Housing for pregnant 17 year old

Mr_Angry_6

bubblesmoney wrote: »

but if he thinks by being on benefits he is better off like u have mentioned in ur message quoted above then nothing can help change such a chap. a stint in the armed forces might teach him some discipline, responsibilty and values in life and will help him with his bank balance. also he would get access to free training for any trades that he might be interested in and possibly other subsidies etc for further education etc. see the armed forces board on MSE for any advice, others in forces might be able to advise better. also regarding his stuttering, has he been to the gp regarding help for stuttering, they might refer him to a speech therapist which might help him get over this impediment.

As a married man, he would be entitled to a married quarter at his place of duty (I did 30 years in the RN).

dedward67

beingjdc wrote: »

What if he genuinely is better off on benefits? Suppose he got a 40 hour a week job for £6 an hour and so earnt £198 a week net, £20 a week transport to get to the job leaves £178.

Now imagine he's getting £60 a week unemployment benefit, £80 a week rent paid by housing benefit, and £10 a week council tax. That's £150. So he'd be working for an extra 70p an hour.

In that scenario, staying on benefits and training for a better job in the long-term looks more tempting, doesn't it?

This is a real issue. I'm trying to encourage him to get off his butt and get a job, but a great deal of advertised non skilled jobs in Lincs are minimum wage, i.e. £4.77 p/h for a 21 year old (doesn't change to full rate until 22), so based on 40 hours that it's £190.80 p/w - tax and NI or £763.20 per c/m - tax and NI. Equals probably £680 or so net. Take away rent of £320 and council tax of £100 p/m + costs in getting to work, unfortunately he's no better off than on the dole! It's a sad fact and I'm sure one that affects a lot of people. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not that up on benefits!

carolt

No - pretty sure that if you're low wage you can still claim housing benefit, and working family tax credits, as I said before, are very generous (once the baby is born). Absolutely no way he'd be worse off; maybe not much better off, and I wouldn't recommend a job with a long, expensive commute or equipment, but definitely better off.

Not to say the self-respect that comes from working.

At the end of the day, for how long is your daughter, let alone his child, going to respect him if he makes no attempt to make anything of himself or contribute?

Badger_Lady

dedward67 wrote: »

unfortunately he's no better off than on the dole!

Except that:

a) The dole is only supposed to be paid to jobseekers, so he can't "choose" to stay on it.

b) Once in a job, earning the same money as he gets now, he can learn a skill, get promoted, transfer into a better job. He'll have a CV that opens up new opportunities. He'll automatically get a payrise in less than a year anyway (when he turns 22).

c) He'll no longer be looked down on - he'll have the self-confidence that comes from a satisfying week of working to pay for your family.

Failing to apply for minimum-wage jobs on this basis is ludicrous - any job, as long as it brings home £4.77 an hour, is better than no job. On no job, you have no prospects and your family will always be poor.

dedward67

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

Presumably your other children don't actually know the him very well at all.
Would be more than a little strange to have an unknown 21 year old male in your house.

I would think you younger daughter could be quite uncomfortable with that, especially at the age she is. If it is still on the cards he would move in, could you try and get everyone acquainted and on better terms. School holidays now so some family trips together perhaps?

Well he comes round most nights and has been a regular visitor since they started dating last June so they certainly know him well. My son is a very bright grammar school pupil who even at 12 has a sharp business head and he (like me and wife), thinks he should get himself a job and support her, particularly as he (admittedly along with her), helped to create the issue in the first place. My son does see him as a bit of a bum! My 14 year old daughter has always been close to her sister and is upset about what happened and the pain/morning sickness her sister is going through (as any pregnant woman does) and so has virtually no respect for him at all and likewise thinks he's a bit of a bum for having no practical means of supporting her. As parents, all we can do is try to encourage him to try to get a job and give her support she needs. She's insistent she's getting married the end of October and also insistent she wants to setup home with him. We have offered to convert our dining room for her and baby, but neither of us or our 2 children want him living with us too, consequently the only way of her standing a chance of getting any other accomodation was for me to write a letter giving her notice of the 30th Sept.. I have no doubt he cares about her, but having had 3 children I'm fully aware of the extra stresses a baby will bring, both financially, physically and emotionally.

swampduck

As the OP says dole-dad may be no better off working than being on the dole. But think of the boost to his personal self esteem being of being able to say he is working rather than claiming the dole irrespective of his stutter!!

Too many people sit at home waiting for their giro rather than working and gaining the respect for having to work for what they get rather being handed it on a plate.

Surely even if dole-dad were to be the stay at home parent once the baby is born - he wouldnt then be eligible for JSA as he's not available for work!! Even minimum wage jobs get pay increases from time to time - he needs to look at the long term picture.

