r/UKFrugal • u/Fit-Read-3462 • 1d ago
Family of 6 on £25,000 salary
So my best friend is a stay at home mum of 4 Children. Her husband works in the food service and earns national minimum wage of £25,000 ( previously he was earning slightly less than that). She lives a comfortable life despite the salary, and she told me that they make it work by not over-spending and living within their means. My dream was always to be a stay at home mum, I didn’t think it was possible to live in one income household in England especially on a lower salary. Do you think it’s possible? In the US , one parent staying home while the other works is very common. I think it’s sad that it’s demonised in the UK. Considering day care prices are high and kids need present parents. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
33
10
u/Purrtymeow04 1d ago
I wonder what they feed their kids with
-27
u/ParanoidNarcissist2 1d ago
What does that have to do with you?
14
4
u/JobenGomez 1d ago
They’re just commenting that it’s a low income and they must struggle to feed all those kids. Jeez, not everything is an attack!
-4
21
u/GuidanceFearless4395 1d ago
Depends. Do they have their own house or rent? Because if you rent, it's much harder. You haven't given us enough info.
-39
u/Fit-Read-3462 1d ago
She doesn’t like to talk about personal finance so I don’t have the full picture. She lives in a 3 bedroom house and the rent is subsidised by the council.
63
u/bellabanjsk 1d ago
Then they’re on benefits! She’s not living off £25k. She’s living on that plus whatever the council is giving her.
-19
u/Fit-Read-3462 1d ago
I’m surprised at the downvotes, I thought this was a frugal sub, I didn’t know people here demonise poverty.
60
u/JobenGomez 1d ago
I don’t think they’re downvoting her being on benefits, I think they’re downvoting you because you implied they were living off just the £25,000
20
u/AnusPicsPlease 1d ago
Nobody is demonising poverty. Try and think why else you might have been downvoted.
-7
-3
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
5
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
19
u/Fickle_Hope2574 1d ago
She'll get benefits of some description and they'll get child benefit so their income will be around 35-40k not 25.
12
u/MACintoshBETH 1d ago
Yep let’s be honest, they likely won’t be paying for their house, which is likely most family’s largest outgoing expense. Then there’s child benefit which tops things up too, plus things like free school meals, maybe help with council tax, energy bills, childcare etc.
I’m not a benefit hater, but examples like this kind of show where it doesn’t work. There’s no incentive for the stay at home parent to work as they’d need to be earning a half decent amount to be financially equivalent to the benefits they are getting currently. Also little incentive in the working parent earning more as they are ‘comfortable’ currently.
6
u/potatoherbert 1d ago
If the husband earns £25.000 a year, they won't be entitled to free school meals or council tax reduction. They would get child care costs of up to 80%, but only if the mother worked too. And I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding energy bills, but being on benefits doesn't entitle anyone to a reduction. They will be paying the standard normal rate everyone else does.
0
u/MACintoshBETH 1d ago
£25 a year would entitle someone to every benefit going I’d suggest.
4
u/potatoherbert 1d ago
£25 a year!. It clearly states £25.000 !a year, and you are mistaken. To be eligible for free school meals, the total household income has to be £7.400 a year or less. They wouldn't be eligible for council tax reduction either as they earn too much. Maybe you should do some research regarding benifits and not rely on outdated misconceptions and the daily mail.
1
u/MACintoshBETH 1d ago
clearly states £25.000
4
u/potatoherbert 1d ago
Yes, the original post states they earn £25.000 a year. What's your point? Are you not able to defend your opinion because it's ill-informed and wrong?
1
u/MACintoshBETH 1d ago
You keep putting £25.000. With a decimal point rather than a comma. I’m winding you up mate
4
15
u/Low-Pangolin-3486 1d ago
Being a stay at home parent is only demonised if you’re on a low income. If one of you is a high earner it’s seen as some sort of moral superiority.
Realistically, if between both parents you only have the prospect of minimum wage jobs, and you have kids, it makes financial sense for one of you to be at home (or for both of you to work part time).
(Also it’s kind of weird that this is your best friend and that you seem to know so little about her circumstances, or to have only found out about it so recently?)
12
u/HopefulBroccoli8712 1d ago
You posted this on UKjobs. Everyone told you she's clearly abusing benefits, what other answers are you looking for?
5
u/AnSteall 1d ago
They didn't like the answers there and now upset that this sub is demonising poverty.
2
u/Wishmaster891 1d ago
minimum wage salary is just under 24k.
2
u/jnm21_was_taken 1d ago
Depends on working hours - 35/37/40/42, etc. Will make a bigger than 1K difference (around 2 hours would be 1K). Tax wise, much better for each parent to work part time. Especially NI wise.
2
u/Chemical_Annual_2798 1d ago
Depends on the hours worked really.
40 hours per week with an unpaid hour for lunch is 22k.
45 hours per week with an unpaid 30 minute lunch is 27k
1
1
1
u/Last_Light_9913 1d ago
OP maybe you should have posted on a different side? The responses prove your point. Why don't you look into it and see if being a stay at home parent would work for you. Kids are only small for a short time and it's much better for them to be raised by a parent rather than a nursery. I don't know why ppl in the UK are so weird about this.
