when my child is born i will choose not to go back to work, not because i can afford not to but because i dont want to, claiming benefits for me isnt that much different price wise as it is to working part time!

So, in essence, you have chosen NOT to work, but WE can support you - is that correct?

Why are those mothers who CHOSE to be independent of the state being criticised for not being dependent upon the State?    Are you saying that they are worse mothers because of this?

What always strikes me as ironic is the fact that it is generally the brightest, most intelligent women who have unqualified, often ill-educated people looking after their children!

Margot

I think mothers should be free to choose whatever they feel is right for their family but I do think it is not simply a choice of work or live off the state :), there is a third way, stay at home (or perhaps work part-time) and just live a simpler life.  When I grew up just about nobodies Mum worked, we all lived in small houses sharing bedrooms with siblings, no seperate family bathrooms ;) no abundance of consumable goods or holidays but I remember it as a very happy time and the happy memories are all about times with my parents, picnics, trips to beaches etc.  I suppose, because we never had it, it is hard to say whether our happy memories could have been about TVs in our bedrooms or the latest footwear or mobile phones :)
When I first got married I did without a lot of material things for the sake of being around for my dogs let alone kids :D

agree Isabel :)

Margot, I'm not asking you to support me, and i'm not saying that working mothers are a bad thing, if you look at my post up the page i was actually saying that i respect a mother who goes to work as well as has kids, i have never anywhere criticised mothers who choose to be independant of the state, i have chosen to stay at home when my first child is born simple as that, plus my job can go full time to someone instead of them just filling in for me whilst i'm on maternity leave,
i'm sorry if i have made you think otherwise

I chose not to have children for a number of reasons: 1. My chosen line of work ment long hours and traveling all over the UK at a moments notice, this IMHO is not conducive to family life. 2. I live a 2 hour drive from any immediate family who may conceviably be abel to cover in the event of an emergency. 3. I am well aware that my parents are of an age where they are likley to need my support long before any children have left home.

I would defend anyones right to make the choice to have or not have children, but I do not expect them to be supported by the state or have any special consessions that are not available to other people who need time off to support their family, eg the elderly or sick. I also believe that many people put having a large house,all the latest things and expensive holidays way too far up the priority list. For example our neighbours recently moved in to a 4 bed detached, have had to have kitchens and bathrooms replaced, always have a summer holiday and 2 newish cars, yet their children from the age of 6 months are looked after in a nursery from 8 am to 6 pm, their life is a constaint rush and there is little if any time for the children to express themselve through unstructured play, infact I doubt that they spend more than 2 hours a day awake at home during the week. To my mind this is not a life it is an existance.  

Ok as a single mum of some 19 yrs standing and a worker/stay at home mum ---- interesting discussion to say the least.  I may regret posting only time will tell.

My objections are this media staged attitude that all disabled folk are on the fiddle ----- grrrr even the government admit that their is less than 1% of all disability claimants including incapacity who are fraudsters, more of YOUR money is lost thru bad decisions and working practises in the DWP ie right to appeal they turn you down you appeal, you have to sit in front of a Barrister, a Dr and a Carer/disabled person to PROVE your right to the benefit, sometimes you have to undergo several medicals by their own Dr's who have been proven to doctor documents AFTER you've signed it and you only get to see 1 page of a 25 page Docuement.  I lost my appeal but the Commissioners overturned the boards decision due to failure to take into account conflicting evidence so back to square 1 more Dr's another Board of Appeal different people it is hell on earth you'd think you were on trial for murder or some such hideous crime ------ but hey that's what folk think of those of us disabled by a disease that doesn't warrant a stick, wheelchair, guide dog or other aids.  We provide the same evidence time and again and they have to find a way of getting you off the benefit be they fair or fowl means.  MY case was dealt with by 15 people because 1 person failed to do their job properly it took almost 2 yrs of work to deal with and they had to backdate the award which was higher than my original one that was turned down.  I am not alone in my experiences it costs more in NHS money as our conditions worsen we end up on antidepressants and fearful of leaving our homes in case someone makes a malicious call to the Fraud line.

