Jobcentres send you 90 miles for job?

lazer

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

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.

Actually - no they didn't have a mortgage, we rented!
And we rented a old house in the country, no central heating, we had an aga type stove in the living room, Open fires in the 2 bedrooms (and 2 children, a boy and girl shared a room), and a gas superser for the kitchen. The house cost £5 a week when I was a child and £35 a week whenever we moved out 4 years ago, and can still be rented for a similar amount, because no-one wants to live in it!
The fires in the bedrooms were rarely lit, although it was lovely when they were.
The windows had ice on the inside in the winter! We had 1 TV, an old car and few luxuries. Holidays were a week in my uncles caravan, or camping somewhere, we did actually manage to get away each year.

It is not all about buying a house, it is about quality of life - which is not about things, its about people and appreciating what you have!

Looking back now - I never even realised we were actually poor, I loved my childhood and wouldn't change a thing
I would not give up having my mum at home with .me when I was sick, and being there when I came home from school, and school holidays for a better house! The old damp house did us no harm at all!

Fast forward 10 years, the 2 children are now both working in £30k+ a year professions, and I'm about to buy a house.
My parents bought an ex-council house for cash from an old fashioned insurance policy which paid out a lump sum at 50.

My Dad was made redundant but despite this has manged to remain in relatively constant employment through agency work etc. My mum is now a shop Manager.
Thay are approaching retirement with no mortgage, no savings provision - my Dad cashed his pension in at 60 under triviality rules, my mum is planning to do the same with hers. They will then live quite comfortably on the state pensions with a few luxuries paid for them by myself and sibling who appreciate everthing they give up for us!

We should not put so much pressure on ourselves to save save save, buy houses etc. Life is for living!

sorry for the long post - just wanted to say that it was never easy to be a SAHM, there was always sacrifices!

Doom_and_Gloom

lazer wrote: »

Actually - no they didn't have a mortgage, we rented!
And we rented a old house in the country, no central heating, we had an aga type stove in the living room, Open fires in the 2 bedrooms (and 2 children, a boy and girl shared a room), and a gas superser for the kitchen. The house cost £5 a week when I was a child and £35 a week whenever we moved out 4 years ago, and can still be rented for a similar amount, because no-one wants to live in it!
The fires in the bedrooms were rarely lit, although it was lovely when they were.
The windows had ice on the inside in the winter! We had 1 TV, an old car and few luxuries. Holidays were a week in my uncles caravan, or camping somewhere, we did actually manage to get away each year.

It is not all about buying a house, it is about quality of life - which is not about things, its about people and appreciating what you have!

Looking back now - I never even realised we were actually poor, I loved my childhood and wouldn't change a thing
I would not give up having my mum at home with .me when I was sick, and being there when I came home from school, and school holidays for a better house! The old damp house did us no harm at all!

Fast forward 10 years, the 2 children are now both working in £30k+ a year professions, and I'm about to buy a house.
My parents bought an ex-council house for cash from an old fashioned insurance policy which paid out a lump sum at 50.

My Dad was made redundant but despite this has manged to remain in relatively constant employment through agency work etc. My mum is now a shop Manager.
Thay are approaching retirement with no mortgage, no savings provision - my Dad cashed his pension in at 60 under triviality rules, my mum is planning to do the same with hers. They will then live quite comfortably on the state pensions with a few luxuries paid for them by myself and sibling who appreciate everthing they give up for us!

We should not put so much pressure on ourselves to save save save, buy houses etc. Life is for living!

sorry for the long post - just wanted to say that it was never easy to be a SAHM, there was always sacrifices!

Where in the UK do you live? £35/week? You can't even rent a room for that where I live. A room in a place is around £80 - although bills included. I have a friend living in a studio not far from me and her rent is £475/month for a tiny studio with a crappy heating system (and I do mean crappy!).
2 bed places to rent - minimum of £575/month and that really would be a small place. (would be just like the place my partner and I live in just with a 2nd bedroom added on to it and let me tell you our place is not big at all)
Honestly you are in another world if you think it is possble for most people to rent for such a low amount! Even council places here are around £60/week for a 1 bed. For a 2 bed council place you are looking at £80+/week. Those will be the most horrid ones you can find with the worst heating systems possible.

It isn't about sacrificing anymore. It is about not possible for those on low wage at all for there to be a SAHP. It is just not possible.

