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?

Not a lifestyle where you can spend much though. OP will be skint. I suspect she will hurry back to work very quickly!

I'd also like to add that those of us who work are still very much 'raising' our own children. They are at school some of the time, at ballet, football, chess club some of the time, at grandparents' overnight some of the time and yes, even (shock horror) at nursery some of the time but I am still raising my child, exactly the same as a SAHM mother is.

The system is broken. A family should be able to support itself on a single income. The fact it can't is a failure of our society and economy. The system recognizes this and picks up as needed.

Research is really clear that kids do best when care is provided by the primary caregiver for the first 2 years. The fact as a society we've been pressured in to not doing this isn't the fault of the OP.

Just an fyi I returned to work after both my kids, had no desire to be a sahp despite the ability to if I wanted to be. But I fully support a society which allows people to be if it works for them.

With all due respect, a working mother and a SAHM are not raising their kids the same in the slightest.

Doesn't mean one option is better than the other because it is very individual.

But having been a mother who has returned to FT work 16 weeks after having my daughter and now being a mother who is out of work after having twins, I can assure you I am not raising them the same. In some ways, I was a better mother while working but in others I'm raising them better by being home. Children get polar opposite experiences between the two.

Quitting your job to rely on benefits and a partner on minimum wage is madness. You can get tax free childcare and funded hours down the line

I can see you’ve had loads of advice already OP but just to say there might be a middle ground here. My little girl went to a childminder 3 days a week from age 1 - 2 and now she does nursery 2 days and is with the childminder for one. The rest of the time she’s at home with either me or her dad, we each work 4 days and have different non working days.

I know when they’re little the thought of them going elsewhere is really hard but honestly, it’s fine once you get used to it and it does so much for them in terms of confidence and independence. Many of the children I know who don’t go to any form of childcare are much more shy than those who do. My daughter gets lots of opportunities to do lots of things we don’t do so much at home, and the interaction with other children is really good for her. Now I have a second, it’s nice to have some days with just the baby too.

And for me, maintaining my career and having that role in my life too feels fulfilling and gives me my independence. It’s been good for all of us. And the childminder was a real home from home for the first year, it felt much less scary than nursery.

Of course no one is raising their kids the same. Every family is different. But it’s offensive when people say they want to stay home to raise their kids as if people who also work are somehow not raising their kids. You can say ‘raise them differently’ or ‘raise them how I want to’ or any number of things but working parents are also parents and children can have a wonderful life in any number of combinations of the options.

And for whatever it’s worth we did exactly as the poster above - we both worked full time in 4 days so the kids were in nursery 3 days a week. It was a perfect setup for us and allowed me to progress in my career just as my husband did. When the kids weren’t at nursery they were with us - we don’t have family or babysitters or anything. We each had a day on our own with them and then weekends as a family. My husband is just as competent as I am which was important to me too, particularly as we don’t have family here.

When my son was born it was lovely that I got loads of 1:1 time with him knowing full well my daughter was thriving at nursery with her friends. I think they both benefitted from that as well.

I am still stuck on the part where someone would deliberately choose to remove themselves from the workforce to use benefits and rely on their community like that by choice but as the saying goes ‘hate the game not the player’ so I’ll stop thinking about that!

Agree with what your saying re would rather stay with baby for next 2 years and then resume your career. Read somewhere that if you can do the 1st 3 years looking after your child then that is better for the child. You can always add to your pension pot later. Money isn’t everything.

And this is why the country is fucked. Outside of health exceptions, it really shouldn’t ever make financial sense to give up work and live on benefits. If you weren’t planning on living on UC I’d not comment beyond “are you sure this is wise?” And yes I do think there’s some post partum irrationality talking, but ultimately it’s your decision. The problem is you’re expecting the rest of us to pay for that decision.

But she is not using the funded hours so saving the government money. Governments just want everyone to work so they get more tax! If the Op wants to be a stay at home then she should be applauded! I kno2 it’s not for everyone but certainly those 1st few years evidence says it better to be with a primary carer.

agree.

Please don't do the math based on your current salary. If you go back into work, in 5 years time, you will be so much wealthier and will be able to have freedom financially. Don't give up work purely based on the current math. So many women don't understand this and have partners who don't encourage them to understand it!