Now to the working/stay at home mum part - I worked 16 hrs a week as a special needs childminder for 16 yrs so I got WFTC along with my wages I got to be there for my children to take them to school and bring them home and be a mum, I couldn't go back to work in my chosen Career as I was a Chef you don't get childcare that you can afford on a Chef's wage for the antisocial hrs I'd have to work despite me being an ex WRAF chef made no odds.  Now I can't get insurance to work for myself let alone find any company who would be willing to take me on with a hearing and balance disorder, my children have to deal with the stress and worry of leaving me alone when they're at college and university I can't change that but I know they've grown up happy healthy confident young women with both doing a degree which society told us almost 20 yrs ago was impossible, pregnant early no education and an early death is what they said was the future for kids like mine --- how wrong they were.

To end no matter how you chose to raise your children or live your life it's your choice regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, I've seen some high ranking career women interact with their children and could cry it's so awful but nothing is done and by the same token I've seen some of the poorest mothers with their children and cried for the love she has shown her child despite their needs etc I could also show you examples of both in the other group it's individual and we should not judge others until we've lived a day in their shoes.  My disability benefits are there to help me live as near a normal life as I can like others do but without the health issues to content with so if that means someone coming to go for a walk with me or look after the dogs and clean the yard/house for me I should be able to do it without worrying what others are thinking behind their twitching curtains.

Schip, not highjacking thread, but do you suffer from Meneiares (sp) disease, it sounds like it. If so could you PM me
Thanks
Kay

Schip, For people like you and I guess all of us in different situations it is only natural to defend the corner. You are getting a raw deal for sure. The world is certainly far from perfect. One thing we must remember is there are CON artists is all walks of life, working, sick or wealthy. Don't regret posting :-))) 

You said >My objections are this media staged attitude that all disabled folk are on the fiddle <  I don't think they have said all BUT for an example there are 3 MILLION people between the age of 18-30 on disability benefit , the government believes that 80% of these people could work..  to be honest so do I..

"the government admit that their is less than 1% of all disability claimants including incapacity who are fraudsters"    not sure where you read or saw that because I do think that is right.  There are more than 1 % for sure at it.. you just have to look around.  I bet most people on this site could name one person they think that could work that isn't.  I know a few myself.  Depression is a big one on the list..

I was listening to a debate last week on BBC 2 radio about it and it was outrages some of the figures. I really couldnt beleive it.

Please believe me when I say I know how hard it can be with all the tests, forms, means testing etc BUT sadly we have only got the lazy sods to thank for this..#

My 62 year old father who had barely had a day sick in his life and work ever day. Never once on benefit. Lost both legs and the use of his right side completely , I have seen the paper work as I fill it in.  It took us a year of fighting just to get a electric wheel chair and we paid half of it. He has pensions etc so misses out on quite a but of things but for them they were lucky to have worked for years and paid their house off etc. My folks are from   I do sympathise with the honest ones.

BFN :-)

sgraham,

> when my child is born i will choose not to go back to work, not because i can afford not to but because i dont want to, claiming benefits for me isnt that much different price wise as it is to working part time! <

Am I understanding this correctly , you won't got back to work because you won't be better of that you would be on benefits ? If that is the case that is awful way to look at life.

That would be some example to set for your kids and some values to teach them. Benefit isn't a right and should only be used as a last resort.  

When I got divorced my daughter was 2 years old. I was not better off financially working but better of morally, self worth.  I would never give up a job because it was as easy to be on benefits.  I worked my back off to get up the ladder and make it worth my while like anyone can.  To begin with I worked a bit extra so I could have a car , holidays etc. I could never ever have gave up a job because it was OK on benefits.   

I know that some people have to be on benefits sadly but I am one that never has because I have worked all my life and unless I am seriously ill I never will be even if it meant I picked potatoes for a living. These are the values I live by and give to my family. :-))

Better get off my high horse!!!

:-)

i have only just joined this forum and boy have i chosen a bad topic to comment on, Blue on paper it looks as though  i cannot afford to stay at home once my baby is born, but i am choosing to stay at home and do without alot of things so i can spend time with my child, i was trying to say earlier that by the time i have paid a child minder etc to look after my boy when he is born as i have no other family near me to help, then i would be worst off, but if i claimed off the state, not everything just child allowence which i thought all parents were entitled to, then the money i save from not paying a child minder cos i'm not going to work plus the 16.00 ish i would get benifts wise, i'm better off staying at home

>when my child is born i will choose not to go back to work, not because i can afford not to but because i dont want to, claiming benefits for me isnt that much different price wise as it is to working part time!

