Seriously need help...please :)

SingleSue

thrustmaster wrote: »

To the OP - I would be more concerned about what your children and husband will think of you if you decide not to work.

Household money may be shared but both halves should contribute if they are able (by working). This prevents the woman from being marginalised in the future and pushes away from the stereotype of hard-working man and breeder at home.

Your kids will grow up faster than you think and no matter what you think you cannot guarantee your husband is always going to be there. So you should always make the best of yourself.

Also take into consideration our countries financial status - What you get this year may in benefits be severely different from next and IF you decided next year it wasn't enough to support your family you have no guarantee of getting another job (1 year sitting at home doesn't go down well on the CV - even if you are looking after kids).

We didn't think any less of my mum as a stop at home parent...in fact, we were grateful of the fact that she was there to greet us when we got home from school, rather than being latch key kids.

anguk

chris1973 wrote: »

Regardless of the comments in relation to whether the OP is right or wrong, and instead of hurling insults lets look at the infrastructure and the logic.

I wonder what would happen to the country if EVERYBODY who has children opted to excercise their freedom of choice and give up work and become a stay at home parent?. The number of tax payers would be so drastically reduced that the amount paid out in various benefits would far outweigh the revenue gained in PAYE payments from those few still going to work.

With billions being paid out, and only millions being paid in, the entire system would collapse very very quickly, and everybody would lose out.

In a country which is, supposedly, so heavily in debt it wouldn't take long for it to go bankrupt and a return to a repeat of the Victorian era where there were no benefits whatsoever, and the only time you saw your children was when you fed them their gruel before they went off to the Workhouse.

Perhaps it would take something like this for people to realise the full and obvious value of what they have got already, and cherish it.

Just a thought.

Or you could look at it another way, if everyone who had a child opted to stay at home that would create a hell of a lot of job vacancies that could be filled by people who currently can't find work thus reducing JSA and associated costs. The government would also save millions by not having to pay childcare costs.

I understand what you're saying about PAYE but you have to remember that in many cases the goverment is paying more in tax credits and childcare to a family than that family is paying in income tax.

jellyhead

There aren't enough jobs to go around, so I see it as my moral duty for only 1 of us to work

zagfles

anguk wrote: »

Or you could look at it another way, if everyone who had a child opted to stay at home that would create a hell of a lot of job vacancies that could be filled by people who currently can't find work thus reducing JSA and associated costs. The government would also save millions by not having to pay childcare costs.

I understand what you're saying about PAYE but you have to remember that in many cases the goverment is paying more in tax credits and childcare to a family than that family is paying in income tax.

Good point. The UK has more out of work households than anywhere in Europe, even though we have lower unemployment than most of Europe.

This is because there's a divide between dual-earner households and no-earner households. Which is mainly down to the way the tax & benefits system discriminate against single earner households, ie independant taxation but non independant benefits.

In other countries single earner households are much more common

Spendless

chris1973 wrote: »

Regardless of the comments in relation to whether the OP is right or wrong, and instead of hurling insults lets look at the infrastructure and the logic.

I wonder what would happen to the country if EVERYBODY who has children opted to excercise their freedom of choice and give up work and become a stay at home parent?. The number of tax payers would be so drastically reduced that the amount paid out in various benefits would far outweigh the revenue gained in PAYE payments from those few still going to work.

With billions being paid out, and only millions being paid in, the entire system would collapse very very quickly, and everybody would lose out.

In a country which is, supposedly, so heavily in debt it wouldn't take long for it to go bankrupt and a return to a repeat of the Victorian era where there were no benefits whatsoever, and the only time you saw your children was when you fed them their gruel before they went off to the Workhouse.

Perhaps it would take something like this for people to realise the full and obvious value of what they have got already, and cherish it.

Just a thought.

What do you think used to happen in not so very long ago times? The current system of heavily subsidised childcare for a broad range of incomes did not exist even when I had my eldest child and he is still in Primary school. People either worked round the other parents shifts if they could, asked family members to help them out or delayed the return to work till their youngest child went into f-time education.

nottslass_2

anguk wrote: »

Or you could look at it another way, if everyone who had a child opted to stay at home that would create a hell of a lot of job vacancies that could be filled by people who currently can't find work thus reducing JSA and associated costs. The government would also save millions by not having to pay childcare costs.

I understand what you're saying about PAYE but you have to remember that in many cases the goverment is paying more in tax credits and childcare to a family than that family is paying in income tax.

Thats probably only true in a small minority of cases,but we also need to remember that qualifying parents will only be claiming childcare help for a relative short time in comparison to the years that they will be contributing.

Think about the millions of low paid public sector workers that WE have paid £££££££££££ to recruit and train . Surely its far more economical to invest in retaining an experienced workforce rather than loose workers because of high childcare costs ?

We all have our views on how public money should or should not be spent,but I can remember when I had DS1 in the mid 1980's and there was no such provision for childcare,resulting in many parents and children being stuck in the poverty trap. I can remember (as a lone parent) quite frequently being left with only 50p in my purse and having to choose whether to put in in the electric meter or buy a loaf of bread - did we go cold or hungry ?

Thankfully things have moved on and there is now no need for any body to be stuck in the same situation - Surely there are worse things that society can invest public money in ?

shellyruby

no-oneknowsme wrote: »

Without wishing to get involved in the ongoing dispute , I just wanted to chip in and say that the big , bold writing is actually very hard on the eyes of the people who are reading the post.

I understand there are posters who may NEED to use bold writing for one reason or another , but to use it simply because you "like" to write in bold is actually not necessary.

thanks for pointing that out.goodness dosent take much to get people riled up on here simply because i liked writing in bold..i didnt realise bold writing was very hard on the eyes.

shellyruby

jellyhead wrote: »

I thought the benefits section of MSE was for advice, not discussion? It's scarier than DT in here!

All the OP needed was to be pointed towards the entitledto calculator to play around with figures, check what she'd get if she continued with her current job but used a registered nursery etc.

exactly jellyhead..isnt there a discussion forum in here for this type of thing where people like to get riled up.
and you just gave great advice there.:T

shellyruby

Fridge2 wrote: »

You're not being judged for wanting to watch your child grow up.

You're being judged for expecting others to pay for you to watch your child grow up.

I hope this clarifies things.:)

she didnt need to be judged.she asked a question and wanted a simple answer.. so why are you judging her.:(

shellyruby

Orville wrote: »

You are joking right..?.

We are old sparring partners. I agree with alot of the points people make on here, i do however disagree with the way people choose to relay those feelings, mostly by coming out with crass one liners in a condescending and belittling way, that shows a real lack of maturity and stupidity.

If someone asks a question such as the op's, all that is needed is a simple reply such as, "no at the moment there are no benefits or help to people who choose to give up work".

Not the "oh don't breed if you can't afford it" answer. That type of answer to me shows a major retardation that only serves to give this site a bad name.

good post orville.:)