thread is that the infrastructure for family life in the UK is extremely poor and pushes people to welfare. That is a governmental issue not a claimants issue.

This what I have been trying to say. I don't think she will get much.

Totally agree.

Yes I've just had a look at UC. It has changed. You can still claim benefits for being a sahm if the youngest is under a certain age (3). But they'd only be expected to work part time with a young child. I've attached a picture here.

They don't have to if the other parent earns over the AET. After three the work requirements will be turned off if that is the case.

Thank you. I'm aware though 😊

A couple of hundred pound a month at a push certainly not anywhere near £900

We don't get that even if I don't do any shifts that month with two kids and mortgage. Husband on a very low wage.

The basic UC award for a couple over 25 (assuming you are so apologies if you're not) is £1213.72

Minimum wage for 37.5 hours a week is approximately £1720 take home. The deduction from UC for that would be £570. That should leave £643 ish ? But obviously it depends on the actual income.

In the OPs case with only one child if her husbands salary was the same as above then all they would get on UC is £351 and less if he earns more than that.

I've just run a similar calculation on Entitled to, and it came at a very similar £344 per month. (I based it on 40hrs at NMW for DH and 5% pension deduction, plus no savings and no income from OP.)

I think OP has got her figures very wrong indeed.

I want to add a message of support. I understand why so many posters are pointing out the unfair difficulties women face after time away from work. But it sounds as though your job is protected and in demand.

I took three years off with my daughter who has just started preschool. She was with a childminder one day a week from about 18 months which she loved and I felt very comfortable with. It is the best decision I’ve ever made. She has entered preschool being able to fully communicate what is happening, she doesn’t need naps there, she is toilet trained and emotionally robust enough for a bigger child childcare setting.

I completely understand why some women have to ( to protect their families finances and their career progression ). Or perhaps even prefer to (because they love and value what they do ) send their child to a childcare setting earlier than this. But if you’re lucky enough to be in a position where your career is protected, you have enough job security to know your pension will recover and you have a supportive partner then it seems to me as though you have the option to choose what is best for you.

Postpartum weeks and months are extremely anxiety inducing. Just know that you have the ability to make whatever decision feels best for you in the future. I chose to use the time to retrain alongside caring for my daughter, I know that this wouldn’t be possible or even appeal to other people. But what I’ve lost in three years of pension contributions I’ve gained in new career prospects and an experience with my daughter that I could never have had otherwise.

As women we must be informed about how the system is unbalanced and unfair. It sounds as though you’re not going into this blindly or without doing your research.