Anyway what the hell is wrong with being 70p per hour better off? It's more money than the dole!!

If he was'nt given the choice and his JSA were to be taken away from him he'd be grateful for whatever job he could get!

A park bench is stark reality for some people and he needs to realise this.

Swampy

barnaby-bear

dedward67 wrote: »

This is a real issue. I'm trying to encourage him to get off his butt and get a job, but a great deal of advertised non skilled jobs in Lincs are minimum wage, i.e. £4.77 p/h for a 21 year old (doesn't change to full rate until 22), so based on 40 hours that it's £190.80 p/w - tax and NI or £763.20 per c/m - tax and NI. Equals probably £680 or so net. Take away rent of £320 and council tax of £100 p/m + costs in getting to work, unfortunately he's no better off than on the dole! It's a sad fact and I'm sure one that affects a lot of people. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not that up on benefits!

Even if he earns the same as on the dole he would be better off because in a year when that team leader job at £7.50 p/h comes up who are they going to give it to - the lad who's done well on the entry level job or some bloke who's been sitting on the dole for the last year... and when the junior manager above that comes up.... and when the on-th-job training courses to move up to the next level come up it's the lad who could see further who'll get there. Plus his kid won't have a bum as a dad and his wife will be able to hold her head up high.
Why does he think anyone's going to give him a better job above those lads who can be ar5ed to do the entry level ones?

moneysavinmonkey

fact is he may be worse off in a minimum paid job (as he is under 22) than on the dole BUT JUST IN THE SHORT TERM.

Difference is that once he gets a job, any job he then starts getting some experience + workplace skills. There is no future on being on the dole - after 6 months you don't get any promotion or pay-rise! If he got himself a job now, put in all the hours he good, showed some initiative and got on with people he could easily have earned a promotion by then. He needs to look to the long-term.

There is not going to be some magic well paying job to come along for someone with his skills + no experience.
If he is waiting for that he will be on the dole forever.

If it was me I would definitely help out your daughter and grandchild but until this guy pull his finger out he wouldn't be staying in my house + I wouldn't be paying for any wedding.

bubblesmoney

beingjdc wrote: »

What if he genuinely is better off on benefits? Suppose he got a 40 hour a week job for £6 an hour and so earnt £198 a week net, £20 a week transport to get to the job leaves £178.

Now imagine he's getting £60 a week unemployment benefit, £80 a week rent paid by housing benefit, and £10 a week council tax. That's £150. So he'd be working for an extra 70p an hour.

In that scenario, staying on benefits and training for a better job in the long-term looks more tempting, doesn't it?

using that logic of comparing benefits versus working and then calculating the hourly rate. loads and loads of people will be technically better off on benefits. precisely the reason why it encourages scroungers who will stay for a lifetime on dole. i am not reffering to those who have financial hardship due to emergencies and need benefits. benefits are meant for people actually in hardhship and not meant for those people who have the brains to figure out that they are better off on benefits but dont use the same brain and figure out they might be better off if they hadnt started bonking someone in the 1st place or atleast taken appropriate precautions or be prepared to deal with the consequences. but i guess the more the merrier of that sort.

well they can milk the system more. start drinking and smoking, then claim extra benefits for cessation incentives. he would be much more better off then on benefits.

or maybe he could spend a few pounds on this and really learn the tricks of the trade of how it is better off for him to stay on benefits instead of work like the rest of us stupid scum.

not to mention the surestart. only small print is that statistics for outcomes for children have got worse in areas where surestart is there compared to when the scheme didnt exist.

thankfully some long overdue change might be happening on this front, but until it actually happens who know how long the change process will take.

but i get where u r coming from. it is the really poor who are actually hard working who are the hardest hit by things such as the 10p tax grab. there should not be any income taxes for probably the 1st 10k of taxable income. this will help the actually working poor.

this graph might interest you as to the changes from 1997 to 2007 regarding taxation and how it affects different categories of people. and see detailed article here

if the soon to be son in law fails to get a job centre or something that suits his tastes, then he can still try to be a pop star with this 30£million splash by govt for wanna be pop stars !!! now surely he wouldnt give up on a chance to be a pop star:j

beingjdc

bubblesmoney wrote: »

using that logic of comparing benefits versus working and then calculating the hourly rate. loads and loads of people will be technically better off on benefits. precisely the reason why it encourages scroungers who will stay for a lifetime on dole.

Oh I know, but it's moneysavingexpert here, not moralitysavingexpert. We have an entire forum for paying the least tax possible - I don't see claiming the most benefit possible as much different, as long as in each case it's within the law.