Page 9 | Am I missing something - childcare.

Halie · 2025-12-03T14:00:10+00:00

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?

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

january1244 · 04/12/2025 12:36

I really think this has to be made socially unacceptable, to decide to be a SAHP but rely on other taxpayers paying for your family. I actually think there is a big backlash coming, people are getting angrier about the abuse of benefits. The country’s in dire trouble financially, benefits are rapidly expanding and it’s not affordable. More is being taken from other taxpayers to try to keep up with the welfare bill.

I understand not wanting to leave your children. I have a one year old and a three year old, and I work and I waited until my late 30s also. But it cannot be right that those who are able to work can just choose to opt out and take money from others

strongermummy · 04/12/2025 12:42

you have a plan to come back into the workforce when the kids are older and a plan to keep your registrations valid so you can do that.

this is what the system is for. It is better for kids to have a primary caregiver. Especially during the first 7 years of life.

however most mums are not in your fortunate position. Many will not get back into the workforce because they will have been left behind and the corporate world won’t bend to fit their availability.
The NHS is slightly different.

please enjoy your time as a full time mum. I’m sure it will be as challenging as work and rewarding. But watch out for your future aspirations and finances. you will need that private pension for example.

SleeplessInWherever · 04/12/2025 12:42

I’m not attacking the poorest in society. I am more than happy to pay tax to support low earners who need a top up, people who cannot work due to either their own or their children’s disability, etc.

What I will not accept is why I should pay tax to fund the life style choice of a high earner who just doesn’t want to go back to work.

Don’t use the plight of the low or NMW earning parent to back yourself up. You are not them.

What I do begrudge, hugely, is paying qualified and experienced, economically able people to sit at home when they could be out earning a decent wage and contributing rather than taking.

You do not need that support, you just want it, and that is hugely different.

january1244 · 04/12/2025 12:45

@SleeplessInWhereverI completely agree

strongermummy · 04/12/2025 12:47

january1244 · 04/12/2025 12:36

I really think this has to be made socially unacceptable, to decide to be a SAHP but rely on other taxpayers paying for your family. I actually think there is a big backlash coming, people are getting angrier about the abuse of benefits. The country’s in dire trouble financially, benefits are rapidly expanding and it’s not affordable. More is being taken from other taxpayers to try to keep up with the welfare bill.

I understand not wanting to leave your children. I have a one year old and a three year old, and I work and I waited until my late 30s also. But it cannot be right that those who are able to work can just choose to opt out and take money from others

I don’t see a problem with parents of small kids or SEN kids relying on the system to help them for those years.
it would be helluva lot more expensive for the state to have to take the kids on if god forbid the parents are no longer available or the kid is too difficult for them to handle.

let’s not bash everyone. I’m guessing you dislike giving benefits to people you see at scroungers? Don’t work. Won’t work. Never worked etc?

the OP is not that. She and her OH have studied and worked and have aspirations. But childcare is expensive and small kids are better cared for by a loving caregiver. Ie their mother or father.
id prefer a system where all families are financially encouraged and supported to have a parent at home for the first 7 years. The country would be a lot better off than it currently is. Kids loved nurtured and nourished. Proper bedtimes. Proper meals. Family centred care. Secure attachments. Less anxiety. Fewer loose louts on the streets. Would not take long to see the benefit. Sadly no government is woman enough to make this a thing.

Original poster

Halie · 04/12/2025 12:55

SleeplessInWherever · 04/12/2025 12:42

I’m not attacking the poorest in society. I am more than happy to pay tax to support low earners who need a top up, people who cannot work due to either their own or their children’s disability, etc.

What I will not accept is why I should pay tax to fund the life style choice of a high earner who just doesn’t want to go back to work.

Don’t use the plight of the low or NMW earning parent to back yourself up. You are not them.

What I do begrudge, hugely, is paying qualified and experienced, economically able people to sit at home when they could be out earning a decent wage and contributing rather than taking.

You do not need that support, you just want it, and that is hugely different.

Edited

My husband is NMW. I am the primary care giver. For our child to be raised by the primary care giver, we would rely on NMW.

I also would not call myself a "high earner". I'm not on doctors wages. I'm on average Band 5 wages, hardly the life of luxury.