Some people would say that benefits are for those who can't work, not those who choose not to. They'd say great, stay at home and look after your baby, but don't claim benefits!

the only benifit i'm claiming is child benifits, which i thought every parent got

Child benefit is £16.50 (£17.55 if you're a lone parent) per week for the eldest/only child, and £11.05 for subsequent children. Can you live on that, or are you relying on savings, or husband/partner?

Jeangenie my husbands monthly wage covers bills etc plus we have enough left over to live, but are giving up on luxury things, having a child is not something we have thought about lightly.

Then no problem - we have dole scroungers a-plenty in this village, and your post sounded like you might be one of them. I'm delighted you're not!
:)

guess putting things down in words is a lot harder than face to face, i'm delighted i'm not a dole scrounger aswell :) :)

Ah ha!   Sorry - I misunderstood your first post - I thought you were talking  about you, yourself, alone - you hadn't made it clear that your husband was working still - sorry for jumping down your throat :D

Margot

I stopped at home with mine until they were both at school, then I returned to work.  I hated it, I missed all the things at school that other parents went to and I couldn't because of work.  So three years later, I gave up work and now I look forward to all the school events and school holidays - no more worrying about school holiday cover for me!

Katyb - your post was music to my ears !   Thank you for your wise words. :)

So what you are saying is because I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth and arent married to a RICH man and have worked damn hard since I was 15 to get where I am today I shouldn't have a baby because I can't afford to stay at home and look after it?????

DO YOU PEOPLE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD!

Calm down, Blondiflops and read katyb's post again.  It doesn't sound as if her husband was a rich man if he had to take 3 jobs to support his family.  It's all about getting your priorities right. There are still some women who prefer to bring their children up themselves rather than hand them over to a childminder or nursery for up to ten hours a day. And to do so they are prepared to do settle for less in material terms.

So Joyce you are saying it is better for a man to work 3 jobs so his wife can stay at home?  TO me that is like single parenting.   Children need both in my opinion.

Cool it, Blondiflops; don't rise to the bait! It's clear this thread was designed to antagonise people. Nobody would seriously suggest that if people need to work, to pay rent/mortgage, food, electricity etc, they shouldn't have children ..... would they?

Jeangenuis you've hit the nail on the head!!

Some people on here live on CLOUD CUCKOO LAND!!

I enjoy CD too much to be banned so I won't comment further!

You know really this post has brightened my day as I have went down memory lane with some of the things I did with my daugther and her freinds. :-)  When I was at Uni for a few years I got home earlier in the day and I played rounders with the kids in our street regularly for a good year or two.  Nobody else did in the street.  Our swimming stuff was packed and at the door the night before so when I got in from work we went straight to the pool.

I personally witnessed with my own life and some of my freinds , working mums doing more with their kids. Taking more an interest. Maybe because of the guilt that society puts on working mums but regardless I saw it.

BUT Joyce , Katyb

Is it not equally as important for the father to have a role in the rearing. 3 jobs would leave little time for his family. :-))

You did all the children time where as a lot of families HALF it..   

Over the last few years when parents have went on trips with the school etc. I have always been there, I took holidays, I even went to France with the school 2 years ago. We had a ball. You know what all but one help was a working parent who had taken the time off with holidays.

I used to beat myself up to begin with and a freind of mine who is a social worker said to me that I worry for nothing , I spend more quality time with my daughter than most mums did that were at home all the time and took for granted their time.

I have never took a min for granted. Our swimming, day trips etc.  Weekends.  See at the weekend all my daughters freinds seemed to hang at our house. I was always glad to have them at the weekend.  Not all but I think some at home parents are glad of some peace ;-))

<tin hat on>........

If i cannot afford to own a horse, if i do not have the time to work AND have my horse,  do i have the RIGHT to own one anyway, and expect someone else to pay?

No.

If i cannot afford to have a child, if i have not the time to work AND have a child, do i have the RIGHT to do it anyway?

No.

Yes, im female, no i do NOT think that we all have a RIGHT to have children irrespective of our financial status. Its a choice, if you can afford it, do it, if you cant, then think again.

I bet there are very few people on here that will say the 18 year old living in a council flat, soley supported on benefits, should have the RIGHT to do that. I certainly dont, although ill admit now that doing somthing to take away taht 'right' is worse than NOT doing it.

