Another one of those benefits threads

fc123

treliac wrote: »

I only had two children, but working half time throughout their early years did not spare me any effort. First came the morning routines, up, wash, change, dress and breakfast for us all. Then hand over to their grandparents, to go to a stressful job which was difficult to fit into the hours in the first place. I was relieved not to have an accident as I thrashed the car the 20 miles back home, always against the clock. Returning home early afternoon, it was always in chaos - left by their grandparents (bless 'em ), so I had to clear up and take over for the rest of the day. Taking the children out and being their mum, shopping, dinner, bath and bed, preparing all our lunches for the next day and fitting in the housework. DH worked long hours and was never home until mid-evening. (Except for his two periods of redundancy, when we worked around the clock between us).

There was never a minute spare and I was always exhausted. At each 'milestone', when their schooling afforded me a little extra time, I took on more at work - we needed the dosh. It was no picnic and I would have dearly loved to get off the merry go round.

I know I'm not alone, having to be parent, housekeeper and employee, but it is incredibly galling to know that we work like crazy to provide for those who 'choose' to stay at home and be kept by the state, i.e. us and others like us. We were unable to afford the cost or the energy of having more children, which I really wanted.

Spot on Treliac.....I know loads of us who have done that....sometimes I was so tired late at night I would just cry....and quite a few times they wanted to read you something or show you some work and I would sit, nod and say hmmm but was glazed over with tiredness.

I used to envy the yummy mummys who had highly paid OH's to bring in all the cash also...but now I am older and don't have envy any more...seems to dissipate as one get's older I don't know why?

However...I have lived a paralell life with a relative on OH's side and she has lived the stereo-typical benfits life after she split with her OH and they played it too. There is mild disability with one kid and she may have got extra for depression at some point.

We are now 20 years on and our lives are now drastically different as I have opps as a woman (who's kids are grown nearly) and she is stuck and will have to retrain as something plus as each kid leaves, the allowance per kid goes down....and in the end you just get the rent, CT and the £65 odd pwk.
That's when it's not really a gravy train but just an existence ...another thread on here about that.

fc123

StevieJ wrote: »

I was told by someone without a job that the BTL lot did not want to rent to people on benefits.

I would second that...chatting to a nice young thing from a letting agency it's all 'Professional couples, non smokers, no pets, no kids under 11'' The fave tenant dempgraphic is 'Single Professional (highish earner) female, non smoker, no pets, hates loud music and house proud...so parties away from her rental''...also fussy with blokes so doesn't move any boyfriends in....oh and doesn't get preg and have a baby during the tenancy....don't want all that baby mess on the nice new carpet.

sjaypink

These stories / threads do annoy me.

The LPs are not better off on benefits than they are married/ co-habed. What they mean is they have less money in their accounts. The family still have more money, but, shock horror, some of it is earned and kept hold of (to pay rent bills etc) by the worker.

The LHA outrage is a non-starter really as far as it comes to LPs. Families of any type of set up, working or not, can claim LHA. As said only winners are the landlords who are having their BTL mortgages paid off by the tax payers..... so they can buy more BTLs...... Genius :cool:

Eton_Rifle

nembot wrote: »

Well I started, so may as well thank everyone

I'm still in disbelief after reading mitchaa's post, it's truly shocking to see the figures in black & white.

It is shocking, I've never seen it set out like that either and that's without the health and caring allowances that seem to be almost inevitable.
I've never claimed any sort of benefit and if I was contributing to the tax pool right now I'd be quite upset.

The saddest thing is that these people are not living life to the fullest. They have little potential and hardly any control over their own lives. They're almost just filling in time until they die. What kind of a life is that?

sjaypink

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

The saddest thing is that these people are not living life to the fullest. They have little potential and hardly any control over their own lives. They're almost just filling in time until they die. What kind of a life is that?

If it wasn't so bloody tragic I'd be bitter....

mitchaa

sjaypink wrote: »

These stories / threads do annoy me.

The LPs are not better off on benefits than they are married/ co-habed. What they mean is they have less money in their accounts. The family still have more money, but, shock horror, some of it is earned and kept hold of (to pay rent bills etc) by the worker.

The LHA outrage is a non-starter really as far as it comes to LPs. Families of any type of set up, working or not, can claim LHA. As said only winners are the landlords who are having their BTL mortgages paid off by the tax payers..... so they can buy more BTLs...... Genius :cool:

£26k is the average British mean wage. It is a professional salary earned by teachers, policemen, IT specialists, nurses etc.

A LP on £20k worth of benefits is better off than them irrespective if they have education or qualifications.

mitchaa

sjaypink wrote: »

If it wasn't so bloody tragic I'd be bitter....

Unable to support yourself and stand on your own 2 feet is a major failing in life. It is certainly nothing to be proud about.

I thought you were a £50k+ family and not on benefits?

sjaypink

mitchaa wrote: »

£26k is the average British mean wage. It is a professional salary earned by teachers, policemen, IT specialists, nurses etc.

A LP on £20k worth of benefits is better off than them irrespective if they have education or qualifications.

.... well, maybe.... this was my point

earn £26k, same cirumstances as your original post:

tax credits: £2,123.90

child benefit: £1,757.21

housing benefit: £2,722.06

mitchaa wrote: »

Unable to support yourself and stand on your own 2 feet is a major failing in life. It is certainly nothing to be proud about.?

I see it as a failing too, but I guess we would differ on who or what has failed who or what ..... which is why I mentioned bitter. I can't understand really how people can be angry or bitter at these people. I'm more angry for them....

mitchaa wrote: »

I thought you were a £50k+ family and not on benefits?

Don't know where you got that from :-)

bo_drinker

SimbaK2K wrote: »

She might be in for a bit of a shock with our new PM

I doubt it...:cool:

bo_drinker

fc123 wrote: »

I would second that...chatting to a nice young thing 'Single Professional (highish earner) female, non smoker, no pets, hates loud music and house proud...so parties away from her rental''....

She sounds like a good catch........