UK Benefits Question after having Baby

[Pickled Piper]

Pothole said:

andyroo said:

This may seem harsh, but isn't this the kind of thing you work out BEFORE having a child?

Edited by andyroo on Tuesday 25th May 12:16

Glad I'm n ot the only person who thought this.

Not really. If it's prior to your first, then it is quite easy to be detached and dispassionate about childcare and the like. Once the baby becomes a cooing reality that pukes on your work shirts, then you suddenly view life through an entirely different lense.

pp

[Tuscanless Ali]

Alex said:

Call me old fashioned, but I think a child should be raised by one of their own parents until at least school age.

So do I, I think more should be done to encourage/help mums to stay at home to bring up their children.

[Bullett]

My wife would love to stay at home and look after junior and frankly I'd like her to do it as well.

Financially it just doesn't make sense. We are both higher rate taxpayers and she brings in almost half of our household income. We could manage to pay the bills one one salary but it wouldn't be anything except paying the bills. Even paying £900 a month for childcare leaves us better off than her not working.

We also want another one and the maternity pay her Co pays is excellent so worth staying on just for that.

Childcare vouchers are a good deal if your company does them. You get charged for them prior to tax so effectively get a discount.

[Pothole]

Pickled Piper said:

Pothole said:

andyroo said:

This may seem harsh, but isn't this the kind of thing you work out BEFORE having a child?

Edited by andyroo on Tuesday 25th May 12:16

Glad I'm n ot the only person who thought this.

Not really. If it's prior to your first, then it is quite easy to be detached and dispassionate about childcare and the like. Once the baby becomes a cooing reality that pukes on your work shirts, then you suddenly view life through an entirely different lense.

pp

of course, always take the 'quite easy' route and never prepare for anything...Baden-Powell has just hit 14000 revs!

[Colin 1985]

tankplanker said:

My wife stopped work completely after the twins were born as no matter how we cut it we'd have been worse off financially if she went back to work. Lower paid 9-5 type jobs only work with free or close to free child care provided by relatives or crèches, when you end up stumping up £140+ a week for childminder plus other costs of working (car/commuting costs, work clothes, extra food) you can soon find you're losing upwards of £700 a month just to get to work. Even on a take home of £1500 its a massive chunk of your wages and soul destroying.

My wife used the time to retrain and change careers so she is now earning nearly double what she was before we had the twins.

+1,
Open university course if she gets enough free time.

[rb5230]

Pickled Piper said:

Pothole said:

andyroo said:

This may seem harsh, but isn't this the kind of thing you work out BEFORE having a child?

Edited by andyroo on Tuesday 25th May 12:16

Glad I'm n ot the only person who thought this.

Not really. If it's prior to your first, then it is quite easy to be detached and dispassionate about childcare and the like. Once the baby becomes a cooing reality that pukes on your work shirts, then you suddenly view life through an entirely different lense.

pp

not only that but, plenty of children are unplanned "accidents" for better or worse.

[Lemmonie]

In answer to the OP question the answer is actually "bugger all"

It is all dependant on your salary. If you are earning over £30K the chances are she will get nothing. Not a bean.

Which is what I face when im made redundent, although saying that I wouod get job seakers allowence for 6 months which is approx. £65 week and £10 a week child tax credits.

[andyroo]

rb5230 said:

Pickled Piper said:

Pothole said:

andyroo said:

This may seem harsh, but isn't this the kind of thing you work out BEFORE having a child?

Edited by andyroo on Tuesday 25th May 12:16

Glad I'm n ot the only person who thought this.

Not really. If it's prior to your first, then it is quite easy to be detached and dispassionate about childcare and the like. Once the baby becomes a cooing reality that pukes on your work shirts, then you suddenly view life through an entirely different lense.

pp

not only that but, plenty of children are unplanned "accidents" for better or worse.

Oh, it just, 'fell in' did it?

[TheCarpetCleaner]

andyroo said:

rb5230 said:

Pickled Piper said:

Pothole said:

andyroo said:

This may seem harsh, but isn't this the kind of thing you work out BEFORE having a child?

Edited by andyroo on Tuesday 25th May 12:16

Glad I'm n ot the only person who thought this.

Not really. If it's prior to your first, then it is quite easy to be detached and dispassionate about childcare and the like. Once the baby becomes a cooing reality that pukes on your work shirts, then you suddenly view life through an entirely different lense.

pp

not only that but, plenty of children are unplanned "accidents" for better or worse.

Oh, it just, 'fell in' did it?

Oh I fell over again and again...

[rb5230]

andyroo said:

rb5230 said:

Pickled Piper said:

Pothole said:

andyroo said:

This may seem harsh, but isn't this the kind of thing you work out BEFORE having a child?

Edited by andyroo on Tuesday 25th May 12:16

Glad I'm n ot the only person who thought this.

Not really. If it's prior to your first, then it is quite easy to be detached and dispassionate about childcare and the like. Once the baby becomes a cooing reality that pukes on your work shirts, then you suddenly view life through an entirely different lense.

pp

not only that but, plenty of children are unplanned "accidents" for better or worse.

Oh, it just, 'fell in' did it?

oh you only ever have sex when you want to have kids, never for fun? how very proper of you.

[RichB]

Lemmonie said:

In answer to the OP question the answer is actually "bugger all"

It is all dependant on your salary. If you are earning over £30K the chances are she will get nothing. Not a bean..