If you want a career, have one. If you want children and can afford them, have them. But i DONT think its fair to complain about not being able to have a career AND children at the same time. If its not practical, if you cant afford it, if it means the kids grow up knowing Nanny better than Mummy/Daddy, then its not fair, and its not right.

Em

So whats the point in slogging your guts out to get to a good job have a good salary, have a nice house and STILL can't afford to leave work permanently to have a child!!!

My mother brought me up on her own and she taught me to work hard so I have and I've a good job, a nice little FAMILY home but I can't afford to give my job up for a child.

The whole point of me working my a** off for the last 15 years is so that I could have a Nice family home and I would be able to support myself ...so now your saying that its all for nothing!!

Try walking in someone elses shoes!

>Those who say they cannot afford to give up full time work should refrain from having babies imo. 

What about those who could afford to but wouldn't want to?  I'm getting married in August and I can quite honestly say it will be a good few years before we begin to think about starting a family.  However, I have worked extremely hard to get to the level I am today professionally and love my job and am excited about my future career prospects.  My OH also is in a great job and if necessary, we could quite happily survive on just one salary.  However, when the time comes to thinking about having children, I will definitely be returning to employment after giving birth.  Not in order to "have it all" but because I don't see why I should be forced to give up, postpone or be at a disadvantage career-wise simply because I have had a child.  If I alter my working practises or change my hours then that will be a desicion I make at the time, but both my parents worked when I was a child (albeit generally at different times) and I grew up to be a happy, healthy, well-rounded individual.. I like to think! :D  Incidently Joyce, when you refer to "those" (ie. from your quote above), are you referring to both men, women or both might I ask??

Em - you have dogs - correct? Yet you are supported on benefits? Do you have the right to own dogs and expect someone else to pay?

ChloeH.....

Um, not really....

A/when i was on benefits, it was because i COULDNT work not because i chose to have dogs but because i was ill.

B/ im not on benefits now!

When i was on benefits, i didnt get any EXTRA for the dogs did i. Had i had a child i would have done. So its not exactly comparable is it?

Em

But isn't that the point of extended maternity leave? 6 months full pay then 6 months stat pay?

In essence, you can work to your due date and your baby would still be at least 6 months before having to nursery?

Flexible working hours (as in many workplces with a core time when all staff are in) is actually very beneficial to employers.  It means that doctors appoitnements and other famil commitments can be worked off rather than anual leave being taken.  It helps to recruit and retain staff whose circumstances will alter over theri working life.

It is easy for those with a traditional outlook to only see the negatives, but most of these things can be turned around to be of benefit to employers.

Maternity or Paternity leave could be seen as an opportunity rather than a problem.  the emplouyer can offer a fixed term contract to soemone for that time, and has then someone they have trialed, adn can invite for a full time job should one become available.  there are lots of similar examples.

I welcome with open arms. all the changes to parental rights. To make life easier for working parents. I have 1 5 year old boy. I wish we could afford another, but it is impractical. I am a working mum, and I proud to say it. I started my maternity leave with morgan, 1 week before he was born. And went back to work 2 months after he was born. Not cause I wanted to because I had too. I was made redundant during my pregnancy, but unfortunately was unable to do anything about it.

I take parental leave, or have done, regularly, for dentists, doctors, assessments, hearing tests. School sports days, assemblys, plays, etc etc. And yes I do think it is my right. I dont get paid for parental leave. I make sure my works up to date, everyone knows what they should be doing, and go off to support my child, because thats his right, to have me by his side as and when needed.

Facts speak for themselves, the workplace would not be what it is today, WITHOUT WORKING MUMS.. This country needs working mums, to help the economy.

And if we can afford 2 holidays a year, then good for us. My husband works excessively long hours for a pittance. And I have to work, to make the money up. But if we can squeeze the cash out for more hols,. By god we deserve them all of us me, my husband, and son.

So to set the scenario, Only those that can afford to have children and not work should hasve them. Makes for a pretty one sided future. Only the kids with rich parents, will be able to have decent jobs. Therefore keeping the peasants in the natural pecking order um!!

