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

lostinrates

Harry_Powell wrote: »

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.

But if the decison to sahparent is jointly reached, then regardless of others opinions, it should be jointly respected, this can also, ofc ourse, impact on pensions etc. I agree this is dealt with in settlements (and probably needs review as life changes hit, as happens, e.g. remarriage).

Lotus-eater

Harry_Powell wrote: »

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.

I don't think you have to justify it, if that's what you want to do.

However, being as both of us (me and the OH) both have quite flexible jobs, mine is so flexible I'm not even working atm :rolleyes:. We can both work around the kids school, but it isn't easy and have to have a calender up on the wall to see when we do the picking up/dropping off etc. It's a PITA really and one parent being at home all the time would be brilliant.
Besides you try and get a job where you can permanently work around school times and be able to walk out at the drop of a hat because something has happened. It's not easy.

Harry_Powell

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I don't think you have to justify it, if that's what you want to do.

However, being as both of us (me and the OH) both have quite flexible jobs, mine is so flexible I'm not even working atm :rolleyes:. We can both work around the kids school, but it isn't easy and have to have a calender up on the wall to see when we do the picking up/dropping off etc. It's a PITA really and one parent being at home all the time would be brilliant.
Besides you try and get a job where you can permanently work around school times and be able to walk out at the drop of a hat because something has happened. It's not easy.

sorry Lotus-eater, I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. I was discussing with lostinrates about SAHM & Dads in the context of divorce.

From experience of when I was a kid and the experience of my older siblings and friends, when the joint decision for one person to take time off work and look after the kids is made, it's not a case of them both agreeing that "you'll give up work from the day they are born until the day they go to University" and signing that agreement in blood. Instead it's a case where they will initially look at a period from birth until child starts nursery or school and then they will reconsider their options from there.

If the couple then split up while the child is 4, then IMO it's unfair for the SAHM/D to make the decision unilaterally to stay at home until the kids turn 18 and expect their ex to foot the bill.

If the couple stay together and continue to agree that one person should stay at home, then I agree with you that it's a private matter between themselves. Provided of course that the tax payer isn't stiffed to pick up the financial slack.

Lotus-eater

Harry_Powell wrote: »

If the couple then split up while the child is 4, then IMO it's unfair for the SAHM/D to make the decision unilaterally to stay at home until the kids turn 18 and expect their ex to foot the bill.

If the couple stay together and continue to agree that one person should stay at home, then I agree with you that it's a private matter between themselves. Provided of course that the tax payer isn't stiffed to pick up the financial slack.

If they spilt up it's a toughie, but in the end I have to agree with you, things have changed and you should stand on your own two feet. It won't be worth it, because you'll half kill yourself earning very little more than you would if you stayed at home (for most people) and it's unbelieveably hard to be a single parent, work, have time to cook proper meals and bring your kids up properly. But this is what society demands we do today.

The tax payer are being shafted to support single worker families, just like they are being shafted to support low wage earners. The whole job market is twisted by this. Take all the benefits away and it would be chaos.

pawpurrs

Dopester your like a broken record!
For whats its worth, your roughly the same age as me, so I really cant see why you couldnt have jumped and bought a house earlier, I bought my first house ten years ago! You made the decision not to, and then your all bitter that you didnt. You made a choice not to, homeowners didnt make a choice to see rampant HPI, and for most of us we would be better off without it, the only people to gain are those that STR at the right time, those that downsized at the right time, or those that emigrated. Without HPI each rung of the ladder would be easier, mortgages smaller and life generally easier.
Why should homeowners be made to STR, and live off that money till its all gone, assets are not taken in to account, otherwise we should all sell Antique paintings, our cars, maybe our bodies? Interest only up to 200k is paid, if you lose your job, and have no other income but only after 13 weeks, whereas you can claim HB straight away. So homeowners are in a worse postion, and its only the interest that is paid. I am in the same but worse postion than Max, in that I do have a mortgage to pay, I have been trying to sell before the job loss to no avail, so even if you made people sell up, in this market it could take some time, by which time, I would hope that a job would have been found. Mortgage interest is also only paid for a limited time, unlike HB. For the first six mths its not taken in to account for Income support, if you say that the purpose of that cash is to buy another property.

dopester

Max_Headroom wrote: »

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

OK I'll step down from it. The bit about single mothers not having a total life of luxury when the party ends brought something new to the table.