I quit a toxic job when I was pregnant with my first 8 years ago and thought my career would hence forth always take a backseat. I loved being home with my baby but I was missing the intellectual stimulation and also you know it won't last forever as they will go to school etc. I went back to work, with renewed purpose and efficiency as every minute away from my son meant it had to count for something

8 years on, I have two beautiful boys and have been promoted three times, I now have the financial freedom to be able to give them and me the best life we could possibly have, with my supportive husband also by my side. We earn pretty much the same now and given the promotions etc are mortgage free

Dont give up work based on current math. Give it up only if you don't want to work. Happy to help if you want to PM me

Every family raises their children differently. A working parent is every bit as much of a parent than one that stays at home.
Two SAHP will raise their children differently. It’s not helpful to pitch working parents against SAHP.

I have to agree.
I’m fully supportive of choice but that needs to be an informed decision. A partner earning minimum wage means he can’t afford to make up the OPs pension shortfall and leaves them very vulnerable financially both in the short and long term.

You’re misrepresenting the research here.
The research shows that it’s neutral. Childcare for u2’s is not explicitly beneficial to the child (but it is to the family in terms of work and finances ) but it’s not harmful either. The quality of childcare is key.
Childcare does start to show benefits to the child after age 2 but again, the key is quality.

I stayed home for 4 years after my second was born due to childcare costs. I didn't claim benefits though. There are pros and cons - you don't have to hand your baby over to someone else and I do really value the time I got to spend with my children when they were little. But on the other hand, it's very relentless. When they're under 1 you can't imagine wanting to leave them, but after a few years you realise what hard work it is! Going back to work felt like a holiday afterwards. Plus a lot of your friends/people you hang out with on maternity leave will gradually go back to work or move on so it can get very lonely.

When I did go back to work it was a huge adjustment and you'd be surprised how much things change when you're out of the workplace for a few years, whatever your industry. There will be new procedures, new systems, different ways of working. Being out of the workplace is also a huge risk - no savings, no guarantee of a job in the future, no safety net if you split up with your partner. Like I say I did do it and don't regret it at all, but only when I had my second child and I wouldn't have done it if I'd been dependent on benefits.

As it happens I'm not working now (caring for SEN DS - something else you can't predict by the way) and I really miss working. You miss out on so much socialisation and intellectual stimulation when you're just at home.

I agree with you, society is a messed up mix of low (nowhere near actual living) wages, high rents, lack of social housing, and extortionate childcare. Creating the conditions for circumstances like the OP and her family. Meantime, Employers’ profits are being subsidised for low wages through employees claiming in work benefits.Housing benefit costs go to landlords. Having said that, I honestly didn’t know that there was a choice for first 2 years, I thought it was a right wing myth.

But she would get £1000. If I quit my job 25 years ago when I had my first i would have got child benefit, nothing else.

this thread has clearly demonstrated that living on benefits IS a lifestyle choice in this country.

That isn’t true

my sister gets it and she earns 1900 pcm. Plus child benefit

I’m just skimming the thread but I think the country is in trouble with this generational mindset shift.
I am 50. To me, benefits are for people who need it, and if you don’t need to, you don’t claim them. It’s irrelevant if you do/don’t get more, you work if you can to help those who can’t.
im probably already a step down from my mum who saw not being on benefits as something to be proud of.
whereas now, able bodied and minded working age youngish people are doing their sums, working out what accrues them more money.
the country is fucked.

Don't think she would. It would be less than that.

“Governments just want everyone to work so they get more tax!”

Where do you think the money for benefits come from? Anyone who NEEDS universal credit should be happy that the Government wants everyone to work, because the work and the tax pays the UC bill. I’m a high earner, so I pay thousands and thousands in tax every year and don’t begrudge it (although it is a bit painful seeing my bonus reduced by 60% before I get it this month) but benefits are supposed to be a safety net not a choice,

Thanks for being the only person to even acknowledge this.

Just a few points to clarify for the people being reactive to this thread.