Dont forget us working parents are bringing up the children of tomorrow, doctors, vets, politicians (gawd help us ;) )  even road cleaners,

Alix

Times have changed since I was a child (well, it was many years ago !). Nowadays, people want it all. My parents didn't have money, so we made do. In those days (early 70's) it was 'posh' to have a colour tv or holiday abroad etc. We had neither but we had everything we needed and my mother was at home until I, the youngest, went to school at 5. With my own friends now it is so different - they want children, and everything else too, so it amazes me when I hear them complain that they still have to go to work. It's because they insist on having everything (sky, big digital tv's, 2 cars, holidays in Disneyland etc etc - all things which mean nothing). I accept that this isn't the case for everybody, but I'm sure that if some people looked at their lifestyle there are many things they could live without and many which have no benefit in the long term for their children.
Val

sorry no disneyland trips , 2 cars, sky here etc etc.

We work to pay the bills, and any left over well bonus time. Our 2 holidays, in a year will consist of a 2 & 1 week break in a tent. Somewhere in this country.

And if we are very lucky a week maybe in self catering accommodation in scotland. Its not just about both parents working, it also to do with inflation. The cost of living, of putting a roof over your head, putting food on the table. Paying the bills. Cost of diesel, and so the list goes on.

Alix

Alix, yes I agree - I realise not everybody is in a position to 'have it all'  - we were'nt as I said. Many are though, and it's the ones who moan about working, but don't realise that they don't need to, which confuse me !. If I told my friend that if she cancelled sky, etc etc she wouldn't need to work she'd think I'd gone mad !.
Val

Just wondering - is there a cut off point where parents cannot claim child allowance, tax credit etc - ie on a salary of say 60k or above, or can everybody claim whatever their financial situation. I'm never sure, but it does seem that some who receive it don't always need it.

Val

Child benefit is payable to all, but tax credits aren't. Not sure of the cut-off point, though (child too old!).
:)

Surely not !!

Val

So the successful should be penalised now? Why should children lose out on Child Benefit because the parents work hard, and actually pay the most income tax?

Tax credit cut off falls far below 60K.

Chloe, I was only wondering. We don't have children (not out of choice) but do have a very good salary coming into the house. Personally, my husband would rather his very high taxes went to those in a lower bracket than to those who really have no need for it. The children of many people I know would not be losing out if their parents didn't receive child benefit. 

Val

Why are your husbands taxes going to those who have no need for it - surely they are already paying a lot more than they receive through their own taxes? I would rather my money goes to those who need it - and not dole cheats, incapacity benefit cheats, illegal immigrants and for hospitals and schools to waste through masses of red tape.

Very basically, if we had children, then child benefit would make very little difference to our standard of living and I would not complain if somebody had a bit extra in their child benefit if it helped.
val

Just re-read my post. Made myself sound like a millionaire !. Nothing like that I'm afraid - but we do ok and can appreciate that some young families need a bit of extra help.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so snobby and rude.
Val

Hi archd - I believe it is a means tested benefit and which can be claimed by anyone with an income below £50,000

When child Benefit came in it was to replace Tax Alowances for children.  It was to make sure the person actually caring for the child saw the money, as often in those far off days many husbands did not hand over enough 'housekeeping' :D

In some way with tax credits etc the system has gone back to waht it used to be.

To answer your question, no Child Benefit is not a Means tested benefit and is paid to all who have children for which they have primary care.

I have very firm views on all of this :D I don't think that people should have longer maternity/paternity leave. Mothers (or fathers) should leave work when they have children and should be paid by the government to stay at home until the child goes to school. This would mean that employers could advertise the job and not have the very major problem of having to employ a temporary member of staff (often at higher cost) until the m/paternity leave finishes. Most small firms just can't manage without a member of staff for very long. The other main benefits would be that we would have children who were actually brought up by their parent, rather than a succession of child-minders/nurseries. If mothers/fathers don't want to stay at home to look after their children during these most important, formative years then why are they having children ??

When I had my children (and for many years before), most families could afford for a parent to give up work so that they could look after their child. It is only because of peoples increased needs to have luxuries, foreign holidays, bigger houses that has forced people into needing 2 salaries to maintain their standard of living.

I'm going for my dinner now - so you can throw the rotten eggs later :D

Daisy

I haven't had a holiday for years, and nor would I want one. I work to maintain my independence, to save money for the kids should anything happen to me, to support myself and the kids incase I split with my partner and because I would never rely on a man to look after me.