OP posts:

arethereanyleftatall · 04/12/2025 12:55

A CHOICE that you want other people to fund @Halie. Wheres my choice that I don’t want to fund this? Stay at home it you choose, but fund it yourself.
do people totally forget that ‘government money’ is ‘other people’s money’ ?

january1244 · 04/12/2025 12:55

@strongermummyit is completely unaffordable for the country, and no I don’t agree that those who are capable of working should stay at home by choice funded by tax payers. There are more people taking from the system than contributing currently, it’s not sustainable. I believe in a welfare state to support those who cannot work and give them a decent standard of life. I don’t support paying ever more tax to fund this, while also funding my own childcare. I’m sorry, I think it is very wrong morally. I also think we are getting towards the point fiscally as a country where benefits will need to be tackled. Either the government makes the decision, the bond markets force it, or eventually we may well get the IMF who will cut state spending

2boyzNosleep · 04/12/2025 12:55

Rather than quitting work, can you not have a set range of shifts that means your partner can care for your baby while you're at work?

I completely get where you're coming from but I do think its naive to think that you can walk back into a job. With AFC, if you have a break in NHS service, you can be put back at the bottom of your pay band. Bank/agency shifts are not guaranteed now.

What happens if your husband earns more if you are a SAHM? All it takes is for him to earn slightly over a threshold and then your UC may be reduced more than he earns.

HouseWithASeaView · 04/12/2025 12:59

Childcare is a long game! Whilst it may be emotionally hard at first to put a child into nursery, logistically, it is the easy phase as nurseries are open 51 weeks a year from 8am - 6pm. It’s once they start school that it becomes much more of a juggle, a juggle which continues well into teenage years if they do clubs which require a lot of taxiing.
Another reason for working now which I think is often overlooked is that, at the moment, everything in your life is rosy. You have a perfect baby. You & your DH are young & healthy. Sadly, you don’t know what will happen down the line and therefore when might most benefit you as a family for there to be a part time or stay at home parent. It might be that your child is diagnosed with additional needs at some point during primary school and, to simply manage the appointments and being there for them, one of you has to massively cut down your hours or stop working. All those pension & NI contributions now will mean that, eventually, you will be in a better position than you would have been. Or your DH just announces one day that he’s leaving.
My DC are now teens and most of my friends approaching 50. My female friends who have kept working seem to have been better placed to deal with the various storms life has thrown at them than those who gave up work.
Having said all of that, can you or your DH reduce or flex your hours so your baby isn’t in nursery full time.

Sunita1234 · 04/12/2025 13:00

I would take 1 year break and use a childminder when the child is 2 and go back to work then. 1 year should not affect your career that much. Also, they get sick a lot for the first 2-3 years while in care, especially in a nursery.

Abracadabra1 · 04/12/2025 13:01

I'm not sure many people really really want to put their baby in nursery, I certainly didn't, but did use one 2 days a week to retain my job. The early years of childcare you are working and paying child care and it's expensive yes, but you have retained your job, pension etc. There are huge job freezes currently in the NHS...who knows what it will be like in 3 years.. it may not be as easy as you think to walk back.inro the job you have now.
Also I think at 12 weeks of course you can't imagine going to work and leaving your baby, however 12 weeks is different than 12 months...you have quite a while yet. You may feel differently then.
Also, if you don't return to work you will have to pay some NHS occupational maternity pay back, which is something else you need to consider.

IdaGlossop · 04/12/2025 13:01

strongermummy · 04/12/2025 12:47

I don’t see a problem with parents of small kids or SEN kids relying on the system to help them for those years.
it would be helluva lot more expensive for the state to have to take the kids on if god forbid the parents are no longer available or the kid is too difficult for them to handle.

let’s not bash everyone. I’m guessing you dislike giving benefits to people you see at scroungers? Don’t work. Won’t work. Never worked etc?

the OP is not that. She and her OH have studied and worked and have aspirations. But childcare is expensive and small kids are better cared for by a loving caregiver. Ie their mother or father.
id prefer a system where all families are financially encouraged and supported to have a parent at home for the first 7 years. The country would be a lot better off than it currently is. Kids loved nurtured and nourished. Proper bedtimes. Proper meals. Family centred care. Secure attachments. Less anxiety. Fewer loose louts on the streets. Would not take long to see the benefit. Sadly no government is woman enough to make this a thing.

