Wife working for nothing basically?

dafyguy

Fiver29 wrote: »

I can't understand this mentality at all. She won't be working for nothing, she'll be working for her wages.

I could drop my hours and have the same money going into my bank account, but why should I? Why should other tax payers pay for me?

Why do people see it as losing benefits rather than gaining wages?

Wages? Benefits? The bottom line that is being discussed is not where the money is coming from, it's the amount left in their hands and what they are having to do to get it.

The argument is why work for x number of hours and only be £20 or so better off. Is that £20 odd really worth working those hours for?


If someone said - here work these 30 hours and we will guarantee that you will be at least £150 better off in your hand than on benefits then I would agree.

All the poster is saying is that the only people really gaining would be the government because they will not be paying as much out in benefits.

Marisco

It's really the system at fault!! There is another thread here about a couple "splitting up" to maximise claiming benefits!!!! They need to sort out the loopholes in the system! Anyone working or single parents should not be better off on benefits, than someone working!! All WTC is, is a subsidy for employers, which allows them to carry on paying rubbish wages, knowing the gov will take up "the slack"!!:mad:

Oldernotwiser

mumps wrote: »

But why should 20 hrs work give you more self esteem than bringing up your children?

My point was that the two aren't mutually exclusive and both can be good. As far as not being employed at all goes, it rather depends who's funding the choice to stay at home, don't you think?

Oldernotwiser

dafyguy wrote: »

Wages? Benefits? The bottom line that is being discussed is not where the money is coming from, it's the amount left in their hands and what they are having to do to get it.

.

It may not be what you feel we're discussing but it's at the centre of the issue for most of us.

Jomo

Fiver29 wrote: »

I can't understand this mentality at all. She won't be working for nothing, she'll be working for her wages.

I could drop my hours and have the same money going into my bank account, but why should I? Why should other tax payers pay for me?

Why do people see it as losing benefits rather than gaining wages?

Neither can I, you'll hear them moan in a few years time saying they can't find a job that pays more than NMW etc.

That's the sacrifice they make, very short sighted.

Benefits aren't a wage but vast amounts of the population regard it as such!!

FBaby

An why can't people appreciate that continuing employment IS an investment, therefore a benefit, for long term prospect? When have people start loosing insight of what is best for the future rather than just how much they have to spend that particular week?

dafyguy

FBaby wrote: »

An why can't people appreciate that continuing employment IS an investment, therefore a benefit, for long term prospect? When have people start loosing insight of what is best for the future rather than just how much they have to spend that particular week?

Because I feel and think that in todays economic problems, not many worry about next year or the year after, they are more concerned in what is coming in this week!

If I was years younger, and living in todays society, would I be thinking about my career as it could be in say 20 years time at the expense of feeding my family this week? No, food on the table, roof over the head, money in the pocket takes priority.

Besides which, I have never experienced anything like it is now in the whole of my 46 years of working life. There was never really a problem buying your first home when you were 21, there was always stability in prices, fuel was relatively cheap, gas, electric, water etc was more or less fixed as they were 'owned' by us all. Milk, potatoes, eggs - they were all run and 'owned' by us all. (Egg Board, Milk Marketing Board etc)

Everything now is with 'profit' in mind, from your refuse collection by private companies, public transport owned now by god knows who, even hospitals and schools are now run for 'profit'.

Today is a society never known before.

Oldernotwiser

dafyguy wrote: »

Besides which, I have never experienced anything like it is now in the whole of my 46 years of working life. There was never really a problem buying your first home when you were 21, there was always stability in prices, fuel was relatively cheap, gas, electric, water etc was more or less fixed as they were 'owned' by us all. Milk, potatoes, eggs - they were all run and 'owned' by us all. (Egg Board, Milk Marketing Board etc)

.

The current recession is no worse than that of the 70s when inflation was at 13% ; no stable stable prices then!

You seem also to have forgotten that mortgage rates reached 15% in the 80s and if you think that most people could buy a property easily when they were 21, you must have been living on Mars!

Milk production wasn't nationalised in the days of the MMB, it was responsible for distribution and marketing only as was the case for the Egg Marketing Board.

You seem to have passed several decades of your working life with your eyes and mind shut!

dafyguy

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The current recession is no worse than that of the 70s when inflation was at 13% ; no stable stable prices then!

Yes I well remember those days. But as a 21 year old I purchased my first property with a 100% mortgage in 1972 at a cost of £7250. I was earning £2500 a year.
I can never remember not being without a few bob in my pocket. I could always fill my car up (Sunbeam Alpine sports) when needed without thinking about it.

By 1975, I had sold the house (semi) for £7800 and bought a nearly new 3 bed detached bungalow for £8250 (100% mortgage).
By 1978 I also bought another property ( a small 2 bed renovated miners cottage) close to work for £4150 with a 100% mortgage.
By 1978 I was earning just over £3800 pa.

You seem also to have forgotten that mortgage rates reached 15% in the 80s and if you think that most people could buy a property easily when they were 21, you must have been living on Mars!

Yes mortgage rates did hit 15% in the late 80's, but I still managed to pay them and have a life.


Milk production wasn't nationalised in the days of the MMB, it was responsible for distribution and marketing only as was the case for the Egg Marketing Board.

All of the boards fixed the prices paid to the farmers (yes I was also a farmers son so I know).
As for other costs, again they were reasonably static that is until Thatcher got in and sold off everything!
Petrol used to be that on average, that 10P of fuel was enough to cover 1 mile in the late 90's.

You seem to have passed several decades of your working life with your eyes and mind shut!

No I haven't forgotten anything at all.

Oldernotwiser

dafyguy wrote: »

No I haven't forgotten anything at all.

The average salary in 1972 was £2,262, so at 10% more than this, that's equivalent to nearly £30K these days - bloody good for someone of 21 and hardly typical.

You may have had contacts but 100% mortgages were not generally available in 1971, most of us were looking at a deposit of at least 10%.

I cannot understand how someone who has lived through the 70s can still say that prices were static during this period, however much of a charmed life you personally may have led.