Its a wonderful life... Want to try.....?? A Single parents View.. !!xx!

MORPH3US

I don't mind you asking at all although I don't want to take the thread off topic....

University and before anyone says, I had no financial support from my parents whatsoever, worked part time (as much as possible whilst at uni) and did not spend my loan on beer / cigarettes / drugs / takeaways etc

Plus of course I have a mortgage on a modest house which I am overpaying because I don't want to be in debt any more than I have to / pay more interest than I have to.

**purplemoon**

MORPH3US wrote:

I'm glad that my situation gave you a laugh! I could afford branded bread if I wanted it, but I choose to make the sacrafice (hence being on a moneysaving forum) because the savings on branded food are better off paying off debts!

In the same way, this girl would have been better off buying value and own brand food and using the savings to buy the items she really does need instead of moaning about it! Oh wait a minute, I forgot, there is no reason for her to worry about saving up for stuff in this "want it now" society, she can just get an interest free loan off the social.... how wonderful!

But you didn't comment on the fact the girl might have bought the products at a reduced price, you've just assumed she paid full price. Given a choice between buying value products or reduced price branded products I know which I would choose.

You say you're in debt, and not just mortgage debt, so would I be right in assuming you're also a member of this "want it now" society you mention above?

westernpromise

starlite wrote:

Slightly astray from the original post, but relevant IMO
Why are mothers rewarded for going back to work, but not for staying athome looking after their children?
I could go to work, but would end up earning 90p per hour after childcare / tax is paid, and that includes the tax credits I would recieve, so see little point.
However as a sahm I get £18 per week. Thats it!
Why are the government happy to give us money to pay other people to raise out children, but not to support stay at home mothers? What is the difference?

Because SAHMs are Ms who can just about afford to SAH. Their other halves are prepared to work hard and do without for the sake of the children having their mother around.

And this government absolutely, viscerally hates people like that. SAHMs are pretty much by definition 'rich', fit only to be beggared by taxation and insulted for believing in the family.

MORPH3US

missk_ensington wrote:

Errrr you're in debt right? I'd bet this months salary that at least a proportion of your debt was from frivolous spending.

See post above...

I love it when people make assumptions and get them badly wrong!

I don't do frivolous spending.....

M

Edinburghlass_2

MORPH3US wrote:

Forgot to say, after watching the programme last night, there were a few things I wanted to comment on:

1. Noticed that the girl brought hovis bread, branded cereals and wore designer clothes - myself and my gf are on nearly £20k a year each and we can't afford branded cereals and bread and other foods etc. We also don't buy designer clothes. Most of my clothes come from Tesco, Asda or Matalan.

2. I laughed when she was looking at the £90 Firetrap coat in House of Fraser. Again, myeslf and GF could never spend that much on a "fashion" coat!! And there she is saying "I don't think its overpriced" ?!?!?

3. I would give great credit to the girl who got a job at the end of the programme. To be prepared to work even though she would only be £40 a week better off gives her great credit! Its the governments fault here though and you can understand why most people like that wouldn't work their !!!!!! off for the extra £40 prefering to stay at home to watch Trisha!!

..............

cupid_s

viktory wrote:

Only one smoked, I think.

both definately smoked

astonsmummy

MORPH3US wrote:

I don't mind you asking at all although I don't want to take the thread off topic....

University and before anyone says, I had no financial support from my parents whatsoever, worked part time (as much as possible whilst at uni) and did not spend my loan on beer / cigarettes / drugs / takeaways etc

Plus of course I have a mortgage on a modest house which I am overpaying because I don't want to be in debt any more than I have to / pay more interest than I have to.

Once again it's your choice - you CHOOSE to overpay on your mortggage thus leaving u short.

MORPH3US

astonsmummy wrote:

First u say u cant afford branded stuff, now u say you choose not to buy them. make ur mind up luv :rolleyes:

What the...... ?!?

To me its the same thing!!!

I have debts right! At the end of the month I can choose to pay the minimum off those debts and then I can "afford" to get me some lovely designer clother and extra soft melt in the mouth bread....

or I can survive on value bread and matalan clothes and hammer my debts, instead of buying designer clothes i "can't afford"

M

hmc

im on is and recieve £57 something a week
£42 something ccc
£17 something cb
£10 csa
i have 1 ds
at the moment id be worse off going to work and will look for pt when he is 3 and gets free playschool
we have top up rent and all usual bills etc
it is very hard and we have to compromise with heating etc and shop carefully
there is NO spare money for my clothes or trips out
if i hadnt moved nearer my parents who help by taking us out and with food we would really struggle
no one should think being on benefits is easy option
helen

westernpromise

starlite wrote:

You missed my main point, What if you became chronically ill? your employer will only pay you for a short time. Will you then be cursing thoose who take state benefits!? I very much doubt so.

He / she will find that if he has ever worked, it will be all but impossible to actually get any state benefits. You are targeted early on as either a payer-in to the system or a taker-out. If the former it is virtually impossible to become the latter, and if the latter, often you are so prosperous that it would be a mug's game to want to become the former.