Edited

Show quote history

You present patenting choices in a stark way: SAHM = contented child + stable society; childcare = anxious, disruptive child; fragmented society. It is far more nuanced and depends a huge amount on factors such as the flexibility of the employer, the extent to which two parents are able to arrange their hours to accommodate one another, and whether patents do jobs that include WFH.

CJones11 · 04/12/2025 13:04

PurpleThistle7 · 04/12/2025 11:10

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.

Show quote history

The difference is, SAHP often want to be the only ones raising their children. I can hand on heart say that seeing my children for 4 hours a day when I was working FT was not me raising them but instead a support network of people raising them. The nursery staff and key workers would care for them more hours in the day than I would. I had colleagues who used nannies and their adult children have more personality traits of the nanny than them because they spent so little time with them. It's not a negative thing at all but totally ignorant to say working parents are raising their kids just the same as SAHP. And in the early years, the people around them shape their personality.
My son and daughter absolutely thrived in childcare and had excellent opportunities. My twins currently have a deeper and more secure bond with me in comparison because they only seek comfort from me. I'm the only ones cooking their meals and filling their days.
Of course you're still raising your kids while working, but to a lesser extent. Doesn't mean it's bad and I hugely look forward to returning to work and seeing how the twins change when they attend childcare.

arethereanyleftatall · 04/12/2025 13:04

january1244 · 04/12/2025 12:55

@strongermummyit is completely unaffordable for the country, and no I don’t agree that those who are capable of working should stay at home by choice funded by tax payers. There are more people taking from the system than contributing currently, it’s not sustainable. I believe in a welfare state to support those who cannot work and give them a decent standard of life. I don’t support paying ever more tax to fund this, while also funding my own childcare. I’m sorry, I think it is very wrong morally. I also think we are getting towards the point fiscally as a country where benefits will need to be tackled. Either the government makes the decision, the bond markets force it, or eventually we may well get the IMF who will cut state spending

This is very valid.

the population are overwhelmingly frustrated by the lifting of the 2child cap, and it has prompted many to look in to it.

and many have discovered they’d be better off not working.

i don’t think Labour will get back in for a very long time after this, and anyone who is choosing now the benefits lifestyle is in an extremely precarious position because they next party in will be stopping it all.

CJones11 · 04/12/2025 13:08

HighLadyofTheNightCourt · 04/12/2025 11:36

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.

Show quote history

Absolutely every parenting style is worthy. However, you cannot ignore that if you're working full time you are not single handedly raising your children in the same way a SAHP would. Saying you want to be a SAHP to raise your kids yourself shouldn't receive backlash from working parents who are on the defensive about their choices. There is a wonderful community aspect of raising children when it comes to childcare. It's not the same and neither option is better than the other.

HighLadyofTheNightCourt · 04/12/2025 13:15

CJones11 · 04/12/2025 13:08

Absolutely every parenting style is worthy. However, you cannot ignore that if you're working full time you are not single handedly raising your children in the same way a SAHP would. Saying you want to be a SAHP to raise your kids yourself shouldn't receive backlash from working parents who are on the defensive about their choices. There is a wonderful community aspect of raising children when it comes to childcare. It's not the same and neither option is better than the other.

Show quote history

But I can understand why that phrase gets people’s backs up though . It’s a different way of raising your children, but it’s still very much raising your children.

In my opinion raising your children isn’t just about being physically present. It involves making decisions about childcare and schools. It involves providing for them financially and making sure they have a warm home and food.
A working parent is absolutely raising their children and choosing an appropriate childcare provider is part of that.

Different yes, but no less worthy.