Natty68

Sorry to jump in on the thread, but I have been thinking. If the unemployed are expected to look for jobs within the 90mins then what happens to the people that are in that area who are looking for jobs. Doesn't this apply to every town, surely it is a pointless exercise as everyone would be fighting for jobs in different areas. Does this make sense?

lazer

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

Where in the UK do you live? £35/week? You can't even rent a room for that where I live. A room in a place is around £80 - although bills included. I have a friend living in a studio not far from me and her rent is £475/month for a tiny studio with a crappy heating system (and I do mean crappy!).
2 bed places to rent - minimum of £575/month and that really would be a small place. (would be just like the place my partner and I live in just with a 2nd bedroom added on to it and let me tell you our place is not big at all)
Honestly you are in another world if you think it is possble for most people to rent for such a low amount! Even council places here are around £60/week for a 1 bed. For a 2 bed council place you are looking at £80+/week. Those will be the most horrid ones you can find with the worst heating systems possible.

It isn't about sacrificing anymore. It is about not possible for those on low wage at all for there to be a SAHP. It is just not possible.

Northern Ireland, and it was very cheap rent even there, but like I've said thats becasue of the state of the house and the fact the rent was never put up much, my parents were in it for 30 years.
We done all the maintenance on teh house as well, we painted,inside and out, fixed shelves etc, we rarely called the landlord out!

A 2 bed council house in the same town would prob be around £80 a week - so its not that rents in the area are ridiciously cheap, its just this one particular house that was. It was a 200 year old farmhouse, outside the town!

I've jsut done an entitled to check for the same situation of a couple with 2 children under 10 (Ie: 2 bedroom house required, if ovwe 10 would get a 3 bed allowance, I have assumed the lowest LHA amount (NI) of £77.62 per week)

A family with one parent working full time (40 hours at minimum wage) would take home the following

Wages (Net) - £204.04
Benefits (Total)-£211.57

Total income - £415.61

Out of this assume £80 rent, therefore £335 per week remaining for travel to work, food & utilities)

Sorry, but i think with sacrifices, that is doable, therefore one parent can stay at home thanks to the generous welfare state

HappyMJ

Natty68 wrote: »

Sorry to jump in on the thread, but I have been thinking. If the unemployed are expected to look for jobs within the 90mins then what happens to the people that are in that area who are looking for jobs. Doesn't this apply to every town, surely it is a pointless exercise as everyone would be fighting for jobs in different areas. Does this make sense?

Not really. If you live in an area with very high unemployment and there is a town about an hour and a half away that has very low unemployment, lots of opportunity and slightly higher wages due to employers having to pay more to secure the best candidates then it doesn't matter. They'll still stay away from employing the unemployable locally and employ someone better from another town.

sooperb

Jeez I hate this site, just posted a long response, clicked the wrong post button and lost the lot.

Doom_and_Gloom

lazer wrote: »

Northern Ireland, and it was very cheap rent even there, but like I've said thats becasue of the state of the house and the fact the rent was never put up much, my parents were in it for 30 years.
We done all the maintenance on teh house as well, we painted,inside and out, fixed shelves etc, we rarely called the landlord out!

A 2 bed council house in the same town would prob be around £80 a week - so its not that rents in the area are ridiciously cheap, its just this one particular house that was. It was a 200 year old farmhouse, outside the town!

I've jsut done an entitled to check for the same situation of a couple with 2 children under 10 (Ie: 2 bedroom house required, if ovwe 10 would get a 3 bed allowance, I have assumed the lowest LHA amount (NI) of £77.62 per week)

A family with one parent working full time (40 hours at minimum wage) would take home the following

Wages (Net) - £204.04
Benefits (Total)-£211.57

Total income - £415.61

Out of this assume £80 rent, therefore £335 per week remaining for travel to work, food & utilities)

Sorry, but i think with sacrifices, that is doable, therefore one parent can stay at home thanks to the generous welfare state

See what I don't understand is how you are saying how the government should pay for a parent to stay at home so they can look after children in the way of benefits. One NMW, or just over NMW, earner is not going to be enough to raise a family. It should not be a choice to be on benefits - believe me my partner and I get LHA and CTB as I am disabled but I am looking for work as I hate being on benefits and we are not on them by choice.
My ma became a SAHM but the big difference is my dad was earning enough not to rely on anyone else to provide for his children (my sister and I) and give my ma the option of not working.
Why should people like my parents look at their finances and say yes we can have a SAHP but others say "oh it is okay, we can have a SAHP because we will get benefits to top it up so we can afford it" :mad:. No that is just wrong, oh so wrong.

