Seriously need help...please :)

SingleSue

prosaver wrote: »

if your partners earns over 15k you will only get 500 a year wtc and tax credits.

dont listen to them lot who says go back to work.. there just jealouse...theyll do the same as you if they had the choice :beer:

I don't think people are saying stay at work, just that she will not receive any benefits for her personally apart from a possible increase in tax credits.

Fridge2

prosaver wrote: »

if your partners earns over 15k you will only get 500 a year wtc and tax credits.

dont listen to them lot who says go back to work.. there just jealouse...theyll do the same as you if they had the choice :beer:

First of all, it isn't neccessary to write as you speak....having the time to type something and commit it to print, then making a statement such as the one above riddled with poor grammar just makes you look silly and others less likely to take your opinion seriously.

However, that aside, I feel I should address your point and treat it with the intellectual rigour it deserves.........b*llocks

prosaver

Fridge2 wrote: »

First of all, it isn't neccessary to write as you speak....having the time to type something and commit it to print, then making a statement such as the one above riddled with poor grammar just makes you look silly and others less likely to take your opinion seriously.

However, that aside, I feel I should address your point and treat it with the intellectual rigour it deserves.........b*llocks

my english is crap so..what..
and the tax credit might be wrong..
but there is a lot of jealousey
let her choose
its more than benifits ...
its about a mother and baby being together in the first years

Fridge2

prosaver wrote: »

my english is crap so..what..
and the tax credit might be wrong..
but there is a lot of jealousey
let her choose
its more than benifits ...
its about a mother and baby being together in the first years

That's a shame that you are so unconcerned about your poor facility with your native language, but that's up to you I suppose.

I have no beef with her personally as she is merely taking advantage of a very lax system, but you have to admit that something is seriously rotten if it doesn't pay to work whatever the reason.

And for your information, I don't have a problem with a mother and baby being together in the early years, but it is not fair that I am expected to help fund it...having children is a solemn responsibility and you shouls ensure you are adequately prepared to do so..it is true that unforseen events occur, but actually planning family life around benefits is plain wrong.

prosaver

then that means goverment are then forcing us poor people not to have kids
so if the husband was getting a wage which is suppose to support a family .
then we the tax payer would not have to pay tax for her to stay at home..
so is it the firm hes working for or the goverment..?will pay.
I would rather pay my tax for her, rather than having people sent to war..libya ect
the goverment can solve the employement Problem by...(but they dont want to)
Unemployment is an unbalance between the supply and the demand of working hours. We all know that the efficiency of all types of machines is increasing yearly. We need fewer people to produce the same goods. Work time has been reduced in the past 200 years from about 12 hours a day to less then 8 hours per day and the working week from 7 days to 5. The way to stop Unemployment and have everybody working, is to continue the historical trend; is to distribute the available work between all persons that want to work.

This we can do if each person works fewer hours per week and your taxes will fall due to the government savings= less benefits being paid out
the goverment wants medium to high unemployement if not they could solve the problem by... Unemployment is an unbalance between the supply and the demand of working hours. We all know that the efficiency of all types of machines is increasing yearly. We need fewer people to produce the same goods. Work time has been reduced in the past 200 years from about 12 hours a day to less then 8 hours per day and the working week from 7 days to 5. The way to stop Unemployment and have everybody working, is to continue the historical trend; is to distribute the available work between all persons that want to work.

This we can do if each person works fewer hours per week and your taxes will fall due to the government savings= less benefits being paid out
20 per cent of the total hours of the work force...
ie 1000 workers x work 40 hours .... less 20 percent =8000 hours / 40hours = 200 new jobs
If someone wanted to work they could expect to train for a week without pay and have a job when trained (no cost ).
everyone would finish an hour early...or have friday off ..whopee.

the government could supply temp reps to help work all this out (free of charge)

and you would pay less tax due to the fact ..the goverment will have to pay less benifits out -due to less unemployement..
simple
Originally Posted by ringo_24601
Quite simply, the benefits system allows the UK to compete with poorer nations, as companies who employ low-skilled workers do not need to pay them a 'living wage'.. their NMW is topped up by the state

Simples

elisebutt65

prosaver wrote: »

then that means goverment are then forcing us poor people not to have kids
so if the husband was getting a wage which is suppose to support a family .
then we the tax payer would not have to pay tax for her to stay at home..
so is it the firm hes working for or the goverment..?will pay.
I would rather pay my tax for her, rather than having people sent to war..libya ect
the goverment can solve the employement Problem by...(but they dont want to)
Unemployment is an unbalance between the supply and the demand of working hours. We all know that the efficiency
of all types of machines is increasing yearly. We need fewer people to produce the same goods. Work time has been reduced in the past 200 years from about 12 hours a day to less then 8 hours per day and the working week from 7 days to 5. The way to stop Unemployment and have everybody working, is to continue the historical trend; is to distribute the available work between all persons that want to work.

