Would I be better off reducing my working hours and claiming benefits??

sazzybum

DX2 wrote: »

So if everyone with kids were to work part time and "rake" in benefits, can someone please tell me where the bleedin hell all this money would come from?
Would I do it no!
Jesus christ what is the point in me educating my disabled child if this is the mentality of some people. He might aswell not bother his *rse and just live on benefits for the rest of his life.

DX2- I am not of the mentality that everyone should 'rake' in benefits. In fact, in my post was the initial reaction ''that's dreadful'' It was meant to be a light hearted question..just probably not worded very well. Incidentally, even when I was in a position to go part time when boys were younger and 'rake' in more money-I refused to do so. Yes- it infuriates me that she now will be getting 150 pounds a week more than me for less hours-but at least I'm honest enough to admit that I'm slightly envious of this-even if I wouldn't and haven't done it.

Everyone can take the moral high-ground (and as mentioned previously I DO NOT advocate this) but if someones waving 150 pounds in your face for working less hours......?? It's the benefits system that needs to be fixed-to make it more profitable to work than not.

And I apologise if anyone was offended by my question!

DX2

sazzybum wrote: »

DX2- I am not of the mentality that everyone should 'rake' in benefits. In fact, in my post was the initial reaction ''that's dreadful'' It was meant to be a light hearted question..just probably not worded very well. Incidentally, even when I was in a position to go part time when boys were younger and 'rake' in more money-I refused to do so. Yes- it infuriates me that she now will be getting 150 pounds a week more than me for less hours-but at least I'm honest enough to admit that I'm slightly envious of this-even if I wouldn't and haven't done it.

Everyone can take the moral high-ground (and as mentioned previously I DO NOT advocate this) but if someones waving 150 pounds in your face for working less hours......?? It's the benefits system that needs to be fixed-to make it more profitable to work than not.

And I apologise if anyone was offended by my question!

My post wasn't meant at "you" personally.

Caz3121

sazzybum wrote: »

It's the benefits system that needs to be fixed-to make it more profitable to work than not.

think this is an important point
We encourage people to claim what they are 'entitled' to and the country is in a mess. I am all for my taxes being used to support those that are unable to support themselves but anyone fit and able to work full time to should not be rewarded for not doing so...don't want this to end up as discussion time (I am sure there are a load of posts over there on this topic) but maybe the next government will take a different stance

Welshwoofs

MrEmirates wrote: »

It depends on how it effects any claim for benefits. She would rather be at home with the kids but knows she has to work if necessary.

I'd rather be sitting on a beach in the Maldives being fed peeled grapes by a well-oiled pool-boy called Raul...but it's not going to happen.

Rather than kill yourself working 50-70 hours a week, I'd get your wife off her backside and into a job

sazzybum

DX2 wrote: »

My post wasn't meant at "you" personally.

I know-sorry if it sounded like that.

PayDay

DX2 wrote: »

So if everyone with kids were to work part time and "rake" in benefits, can someone please tell me where the bleedin hell all this money would come from?

Same place as it has come from since tax credits came in - from borrowing it. Only now investors (Chinese, Arabs, Russians) won't lend to this government at the same low interest rate as even France get, as the UK is now seen as a risk of defaulting on repayments. The UK now have to pay at the same interest rates as Italy borrow at and Italy was always seen as a joke economy - and still is. Plus the UK taxpayer still has to pay back all the loans and interest on those loans that has been borrowed over the last few years:eek:

OP, don't go onto more benefits. Strive to come off them as they aren't going to last. As others have said, ask your wife to work evenings or a day at the weekend. Or arrange some swap childcare with local friends and ask her to work for the odd day midweek. That way you both get to see your children, have more money and have a basis to build a career each. That's how it was done before tax credits came in.

OrkneyStar

Caz3121 wrote: »

think this is an important point
We encourage people to claim what they are 'entitled' to and the country is in a mess. I am all for my taxes being used to support those that are unable to support themselves but anyone fit and able to work full time to should not be rewarded for not doing so...don't want this to end up as discussion time (I am sure there are a load of posts over there on this topic) but maybe the next government will take a different stance

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Rather than kill yourself working 50-70 hours a week, I'd get your wife off her backside and into a job

I disagree here, I think we need to support more mothers to stay at home with their children, at least for the first couple of years. Maternity benefits are much better than they were, and that is a good thing. Why do people think it is better for the mother of the OP's children to work instead of him doing a little over-time, and then budget within their means ?

PayDay wrote: »

OP, don't go onto more benefits. Strive to come off them as they aren't going to last. As others have said, ask your wife to work evenings or a day at the weekend. Or arrange some swap childcare with local friends and ask her to work for the odd day midweek. That way you both get to see your children, have more money and have a basis to build a career each. That's how it was done before tax credits came in.

While this is true in part, I think the other main difference is that people had less luxuries a few years back, spent less on presents, fancy food etc (not digging at you OP, this is in general!).
Can I suggest OP you stick where you are house-wise, perhaps do a little over-time (show your keen-ness!) but not too much, continue to claim the tax credits you are entitled to, and suggest to your wife she might get a job if it would add to her overall quality of life/help financially. All the best, and I hope you don't mind me trying to offer a balance to all those saying your wife must work! Her job as a mum and wife is also important to your well-being as a family. Finally, pop over to the old-style board for some (loads) money saving tips (eg meal planning etc) and also sign yourself and wife up to survey sites etc.

Caz3121

OrkneyStar wrote: »

I disagree here, I think we need to support more mothers to stay at home with their children, at least for the first couple of years. Maternity benefits are much better than they were, and that is a good thing. Why do people think it is better for the mother of the OP's children to work instead of him doing a little over-time, and then budget within their means ?

I do agree with your point re younger children and the help with childcare is there that choose to work however there must be a cutoff point. My stepkids are 15 and 16, their mother will go away for weekends and holidays leaving them alone at home but works 16 hours as that is the most financially beneficial as receives the optimum benefits - eg is able to work full time but chooses not to

OrkneyStar

Caz3121 wrote: »

I do agree with your point re younger children and the help with childcare is there that choose to work however there must be a cutoff point. My stepkids are 15 and 16, their mother will go away for weekends and holidays leaving them alone at home but works 16 hours as that is the most financially beneficial as receives the optimum benefits - eg is able to work full time but chooses not to

Yes, I also agree on a cut-off point for things like income support, which I understand there is/will be soon. Not sure about the plans for tax credits or how long they will continue for. I do think perhaps primary school age (maybe 7-10 ish) is a good cut-off point, although from speaking to mothers of that age children, holiday clubs etc can still be hard to find/expensive. A child who is old enough to be at home clearly is not a good reason to work part-time and rake in benefits as your step-kids mum seems to. Of course different rules would be applied with a disabled child/parent/both! I fear I have helped move this in the direction of DT .

bambammy

Again it comes back to the benefits system. I've been offered jobs working full time. I would be additional £20 a week better off and my children would never got to see their mother.

Apart from the effect on the children, the £40 a week better off, working full time does not help the public purse in the long term. Children need their parents at home regardless of age in my opinion.

Child minders, babysitters alike, are not as stern as a parent would be. Be that a toddler or a teenager.