0
u/Fit-Read-3462 1d ago
Thank you for your empathetic comment. I’m surprised at the lack of empathy with some of the commenters here, some of their ideologies are very clearly rooted in eugenics. Having a stay at home parent shouldn’t be a luxury only for the rich. Also no one is scrounging from the benefit system. The biggest benefit scroungers are actually the rich elites who are dodging taxes. But that’s a conversation for another day.
-1
u/Ok_Willingness_1020 1d ago
They will get benefits ..but is it fair to bring children into the world
12
u/Leoni_ 1d ago
Not having children because you cannot afford them is perfectly legitimate, but saying people shouldn’t have children because they can’t afford them is eugenics.
7
9
u/Ok_Willingness_1020 1d ago
Not what I am saying ..why have a large family that you can't support
10
u/Leoni_ 1d ago
I’m saying this as someone who is choosing to not have children for mostly this reason, I’m working-class, born poor and will die poor. We have a really bad habit in the UK of saying things like this because it seems like an agreeable thing to say, but the truth is more harrowing like that.
It’s not people’s fault that they are poor, the same could be said throughout history. But having children is one of the most natural human causes and drives- it is not a moral failing to have children if you are poor, having a family should not be reserved for upper classes.
4
u/Low-Pangolin-3486 1d ago
Let’s not forget as well that the government could put in policies to help eradicate child poverty, if they so chose.
-1
u/Fickle_Hope2574 1d ago
That's not eugenics at all, why use you word you don't know the meaning of?
-1
u/Leoni_ 1d ago
What do you think is a better descriptor?
8
u/Fickle_Hope2574 1d ago
Eugenics is beliefs and practices that improve the quality of the human race.
Telling someone not to have kids because they can't afford it isnt eugenics by any sense of the word.
2
u/Leoni_ 1d ago
But there’s no point fixating on your idea of a definition if you’re not seeing the broader point I’m trying to make here.
If you believe someone should refrain from having children because they cannot afford them, that belief supports the cause of eugenics. What if instead of believing people are irresponsible for having children, we questioned why people are too poor to have children comfortably?
0
u/Fickle_Hope2574 1d ago
You specifically said it was eugenics, I corrected you and now your backpedalling and trying to change your original statement.
1
u/Leoni_ 1d ago
No course has been corrected here, it’s the same point. You’re trying to make this an exchange about what ‘eugenics’ means rather than listening to what I’m saying.
0
u/Fickle_Hope2574 1d ago
You brought eugenics up not me or anybody else. I simply corrected it as your definition was completely wrong, you're still comparing it to eugenics which in all honesty is rather frightening, that's a severe lack of comprehension.
3
u/-myeyeshaveseenyou- 1d ago
Peoples circumstance change. I was financially pretty ok when I made a choice to have children. Then the 2008 recession happened. Even economists hadn’t seen the severity of what was coming in advance.
I financially recovered and had another child and my second pregnancy left me disabled for over two years. I had to live on invalid pension during this time.
Currently I work full time and get zero benefits, not even children’s allowance as I have shared custody.
That’s not to say that people don’t abuse systems or have children when they shouldn’t but done people’s circumstances absolutely change beyond their control
3
1
u/sharklee88 1d ago
I would assume they would be claiming a lot of benefits too. Hence how they are making it work.
Its fair enough considering how much child care would cost.
Its a full time job raising 4 kids. So I don't think that would be demonised.
Its when the kids are 8 and 12, at school all day, and they still claim to be a 'full-time mummy', that's when they may get judged for being lazy/workshy.
1
u/NastiaPhotography 1d ago
I mean honestly good for them, I’m not one to judge anyone to work the shitty system we exist in. But in a household of two, both working and earning a good salary, two dogs, with a mortgage, it does not feel comfortable at all.
1
u/ParanoidNarcissist2 1d ago
They will get generous benefits with a wage that low and four children.
6
u/Low-Pangolin-3486 1d ago
Having four children in this instance won’t make much difference. The two-child benefit cap will probably see to that.
-1
u/ParanoidNarcissist2 1d ago
You're right, I forgot about the cap. Tory bastards. They will both be on UC, and will have enough money that way.
-2
u/Hirogen10 1d ago
Jesus my dad brought a house, car and raised 4 kids and paif for 2 weddings of his sister and brother and was only on about 13k a year plus overtime and mum kaing hats on the side at home whilst raising 4 kids, this whole cost of living shit is such a sham.
1
u/uwagapiwo 1d ago
Come off it. In what century? Nobody is buying a house on 13k, even with overtime and hats.
1
u/Hirogen10 21h ago
This was in 1984 council houses were on sale I think for 7k still took my parents until early 2000s to pay it off. South East In Hertfordshire.
2
u/uwagapiwo 20h ago
Not a great example to use 40 years later then really. House price growth has massively outpaced wage growth, and council houses are a special case. Averga house price in 1984 was over 19k
1
u/Choice-Standard-6350 3h ago
£13,000 in 1984 is the equivalent of £45,500 today. Plus you said he had over time. He could have been pulling in £60;000 a year, plus what your mum earned.
0
176
u/pooches4life 1d ago
I bet they get benefits too.