The recession, benefits, the safety net, and the learning curve

lostinrates

SingleSue wrote: »

Hehe...yep I knew you was.

We really need an emotion thingy that shows we know another is joking and we are replying in a similar manner.

My humour works so much better in real life with voice intonation rather than internet land with written words.

Edit - Should be a Happy clappy moment for me right now....passed my databases exam today and should be in a good mood as it only leaves one module left of the ECDL but strangely, I am rather out of sorts.

:T:T:T:T:T <- happy clapping

Hope out of sorts passes nd that you are treating yourself WELL.

treliac

dopester wrote: »

There was a thread discussing welfare claiming mothers somewhere else. The money runs out once their children reach a certain age, leaving many of them with a shock.

The key is to keep having 'em until the eldest is ready to start introducing the next generation to the world and, hence, keeping the cash flow coming.

More seriously, where will there be jobs for these 'older' mothers who have never ever worked, especially as things are today?

ceridwen

treliac wrote: »

The key is to keep having 'em until the eldest is ready to start introducing the next generation to the world and, hence, keeping the cash flow coming.

More seriously, where will there be jobs for these 'older' mothers who have never ever worked, especially as things are today?

Well - they'll certainly be "at the back of the queue" for the unskilled jobs they would require - AFTER those who had gritted their teeth at the outset and resigned themselves to having to WORK for their living....:rolleyes:

SingleSue

I remember having a conversation with my parents once regarding my mum and her returning to work if anything happened to my father (this was before he retired). The upshot of it was that if anything happened to dad, my mum would struggle to find work (or even really cope with the concept of going out to work to provide) as since the age of 17, she has been a housewife and mother.

Some would think of that being different but really it isn't...ok they wouldn't have had money from the state to support their lifestyle but they would struggle exactly the same as someone who had to go out into the workforce and find employment. My sister's mother in law had just that happen to her and she found she was woefully unprepared for supporting herself after the death of her husband and family provider.

I always thought dad was being mean in not letting my mother work (in reality, she could have worked, he wouldn't have stopped her)...they always thought I was strange to want to work whilst a mother, you can imagine the arguements in our house!

My own (now ex) mother in law found pretty much the same thing when my father in law died....only the one job after leaving school, given up on her marriage (which was pretty much the norm amongst her peers), years spent child rearing and then disaster.

So (in my ramblings) the point is, that it isn't just the benefit claimant mother who finds themselves forced into working to survive after a lifetime of child rearing but also those old school stop at home mums too.

Mind you, this is not in defence of those who do leave school and just have babies to get benefits....I could never understand their thinking and still struggle now to understand it as a lone parent on benefits, don't they want more in life?

dopester

ceridwen wrote: »

Well - they'll certainly be "at the back of the queue" for the unskilled jobs they would require - AFTER those who had gritted their teeth at the outset and resigned themselves to having to WORK for their living....:rolleyes:

It is tough out there, even for many an honest worker - so yes, mothers returning to the workplace having not been employed for decades... well many an employer would have better candidates to select from.

We all want people like Max to land on their feet, and despite my pessimism, many opportunities still exist.

Others though are having a tough time of it, which I'm picking up on many a forum I visit.

Max_Headroom_3

dopester wrote: »

So unfair, as you sit in your home which quadrupled in value, with you paying the mortgage off 10 years early instead of putting that money into savings.

Did you ever give any thought for the waste in the system as you enjoyed Labour's miracle boom that could never end, and your home was furiously gaining value?

Welfare will have to be reformed as there isn't the money to keep it running at these levels. If your home had crashed 80% in value I could somewhat better understand your whine, but you refuse to accept it as realisable gain, prior to the wipe-out in value, and all the other benefits STR could bring.

You need to focus on yourself now, getting yourself back in to a good position of either earning, taking measures such as a lodger, selling other assets of value, or quick STRing - and not get sidetracked about other stuff which annoys you but which you can do little about.

There was a thread discussing welfare claiming mothers somewhere else. The money runs out once their children reach a certain age, leaving many of them with a shock.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

It's like a broken record isn't it?

Dopester, for the last time, the answers to all the points you've raised here (for the one hundredth time) are written by myself and others time and again.

For the last time...

SCROLL UP MATE!!!

Then engage brain, read, and try to understand what's been said to you, over and over.

