Give up your job to live on benefits.

Orpheo

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

What? *Mind Blown*

Childcare needs to be far cheaper. Presumably the pedophile scares and government bureaucrats are responsible for sky high costs. Having a couple of adults look after 30-40 kids should not be a large enough financial burden for parents to quit their jobs.

How cheap do you think childcare should be? How about paying peanuts and putting the children in the monkey enclosure? There is no motivation for caring for children but love. If more children were actually raised by their parents rather than strangers then they may actually begin to feel as if someone cares about them. We may have less antisocial behaviour, less bad behaviour at school, better educational achievement and the economy may benefit in the long term.

Back to the topic at hand, this woman is a nurse and clearly out of the job market on a temporary basis until her youngest is 2. We shouldn't be paying her mortgage for her, but we could otherwise cut her some slack on the understanding that she has contributed before and will contribute again shortly. I by no means endorse people living on benefits, but it is easily forgotten that many people who find themselves temporarily out of work by accident or even choice have paid into the system. If we are to get hung out to dry as soon as our circumstances change then I want an NI refund please.

ultrawomble

Orpheo wrote: »

Back to the topic at hand, this woman is a nurse and clearly out of the job market on a temporary basis until her youngest is 2.

Her youngest is already 2 - so she won't be going back to work for a couple of years yet. In the meantime, it would seem that the taxpayer is protecting any equity she has in the property.

PhylPho

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Another one guaranteed to raise the hackles.
>
Or are we to be fooled by the BBC 'nanny spin' which is intended to have us all thinking "Now look what Cameron has done. Turning out mother and three children to suffer clifftop winter storms....."

Ah, but. . . The BBC doesn't have nanny spin. Only Socialist spin. Sadly.

Orpheo

ultrawomble wrote: »

In the meantime, it would seem that the taxpayer is protecting any equity she has in the property.

In my post I have said that I think that this is wrong.

Mr_Mumble

Orpheo wrote: »

How cheap do you think childcare should be? How about paying peanuts and putting the children in the monkey enclosure?

Guess the local zoo would be cheaper than shipping 'em off to Romania.. I'm surprised no-one has claimed I want 'em up chimneys yet.

Back to the topic at hand, this woman is a nurse and clearly out of the job market on a temporary basis until her youngest is 2. We shouldn't be paying her mortgage for her, but we could otherwise cut her some slack on the understanding that she has contributed before and will contribute again shortly. I by no means endorse people living on benefits, but it is easily forgotten that many people who find themselves temporarily out of work by accident or even choice have paid into the system. If we are to get hung out to dry as soon as our circumstances change then I want an NI refund please.

The story doesn't add up. 80% of childcare costs are paid for via working tax credits, 3-4 year olds are entitled to free education, 5+ year olds will only need 2-3 hours of childminding a day for anyone working 9-5. If someone wants to leave their job to look after their children that's their choice but its a lifestyle choice that taxpayers - who heavily subsidise childcare - shouldn't pay for. 'Choice' is something Britons don't have nearly enough of because they insist on a government that takes 50% of their money, don't expect any back, there is no system that is being paid into, there is £900bn of debt that is rising at a rate of £150bn per annum.

Graham_Devon

zygurat789 wrote: »

And your point is?

Simply that you can't assume that the man is responsible.

If a women chucks a man out and takes the kids, what are you expecting the man to do? Pay for the house she and the kids live in, the council tax, bills & pay maintanance on top?

How is the bloke supposed to live?

Both Men & Women who are not the resident parent have a responsibility to pay maintanance.

But not a responsibility to pay maintanance, mortgages, bills, taxe's etc on the behalf of the other parent, who, may or may not, have decided on their own free will, they didn't want to be with that person anymore and have decided to give up work.

It's not just men who run.

treliac

Amanda is one of a quarter of a million homeowners in the UK who receive a benefit called Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI).

But as a result of some of the first government cuts to take effect, that benefit was cut by 40% from 1 October.

She, and more than 100,000 others, now face a shortfall in their mortgage payments.

It's at a more realistic rate now..... people were making money on it when it was over 6%.

Some people won't be getting enough to cover their actual costs now though.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Simply that you can't assume that the man is responsible.

If a women chucks a man out and takes the kids, what are you expecting the man to do? Pay for the house she and the kids live in, the council tax, bills & pay maintanance on top?

How is the bloke supposed to live?

Both Men & Women who are not the resident parent have a responsibility to pay maintanance.

But not a responsibility to pay maintanance, mortgages, bills, taxe's etc on the behalf of the other parent, who, may or may not, have decided on their own free will, they didn't want to be with that person anymore and have decided to give up work.

It's not just men who run.

So the father has no responsibilty, but taxpayers have?

macaque_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Another one guaranteed to raise the hackles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11743245

Shortly after the installation of a new Government, hell bent on cuts, the concept of someone "giving up their job" despite obvious responsibilities to her children, and financial commitments of an outstanding mortgage, I would call this a "brave" decision.

Am I being too polite? Why do we pay benefits for anyone 'choosing' not to work? Isn't this simply a case of 'chickens coming home to roost'? Or are we to be fooled by the BBC 'nanny spin' which is intended to have us all thinking "Now look what Cameron has done. Turning out mother and three children to suffer clifftop winter storms....."

Actually, the whole thing is outrageous and I feel sorry for this woman. Perhaps paying someone 6% is unjustified, but handing out payments only to stop them later is messing with people's lives ..... badly.

Gordon Brown created expectations, house prices and an infrastructure that the UK cannot afford. He did so to get re-elected. As these get dismantled (as they must) lives are being wrecked. Gordon has now retired on a PM's pension and travels the world telling 3rd world countries how to save their people.

Loughton_Monkey

macaque wrote: »

Actually, the whole thing is outrageous and I feel sorry for this woman. Perhaps paying someone 6% is unjustified, but handing out payments only to stop them later is messing with people's lives ..... badly.

Gordon Brown created expectations, house prices and an infrastructure that the UK cannot afford. He did so to get re-elected. As these get dismantled (as they must) lives are being wrecked. Gordon has now retired on a PM's pension and travels the world telling 3rd world countries how to save their people.

I would not use the word "Outrageous" in the contect of the woman's plight. OK, 75% of my own outrage is to Brother Brown and the way he has just thrown £billions at benefits before, during and after the banking crisis. But 25% of my outrage is at an individual who - amidst the most public and obvious news that cuts were coming in a big way - irrespective of election result - should simply give up her job (that I am sure thousands would give their right arms for) and live at the expense of the taxpayer - and then publicly 'moan' about her plight with BBC's full backing.

What would you say as an individual? There you are, living with your wife and a grown up daughter. You both work, but with lack of overtime and rising costs, you are getting deeper and deeper in debt - despite the fact that your daughter works and generally pays her way. Then you have yet another unplanned major expense and you are even more in debt and struggling. And now you daughter comes home to announce she has chucked in her perfectly good job. She will not be contributing to the household finances any more. She will simply live for free in your house and expect £100 a month 'pocket money'.

If you were soft enough to do this, fine. If, however, you then told her that you can only give her £90 a month, I would not call that "outrageous".