1. I'm 37. I have a professional qualification. I worked hard my whole life since I left school. I've never claimed ANYTHING. In fact I've contributed. Not just my taxes - but my actual work. If you end up sick in hospital, people like me care for you. I've dedicated my life thus far to helping others. I trained for 3 years unpaid working on the wards (like most of us in the NHS!) and worked in the NHS since 21 and pay my taxes. Despite the work I do, the pay is relatively shit for the pressures we're under and the level of responsibility. My husband is in a similar boat except the government don't recognise his profession on the HCPC register. So his pay is not regulated like mine and he earns even less despite dealing with very very harrowing issues and working TWO jobs to get a decent wage.

2.The irony of being blasted for considering UC by people who have likely had funded hours for their kids or sent their kids to state school or claimed child benefits. You've had more off the state than me and you're having a go at me over a CONCEPT. I don't actually claim any thing and have only recently got child benefit (2 payments so far) and very likely will be returning after mat leave.

1. We were advised we would be best off buying a home as there are practically no rentals where we live (it's become a 2nd home place full of holiday makers). We were told we would be bottom of the ladder for social housing and would be quicker to get our own place. So we bought a home - VERY modest. It doesn't have central heating. We don't qualify for any help to get heating. We have no garden or driveway. Just a simple terrace with a yard. There's a bunch of social housing estates here...nice new builds with solar panels, gardens, driveways, next to schools and amenities. Nice for some right? We work and can't afford a place like that. Be angry at that. This is the type of thing pushing more people to make alternative choices than working. Blame the system that seems to reward SOME people relying on it completely.

1. We did things "right" our whole lives and kept putting off having a family until things were just right. But I obviously have a limit. We decided we wanted a family and we would make it work. If we're doing all the "right" things: qualifications, professional jobs, mortgage, why should we not be allowed to have a family? People can say "don't have them if you can't afford them". We should be able to if one or both of us is working. And so should everyone!! To the people criticising my husbands earnings - what if my husband is on minimum wage? He works hard. He contributes to the home and society. Shouldnt people be more angry that our minumum wage isnt enough to support a family to look after their child whilst they are cared for by their main care giver for the first 3 years as per the research? Are we okay with that? Are we really saying that people less well off just categorically cannot have a family?? Even though they work!?

No - be angry that your government think the national minimum wage is acceptable, it's not. Most people claiming benefits actually work. People wouldn't have to claim UC if the min wage was raised OR if companies paid a fair wage rather than exploiting workers. Be angry that people who have degrees in health and social care barely get paid for the work they do for society. And if you're using funded childcare - YOU are also getting help from the state because your job does not cover your childcare! You are on no superior moral high ground.

1. If being a SAHM is no longer a CHOICE feminism has failed. Women being able to access the workforce should never have been at the expense of their motherhood. It should be a CHOICE for a mother to raise her own child or go to work (or both). Yes, even if she's working class. Even if her husband earns min wage! If there is no choice, there lies the moral failure of SOCIETY. Not of a MOTHER accepting state support to care for her own child. To say otherwise is gaslighting women.

If you CHOOSE to work, good for you but if you're not in a position where the choice is gone - then check your privilege. If you say "I had no choice" - you did. You just weren't willing to do what I'm exploring or make other sacrifices. As for people saying women who work also "raise" their children. Sure they do. But someone else is raising them for 37+hrs a week plus your commute - there's just no way around that. If you're happy with that, great. If you're not - don't project onto other women your anger at your own decisions. Project it where it's deserved - your government.

Essentially, society wants working class women separate from their infants as then we can TAX them and we can maintain a system (childcare) of other working women to tax. That's what you should be mad about. We have prioritised the labour and taxation of mothers over being mothers to their own children. A sick society which revolves around money which is misspent by a crooked government who fund wars beyond our shores and line their own pockets with second homes, expenses etc.

Wake up - stop attacking the poorest in society and start questioning the society you are in and who it's run by. If working people can't look after their own kids, they are not to blame and you cannot police who has the right to a family based on their income. Some of the most awake people are out of work and using the system to their advantage and I'm getting to the point where I don't blame them!! Working doesn't work anymore.

I can only speak from personal experience, but I dipped in and out of the workforce with no real ramifications.
I did put my children into nursery and regret it enormously in retrospect. I am working like a dog now to build up sufficient cushion to make sure that my grandchildren do not have to attend nurseries.