Which sounds about right to me, why should people in reasonably well paid jobs get benefits? Never understoodf that.

[heebeegeetee]

Bullett said:

My wife would love to stay at home and look after junior and frankly I'd like her to do it as well.

Financially it just doesn't make sense. We are both higher rate taxpayers and she brings in almost half of our household income. We could manage to pay the bills one one salary but it wouldn't be anything except paying the bills. Even paying £900 a month for childcare leaves us better off than her not working.

We also want another one and the maternity pay her Co pays is excellent so worth staying on just for that.

Childcare vouchers are a good deal if your company does them. You get charged for them prior to tax so effectively get a discount.

I hear what you're saying, but isn't it a great shame to have a child and then just hand it over for someone else to raise?

[andyroo]

RichB said:

Lemmonie said:

In answer to the OP question the answer is actually "bugger all"

It is all dependant on your salary. If you are earning over £30K the chances are she will get nothing. Not a bean..

Which sounds about right to me, why should people in reasonably well paid jobs get benefits? Never understoodf that.

Because it's the government saying, 'thanks for helping us by paying taxes, now you want to have a bit of time off and raise a child, we'll help you in return.'

[TheCarpetCleaner]

rb5230 said:

andyroo said:

rb5230 said:

Pickled Piper said:

Pothole said:

andyroo said:

This may seem harsh, but isn't this the kind of thing you work out BEFORE having a child?

Edited by andyroo on Tuesday 25th May 12:16

Glad I'm n ot the only person who thought this.

Not really. If it's prior to your first, then it is quite easy to be detached and dispassionate about childcare and the like. Once the baby becomes a cooing reality that pukes on your work shirts, then you suddenly view life through an entirely different lense.

pp

not only that but, plenty of children are unplanned "accidents" for better or worse.

Oh, it just, 'fell in' did it?

oh you only ever have sex when you want to have kids, never for fun? how very proper of you.

You have never heard of prevention have you?

How very 17th century of you.

[andyroo]

rb5230 said:

andyroo said:

rb5230 said:

Pickled Piper said:

Pothole said:

andyroo said:

This may seem harsh, but isn't this the kind of thing you work out BEFORE having a child?

Edited by andyroo on Tuesday 25th May 12:16

Glad I'm n ot the only person who thought this.

Not really. If it's prior to your first, then it is quite easy to be detached and dispassionate about childcare and the like. Once the baby becomes a cooing reality that pukes on your work shirts, then you suddenly view life through an entirely different lense.

pp

not only that but, plenty of children are unplanned "accidents" for better or worse.

Oh, it just, 'fell in' did it?

oh you only ever have sex when you want to have kids, never for fun? how very proper of you.

No, but I do it on the basis that I know if something does go wrong that I am prepared for it. Plus we take double precaution. No pregnancies yet in seven years with my wife. The only accidents I hear about turn out to be due to unprotected sex.

[andyroo]

TheCarpetCleaner said:

rb5230 said:

andyroo said:

rb5230 said:

Pickled Piper said:

Pothole said:

andyroo said:

This may seem harsh, but isn't this the kind of thing you work out BEFORE having a child?

Edited by andyroo on Tuesday 25th May 12:16

Glad I'm n ot the only person who thought this.

Not really. If it's prior to your first, then it is quite easy to be detached and dispassionate about childcare and the like. Once the baby becomes a cooing reality that pukes on your work shirts, then you suddenly view life through an entirely different lense.

pp

not only that but, plenty of children are unplanned "accidents" for better or worse.

Oh, it just, 'fell in' did it?

oh you only ever have sex when you want to have kids, never for fun? how very proper of you.

You have never heard of prevention have you?

How very 17th century of you.

[RichB]

andyroo said:

RichB said:

Lemmonie said:

In answer to the OP question the answer is actually "bugger all"

It is all dependant on your salary. If you are earning over £30K the chances are she will get nothing. Not a bean..

Which sounds about right to me, why should people in reasonably well paid jobs get benefits? Never understoodf that.

Because it's the government saying, 'thanks for helping us by paying taxes, now you want to have a bit of time off and raise a child, we'll help you in return.'

Err no, in a socially aware society you help those that need help but encourage those that can stand on their own to do so.

[andyroo]

RichB said:

andyroo said:

RichB said:

Lemmonie said:

In answer to the OP question the answer is actually "bugger all"

It is all dependant on your salary. If you are earning over £30K the chances are she will get nothing. Not a bean..

Which sounds about right to me, why should people in reasonably well paid jobs get benefits? Never understoodf that.

Because it's the government saying, 'thanks for helping us by paying taxes, now you want to have a bit of time off and raise a child, we'll help you in return.'

Err no, in a socially aware society you help those that need help but encourage those that can stand on their own to do so.

So people who can afford it should pay extra for their child's schooling? And emergency services? Because the amount the majority of people pay in tax doesn't cover it.

[RichB]

I have no idea what you're arguing about, I simply believe that £30k p/a is above the level at which you should be dependent on hand outs. That's all...

[Who me ?]

Might be worth a wait -after all there was talk etc in manifestos of sharing tax allowances - whether or not it becomes a reality is debatable . To me it always made sense and removed the unfairness of a wife having to chose to have a family or work and gives the total tax allowance to the family .The coalition is supposedly encouraging debate by MOP on laws etc -might be a good cause for the "Parents Union" to shout about .