Also last night I'd stumbled upon a post you'd made back in September 2008 in one of DD's threads, when your circumstances were different... and your post was very reasonable.

Max_Headroom wrote: »

I think this is a very interesting post, good one DD.

The whole question of fairness of benefits is an interesting one. Basically benefits are fundamentally unfair, but unfortunately there simply isn't enough money in the pot to make them fair. That's not to say that there aren't many ways that they could potentially be improved.

I would have no hesitation or qualms in claiming benefit if made unemployed, but I doubt I'd get much as a single bloke with low outgoings.

Bottom line, yes if you're financially imprudent you're going to do "better" out of benefits. And if you've saved a big chunk of "house" in cash, you're going to lose a lot of it as it will undoubtedly preclude you from benefits. But it's hard to know how to resolve that without an awful lot more cash being needed to be injected into the system, and where's that going to come from? I guess it will always be unfair to someone, and sadly the better you've done for yourself and the more prudent you are, the more unfair the system is likely to be.

Thought provoking post though.

Wasn't trying to wind-you-up. Just somethings I feel strongly about, and some fears for people in your situations like your own.

dopester

pawpurrs wrote: »

Dopester your like a broken record!
For whats its worth, your roughly the same age as me, so I really cant see why you couldnt have jumped and bought a house earlier, I bought my first house ten years ago! You made the decision not to, and then your all bitter that you didnt.

I don't have to justify myself to anyone for not having been ready to buy a house at 23 years of age - and I'm not bitter about that.

Fact is I wasn't in any sort of position to, had other things to do, needed to be mobile, and didn't want to take a lot more debt out to then try to become some sort of absent landlord.

Not the only one who wasn't in a position to buy at 23. It wasn't a decision not to buy - it was because, unlike you, I had other things to do prior to home ownership.. including doing what prudent people should do, and saving first...

...except Labour's party took over - with HPI accelerating way beyond what most people could save, and the risks involved became ever greater, where in order to buy you'd have to take on ever greater levels of crippling debt --- and then end up possibly in a much worse position than you now find yourself in.... having taken on even greater debt levels when circumstances change.

The average age of a first-time buyer has risen by 26% during the past 30 years, increasing from 27 in 1977 to 34 today, according to mortgage lender GE Money Home Lending.

pawpurrs

I did save first before I bought, with a 20% deposit, and I am not selling because I have to, but because I want to move. In fact money wise, I would be better staying put as my interest payments would be paid and more with the mortgage support scheme, which is currently set at three times my interest rate.
Of course the average age of FTB has gone up, in no small part due to rampant HPI.
However had you a crystal ball would you not have bought in 1999?

dopester

pawpurrs wrote: »

Why should homeowners be made to STR, and live off that money till its all gone, assets are not taken in to account, otherwise we should all sell Antique paintings, our cars, maybe our bodies? Interest only up to 200k is paid, if you lose your job, and have no other income but only after 13 weeks, whereas you can claim HB straight away. So homeowners are in a worse postion, and its only the interest that is paid. I am in the same but worse postion than Max, in that I do have a mortgage to pay, I have been trying to sell before the job loss to no avail, so even if you made people sell up, in this market it could take some time, by which time, I would hope that a job would have been found. Mortgage interest is also only paid for a limited time, unlike HB. For the first six mths its not taken in to account for Income support, if you say that the purpose of that cash is to buy another property.

Interesting information in there, however I was looking at it from Max's full home ownership point of view exclusively. Yes, if you haven't got a job, struggling to pay bills, but have a few antiques of significant value, it is very reasonable that you should sell them.

Same for the car definitely. What other options are there? Very difficult to run a car on JSA I'd imagine, and food, utilities and other bills, unless you still have some stash of savings to get through.

Maybe partly I agree people should be made to sell their homes if they can't afford - why should renting first time buyers be forced to pay higher amounts for available property when there are people are in houses they can't afford to run or pay the mortgage on?

For Max though I was presenting it STR as an opportunity. The STR money could last him out a long time if done carefully, and buy back in at much lower levels. You also decided to try and sell.

How long for?

pawpurrs

The only reason I want to sell, is I want to move area. As circumstances are at the moment I will be forced to STR, as I wouldnt be able to get a mortgage at this exact moment in time.