Also as to housing you proved my point again. Your parents were very 'lucky' to have such a cheap rent. You were saying how they did it but if they had to pay what most people did they would have had no chance is my bet. The reason they wouldn't have been able to if they paid what others paid? One wage would not have paid for everything! Grr honestly do you not see that? People shouldn't be able to choose to have a SAHP and rely on benefits to do so (unless they are a SAHP for a disabled child/parent etc) as it is not up to the state to pander to choices.
Benefits are supposed to help people live when there is no other way.

lazer

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

See what I don't understand is how you are saying how the government should pay for a parent to stay at home so they can look after children in the way of benefits. One NMW, or just over NMW, earner is not going to be enough to raise a family. It should not be a choice to be on benefits - believe me my partner and I get LHA and CTB as I am disabled but I am looking for work as I hate being on benefits and we are not on them by choice.
My ma became a SAHM but the big difference is my dad was earning enough not to rely on anyone else to provide for his children (my sister and I) and give my ma the option of not working.
Why should people like my parents look at their finances and say yes we can have a SAHP but others say "oh it is okay, we can have a SAHP because we will get benefits to top it up so we can afford it" :mad:. No that is just wrong, oh so wrong.

Also as to housing you proved my point again. Your parents were very 'lucky' to have such a cheap rent. You were saying how they did it but if they had to pay what most people did they would have had no chance is my bet. The reason they wouldn't have been able to if they paid what others paid? One wage would not have paid for everything! Grr honestly do you not see that? People shouldn't be able to choose to have a SAHP and rely on benefits to do so (unless they are a SAHP for a disabled child/parent etc) as it is not up to the state to pander to choices.
Benefits are supposed to help people live when there is no other way.

My parents didn't get benefits for my mum to be a stay at home parent, they did actually do it on one way and Family allowance (the equivalent of child benefit) with my mum working from home as we got older and she had more time.

I actually being a mother is a very worthwhile job, and have no issue with the state paying for people to stay at home to look after their children, especially as they pay people childcare costs if they go out to work,

For reference, I just checked the benefit entitlement if the 2 parents are doing NMW jobs the benefit entitlement would actually be higher at £221. (Assuming childcare costs of £100 a week per child)

So if on parent is a SAHM, the government are better off by £10 a week for that families benefits plus the savings derived from the job being filled by someone else. (JSA, HB etc)

The family is £200 a week worse off financially, but that is their own choice, and if they think their children will benefit, then so be it!

It is not as if the family is living entirely on benefits, one is working full time and instilling the work ethic into the children. The other should return work when the children are older and can take care of themselves.

Its personal preference, but if the state is going to pay parents for other people to care for their children, why shouldn't it pay for parents to look after their own children?

I am not personally a fan of our over generous welfare system, but I do think SAHM/F should be a respected and encouraged, as I do believe it is the best environement for a child!

lazer

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

Also as to housing you proved my point again. Your parents were very 'lucky' to have such a cheap rent. You were saying how they did it but if they had to pay what most people did they would have had no chance is my bet. The reason they wouldn't have been able to if they paid what others paid? One wage would not have paid for everything! Grr honestly do you not see that? .

I have already explained this, they weren't lucky, the house was in a very bad state of repair. How many people can you imagine would be willing to live in a house with NO central heating, and ice on the inside of the windows? (They moved out less than 4 years ago)

The costs of running the house was probably higher than the cost of running a modern house, it need decorated every 2 years due to the damp, including damp proof wallpaper. The price of coal and slack and cylinder gas is higher than the cost of oil. We were paying at least double of our friends with OFCH.

We lived within our means. If they had to pay and extra £40 a week in rent I'm sure they would have managed somehow, the annual holiday could have been cut - out, and the day trips over the summer, as well as the one foreign school trip we were allowed during school.

I am very proud of my parents for the way they have brought us up, we appreaciate the vaule of money, but understand that it is not the most important thing in the world. I also understand that it is not always possible to have everything you want!

Doom_and_Gloom

lazer wrote: »

Its personal preference, but if the state is going to pay parents for other people to care for their children, why shouldn't it pay for parents to look after their own children?

I am not personally a fan of our over generous welfare system, but I do think SAHM/F should be a respected and encouraged, as I do believe it is the best environement for a child!

Now this is another thing I do not agree with. The government should not be paying towards childcare. Back when I was a baby there was no childcare paid by the government. People like my ma would go to work and work for little, nothing or even at a loss. The fact was they had children and they would provide for them. I'm not old by any means as I am 22. However that is as it should be. Having a slightly higher allowence before getting taxed for people with children would be a better idea (but only with a 1 child or 2 child teir - 3+ and the allowence stays as if 2!). They would then have to work to get the maximum before getting taxed and not just topped up to it! I believe this is simular to the old family allowence.

Yes SAHP should be encouraged but only if it is possible. When my ma left work that opened up a work spot for someone who needed that job. My ma didn't need to work so that benefited everyone - my ma got to be a SAHP and someone else was able to help provide for their family.