This we can do if each person works fewer hours per week and your taxes will fall due to the government savings= less benefits being paid out
the goverment wants medium to high unemployement if not they could solve the problem by... Unemployment is an unbalance between the supply and the demand of working hours. We all know that the efficiency of all types of machines is increasing yearly. We need fewer people to produce the same goods. Work time has been reduced in the past 200 years from about 12 hours a day to less then 8 hours per day and the working week from 7 days to 5. The way to stop Unemployment and have everybody working, is to continue the historical trend; is to distribute the available work between all persons that want to work.

This we can do if each person works fewer hours per week and your taxes will fall due to the government savings= less benefits being paid out
20 per cent of the total hours of the work force...
ie 1000 workers x work 40 hours .... less 20 percent =8000 hours / 40hours = 200 new jobs
If someone wanted to work they could expect to train for a week without pay and have a job when trained (no cost ).
everyone would finish an hour early...or have friday off ..whopee.

the government could supply temp reps to help work all this out (free of charge)

and you would pay less tax due to the fact ..the goverment will have to pay less benifits out -due to less unemployement..
simple
Originally Posted by ringo_24601
Quite simply, the benefits system allows the UK to compete with poorer nations, as companies who employ low-skilled workers do not need to pay them a 'living wage'.. their NMW is topped up by the state

Simples

As a previous poster said 'trollocks'. Now trip trap under someone else's bridge dearie!

Metranil_Vavin

..but this board has been missing a good troll since Angel departed...;)

Oldernotwiser

Metranil_Vavin wrote: »

..but this board has been missing a good troll since Angel departed...;)

You're never troll free with Andy and his chums around!

JodyBPM

I think the difference between the "old days" and now in terms of being a SAHM is that in the old days, whilst the Mum didn't work outside the home, she DID work inside the home - making clothes, mending things, growing veg, patching trousers, buying cheap cuts or offal from the butchers and making cheap meals, turning sheets etc. It seems to me that todays SAHM aren't prepared to put any work into giving up their day job - they seem to think that being a SAHM is all about taking their children to the park, and at most dumping a load of laundry into a fully automated washing machine.

Simply put, if you want the luxury of not needing to work outside the house, you need to find a way to make that work. Cutting back to the basics, cooking & eating foods that are nutritious even if not your favourites (cheap cuts, offal, seasonal veg etc), mending clothes and turning them up/letting them down/patches on knees etc rather than buying new, cheap/no holidays etc.

It is up to you to fill the gap between your expectations and your household income, not the states. £17K is plenty to survive on if you work at it.

starchild1972

Due to the position of having 4 children I have been forced to be a SAHM and get benefits....

Before anyone jumps in.....

My husband and I are disabled, me first and the DH was disabled via a illness that took his ability to walk away.
I am a SAHM, I am a SAHM who WORKS FROM HOME and is SELF-EMPLOYED.

I cannot go out to work as I am not only a self-employed SAHM but I am also main carer for my DH.
I don't take benefits for granted.
We save the unused portion of DLA each month JUST IN CASE because who knows what will happen with all the changes going on?
We SAVE as much as we can because I DON'T WANT to be in the position of claiming income support etc if the business goes T*ts up.

I WOULD LOVE to be fit enough to go OUT to work as would DH.

You could manage to be a SAHM but write down ALL those little luxuries e.g.
Holidays
Chocolate bars
New clothes
4th or 5th pair of shoes
Days out
Bottle of wine/crate of beer
Sky
Mobiles
Internet
Car/s
Christmas/B'day pressies
Cinema trips
Takeaways
nights out

and then realise they would have to go for they ARE luxuries.


When I was growing up a treat was a bag of crisps once a month (they were 9.5p and I had to use my pocket money) and clothes came from a jumble sale yet my father was working full time (actually 5.5 days a week) and had a extra weekend job. I'm not 40 yet!

If you can afford to pay teh bills, keep a roof over your head, put food on the table, shoes on your feet and clothes on your back then you don't need anything else in life.