Jobcentres send you 90 miles for job?

Doom_and_Gloom

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You average less than 10 mph?

I would imagine that is by bus. It takes my partner 30 mins to get to work and back by bus and walking. How far away does he work from where we live? 2.5miles!!

cit_k

90 mins each way is not that much really, thats roughly about how long it used to take me to get to work in most of the places I have worked, by public transport.

90 miles on the other hand, would only be suitable for those able to afford the travel bill.

Doom_and_Gloom

robus wrote: »

Don't be silly - you cut back to make sure that the household expenditure didn't exceed 75%!!!

Does everybody think it so wrong to work and take home less than what they would get on benefit?

When you include my partners wage, the LHA we get and the CTB we get our rent and CTB comes to 50% of the income. Add electricity, water, transport, food, mobiles (no home phone) etc it soon adds up and fast.

robus wrote: »

Wife at home, husband at work - normal life isn't it?

My parents could do this yes (although my ma did work while I was young she gave up work to be a house wife as she could) but it is not normal. My dad earns well over NMW and has earnt more than the 'average' person for all of my life.
You honestly think a family could live on NMW and have a SAHM? :rotfl::rotfl:. No it is not possible, you have to have an income well over the NMW to be ale to do that and that is why it is not 'normal' anymore.

Marisco

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to choose benefits over working.

I agree, and that is why work should be paid at a liveable amount! There is no point in taking a job that is going to leave you worse off per week/month. I think it's a disgrace that people who are working, have to claim benefits, in order to live! No one should be worse off by working, but why should that mean cutting benefits? Why not just pay a liveable wage in the first place?

Oldernotwiser

Marisco wrote: »

I agree, and that is why work should be paid at a liveable amount! There is no point in taking a job that is going to leave you worse off per week/month. I think it's a disgrace that people who are working, have to claim benefits, in order to live! No one should be worse off by working, but why should that mean cutting benefits? Why not just pay a liveable wage in the first place?

Of course there's a point to this; the point is being independent!

lazer

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

When you include my partners wage, the LHA we get and the CTB we get our rent and CTB comes to 50% of the income. Add electricity, water, transport, food, mobiles (no home phone) etc it soon adds up and fast.


My parents could do this yes (although my ma did work while I was young she gave up work to be a house wife as she could) but it is not normal. My dad earns well over NMW and has earnt more than the 'average' person for all of my life.
You honestly think a family could live on NMW and have a SAHM? :rotfl::rotfl:. No it is not possible, you have to have an income well over the NMW to be ale to do that and that is why it is not 'normal' anymore.

My parents managed it on a basic job, probably just over the minimum wage, factory operative - and this was only 10 years ago that I left school.
My mum was at home for most of my childhood, and as we got older and I started secondary school, she started working from home and then moved to working in a shop, and is now the manager of the shop.

To be honest with all the benefits available today, there is no reason why a mother (or father) cannot stay at home to look after the children.

There is no need to ahve a big house and mortgage, buy your kids the designer trainers etc

Doom_and_Gloom

lazer wrote: »

My parents managed it on a basic job, probably just over the minimum wage, factory operative - and this was only 10 years ago that I left school.
My mum was at home for most of my childhood, and as we got older and I started secondary school, she started working from home and then moved to working in a shop, and is now the manager of the shop.

To be honest with all the benefits available today, there is no reason why a mother (or father) cannot stay at home to look after the children.

There is no need to ahve a big house and mortgage, buy your kids the designer trainers etc

Today it just is not possible. Rent and mortgages are very high. Your parents no doubt bought their house when prices were very low and so the payments were affordable on a low wage.
2 bed place very basic and in need of a lot of work in kent where I live (and so have countless generations) is 80k minimum.
Even if you have a 20% deposit you would be needing to borrow 64k. One person on minimum wage (£6.09 for 40 hours a week) plus WTC into the how much can I borrow calculator says you can borrow = not even 14k :rotfl: so how do you expect people to get a mortgage on just one person earning minimum wage? The payments for that place with that deposit would be around £360/month - over the 1/3rd that is recomended out of a gross wage that is seen as affordable and when your wage is low 1/3rd is a lot.
Honestly why do people not realise that housing is just not affordable to those on minimum wage? You wouldn't be able to get a morgtgage end of. Renting a place is only possible with the governments help on NMW and certainly if only one person works.
House prices are not what they used to be. Over 30 years in this area a house that was 15K has gone up to 100k+. Wages have not done the same and those are not the huge houses, although they are 3 bed. Houses have gone up way beyond inflation so having SAHM/D is just not possible for those on low wages anymore even with WTC etc.

HappyMJ

Bit different around here. It is affordable to buy the tiniest 1 bedroomed new build (3 years ago) flat on the market on less than minimum wages with a deposit. £61 per week if purchased at the listed price. It really is worth at least 10% less so £55 a week. The last one sold for £42,000 in April. They were sold at £80,000 when built 3 years ago. It's £75 a week to rent the same place.

Marisco

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Of course there's a point to this; the point is being independent!

But how does that make sense, if you don't earn enough to cover your bills? I'm all for working, done it most of my life, but I certainly wouldn't work if I was going to be worse off!! I was having a look at the jobs website,(jobcentre plus or something like that) and in this area most of the jobs are very part time - 8/10/15 hours temporary work, and some are just 4 hours!!! And because of the way it's done i.e " 10 hours over 6 days" etc, you wouldn't even be able to work 2 part time ones, as the hours are all over the place.

HappyMJ

Marisco wrote: »

But how does that make sense, if you don't earn enough to cover your bills? I'm all for working, done it most of my life, but I certainly wouldn't work if I was going to be worse off!! I was having a look at the jobs website,(jobcentre plus or something like that) and in this area most of the jobs are very part time - 8/10/15 hours temporary work, and some are just 4 hours!!! And because of the way it's done i.e " 10 hours over 6 days" etc, you wouldn't even be able to work 2 part time ones, as the hours are all over the place.

I posted on another thread about that. Employers are saving money by employing 2 part time members of staff to save on employers national insurance. It's not payable on earnings of less than £136 and someone on minimum wage 7.5 hours a day earn that over 3 days (22.5 hours). The employer then also has the flexibility to ask either one of those 2 employees to cover for the other during sickness or holiday for the full week whenever required. Does annoy me a lot trying to find 2 part time jobs starting simultaneously and exceeding 30 hours in total that do not conflict with other. Quite a few people I know have managed it. Working in a cafe in the day and pub in the evening.