ChloeMorningstar · 04/12/2025 13:17

ThisLuckyOpalShaker · 03/12/2025 15:41

I'd genuinely be mortified to ask this question, benefits should be for those who need them not for people who cant be arsed to work

Yeah - I believe I am not a benefit basher, but I would be in this case. There is no reason the OP should stop working, There are plenty of options, compressed hours, part time, OH does childcare.

nixon1976 · 04/12/2025 13:18

I am not on the defensive about my choices. I was a SAHM mother to one of my children, part time working for two of them and full time working for one of them. I chose each option each time - I was lucky I didn't have to work full time if I didn't want to. But don't tell me I'm raising my children in a 'lesser' way than a SAHM mother. It's just not true.

nixon1976 · 04/12/2025 13:19

HighLadyofTheNightCourt · 04/12/2025 13:15

But I can understand why that phrase gets people’s backs up though . It’s a different way of raising your children, but it’s still very much raising your children.

In my opinion raising your children isn’t just about being physically present. It involves making decisions about childcare and schools. It involves providing for them financially and making sure they have a warm home and food.
A working parent is absolutely raising their children and choosing an appropriate childcare provider is part of that.

Different yes, but no less worthy.

Show quote history

This

CJones11 · 04/12/2025 13:19

Halie · 04/12/2025 12:27

Thanks for being the only person to even acknowledge this.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Show quote history

Spot on.

A generation before us, families could live comfortably with 1 parent working FT and the other taking care of children and the home. Maybe doing some part-time work. The narrative that you are choosing to be on benefits ignores the fact that the system pushes your hand to that choice when financially, you're at a huge disadvantage returning full time.

I would suggest looking at reducing your hours, seeing if UC will cover soem childcare if you return. But in the grand scheme of things, 2 years out of work to raise your child until they are at school age and we'll regulated is not detrimental to the country. You'd still be taking from the system if you returned and had support for childcare.

The UK has become massively anti-family life. Maternity pay is abhorrent. The lack of workplace flexibility punishes families. Everyone is so concerned with climbing corporate ladders.

There is no right or wrong in this. Its individual!

Congratulations OP. Enjoy the time you have with your little one.

GAJLY · 04/12/2025 13:22

I went back to work after my first and hardly had anything left over. Then had my second, I decided to claim tax credits (UC) instead and it worked out just fine. My husband obviously worked and I stayed at home with the children. I did this for 10 years. Now my children are in secondary school, I'm working again. At the time of my decision to not return to work, a male nursery worker had been arrested and convicted of sexually abuse children in his care. The nursery was in the next city and it shook me. So I totally understand how you're feeling. The only drawback I would say is the lack of pension contributions I've made.

Flopsythebunny · 04/12/2025 13:27

Halie · 03/12/2025 14:34

I haven't made up my mind which is why I'm asking - see title.
I'm giving answers to the general responses I've gotten by questioning them based on my current understanding. If I'm wrong I'd appreciate being corrected and informed of exactly why to enable me to make sound choices. I still don't get why I'd be better off working.

Pension- I'll add back into it. I don't understand why that should be difficult? I recently had a car on finance and subscriptions- all gone. That's at least 200 per month. That same amount comes out of my wages for pension each month. So I can easily pay double pension contributions?

I can work self employed in my industry and there is plenty of NHS locum work so I'm not concerned about returning to work as ill still work (very few) hours for a couple of years and simply just increase them once LO is 3 before exploring contracted work again.

Show quote history

Why should taxpayers pick up the tab for you choosing not to work when you are able?

TheListeningMouse · 04/12/2025 13:30

GAJLY · 04/12/2025 13:22

I went back to work after my first and hardly had anything left over. Then had my second, I decided to claim tax credits (UC) instead and it worked out just fine. My husband obviously worked and I stayed at home with the children. I did this for 10 years. Now my children are in secondary school, I'm working again. At the time of my decision to not return to work, a male nursery worker had been arrested and convicted of sexually abuse children in his care. The nursery was in the next city and it shook me. So I totally understand how you're feeling. The only drawback I would say is the lack of pension contributions I've made.

Please help me learn … did you receive benefits for the whole ten years and if so were you expected to seek work?

bittertwisted · 04/12/2025 13:33

Halie · 04/12/2025 12:27

Thanks for being the only person to even acknowledge this.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Show quote history

My ‘choice’ did not include getting £1000 a month to be a SAHM
Would you be giving up work if you weren’t getting that UC payment, would you be making these ‘sacrifices’ the rest of us should have been willing to make?
and no, I did not get funded childcare

Am I missing something - childcare.

Interested in this thread?