If you're not able to ingest informative answers to your points and are only able to keep blindly raising those same points over and over ad infinitum then there's really not much point your being on a discussion board is there?

Discussion, it's a two way process, you have to hear as well as speak and you have to respond to what's been said, not ignore it and simply keep repeating your initial point over and over. That doesn't work, and eventually you start to look rather silly, like a child who's told he can't have sweets and why, but just keeps on demanding them anyway.

Max_Headroom_3

Harry_Powell wrote: »

her kids benefit from the free milk and school meals, not her. From your statement, she has less personal income from benefits than you because of her child support. she gets other benefits for the kids, but they dont amount to much.

If you rented a house, then you'd also get your rent paid from the state. I'm sorry but I just dont see what the child maintenance bit has to do with the rest of your thread. TBH I think it's great that the dads are paying for their own kids instead of me via my taxes. If I had kids and split up from my gf ' I'd also expect to pay her maintenance for the kids. I wouldn't see it as providing her with an income but instead see it as being a responsible dad.

Surely your OP is about the inequities of the benefit system, not about the rights and wrongs of absent fathers having to pay OTT child support? In this respect, if she has had her income support reduced or stopped completely due to the income from her ex's child maintenance, then doesn't it prove the system works?

I can only repeat what I said last time you asked me this. She's able to live off her benefits in some comfort and long term, I'm not.

Yes some of her "income" is from maintenance, but a lot of that simply wipes out benefit she'd have got anyway were that money not coming in so she wouldn't actually be a lot worse off.

Whatever the benefits are called, and whatever the reason, the fact remains that it's possible to live quite comfortably on benefits if you do it right, whereas if instead you provide for yourself and later in life come to need "the safety net" you'll find (as I have) that it's not really there for you.

Hence my argument that the system is wrong, and fails at both ends of the spectrum. Both providing a lifestyle choice for those it shouldn't, whilst simultaneously failing those it should be able to temporarily support.

Harry_Powell

My view is that wives who give up work to take care of their children while their husbands work, and are then subsequently left with no income when the relationship breaks down are entitled to continued support from their husbands while the kids are of school age. I don't see this as being anything to do with the benefit system.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one because I certainly don't want to engage in the type of circular discussion you're having with dopester.

Good luck with getting your next job and, if makes you feel any better, remember that when her kids turn (18?) the lady you mentioned will lose the vast majority of her income, while you will still retain yours. Long-term you will be better off than she.

lostinrates

Harry_Powell wrote: »

My view is that wives who give up work to take care of their children while their husbands work, and are then subsequently left with no income when the relationship breaks down are entitled to continued support from their husbands while the kids are of school age. .

Actually, I think arguably longer in some cases. The career break can impact significntly on the wage you are abe to receive afterwards. I've been out of work, in the main, for some time. If I were to attempt to pick up roles in the EMPLOYED careers I have had I would expect to start on basic payscale, where s if I had not had a break I'd expect to be substantially higher in the pay scale/career ladder.

Harry_Powell

lostinrates wrote: »

Actually, I think arguably longer in some cases. The career break can impact significntly on the wage you are abe to receive afterwards. I've been out of work, in the main, for some time. If I were to attempt to pick up roles in the EMPLOYED careers I have had I would expect to start on basic payscale, where s if I had not had a break I'd expect to be substantially higher in the pay scale/career ladder.

I think that it's fair enough if the couple were married for a long period and the wife sacrificed a successful career in her own right in order to take care of the children. The decision for one person to be the primary care giver is always a joint decision, so it does seem fair for the repercussions of this major decision to last beyond the marriage.

Most of what you say though is covered in the financial settlement that takes place when the divorce is complete. House equity, pension entitlement and other assets are usually divided to ensure that the SAHM (or dad) is compensated for loss of future earnings.

I do believe it would be unfair for the partner who continues to work to have to pay his ex-spouse indefinitely, especially given that most people are not Paul McCartney. There is also no guarantee that the SAHM would have continued to rise to her company's board level, had she not had children, she could have left at the apex of her career and return to that level quite quickly even with a significant gap in her working life.

TBH, I have difficulty with justifying a full-time SAHM (or Dad) beyond a certain timeframe anyway. Once the children are in school, there is no reason why the SAHM cannot start working, albiet in a role based around their children's school start and end times. Certainly once the child reaches their teens, there is zero justification in continuing on as a SAHM/D except in special circumstances.