Unemployed girlfriend of 3 years pressing to have a baby

VfM4meplse

LadyMorticia wrote: »

The thing with supermarkets and the like is that there are usually opportunities to be promoted. I know someone who started out as a cashier worker in Tesco and now they're a Tesco manager.

It's not very ambitious though is it? I was chatting to a lovely lad in my local superstore last night - he's been there for ages and is well known as he's such a delightful character - who has just completed his masters in chemical engineering. He is just too good to be on the customer services desk at Sainsbo's and I told him as much.

Oldernotwiser

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

She doesn't have to. Once you're the father she can claim a large chunk of your salary from you - even if she and the child return back to her country. Where half your salary will probably go a lot further.
.

15% isn't really a big chunk, although it would be disastrous to the OP's finances.

Mupette

Op i haven't read all the posts, but from what i have read they have been very helpful some harsh (but i agree with what they are saying)

Love is a wonderful thing, but love is also a 2 way thing.

Your g/f has her biological ticking clock, it's ticking louder as each year goes by. It's natural and normal, but in this financial climate, most sensible people know it would be silly to produce children when you are not comfortable financially now.. you are wise not to give in.

Your g/f needs to lower her standards for work, we all do.
Pride gets you nowhere.

Awful as it sounds, your g/f is in a comfortable position right now, not being forced by you to put the effort in to find and keep a job to help share the bills, right now she is a financial burden to you (i know you don't want to think of her like that)

make a deal if she can get and keep a job for 2 years then you will consider having children. That gives her a better standing for claiming benefits after the baby is born, but maybe working will boost her self esteem and she may just want to stay in work after the baby is born.

Mupette

VfM4meplse wrote: »

It's not very ambitious though is it? I was chatting to a lovely lad in my local superstore last night - he's been there for ages and is well known as he's such a delightful character - who has just completed his masters in chemical engineering. He is just too good to be on the customer services desk at Sainsbo's and I told him as much.

I don't think we can be too fussy about work at this moment, i guess if you are good at something, you are less likely to loose your job, it pays the bills.

MissMoneypenny

LadyMorticia wrote: »

The thing with supermarkets and the like is that there are usually opportunities to be promoted. I know someone who started out as a cashier worker in Tesco and now they're a Tesco manager.

I know someone who started out going around the financial district selling sandwiches and now he is a manager at one of those companies.

I've also seen people come in with degrees and they don't make the 6 months trial.

HappyMJ

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

that's well over £4,000 a year that taxpayers are forking out. Sounds quite a bit to me. I'd class that as heavily dependant.

I think it isn't but there you go. If he increased his salary to £19,000 his net cost to the taxpayer would be zero. He would be paying about £3,700 in tax and national insurance (£640 more compared to a £17,000 salary) and claiming a total of about £3,700 in tax credits (£558 less compared to a £17,000 salary) and child benefit. Would that then be an acceptable amount to earn to be able to raise a baby and not be too heavily dependant on the taxpayer?

The average (median) salary in the UK is about £25,000 and the average family has 2 children and that family would get about £4,500 per year in tax credits and child benefit so does that mean that the majority of families in the UK are heavily dependant on welfare. That average family would be paying £5,600 in tax and NI.

melly1980

HappyMJ wrote: »

I think it isn't but there you go. If he increased his salary to £19,000 his net cost to the taxpayer would be zero. He would be paying about £3,700 in tax and national insurance (£640 more compared to a £17,000 salary) and claiming a total of about £3,700 in tax credits (£558 less compared to a £17,000 salary) and child benefit. Would that then be an acceptable amount to earn to be able to raise a baby and not be too heavily dependant on the taxpayer?

The average (median) salary in the UK is about £25,000 and the average family has 2 children and that family would get about £4,500 per year in tax credits and child benefit so does that mean that the majority of families in the UK are heavily dependant on welfare. That average family would be paying £5,600 in tax and NI.

well not really because that means that they arent contributing then to the provision of schools, doctors...etc...etc... if they are simply taking out the equivalent cash that they are paying in.

aggypanthus

Here is an example, my sister is finding it very hard to find a housecleaner perhaps combined with keeping an eye on her son after school one day a week. this is the type of work i have done in the past , in addition to a reg part time morning job. the lady in question might look into this, check gumtree for ads. Hard working parents may well employ someone without the checks required, if they are desparate for help/in my time, i was always taken on trust. Rental agenices also employ cleaners for in between lets. its a great feeling to have earned just a few £ yourself.

zzzLazyDaisy

Everyone who has children gets child benefit as it is not means tested.

All but the higher earners get some child tax credit if they have children.

A large proportion of people on minimum wage with children will also be entitled to some form of working tax credit.

Are the people who post about 'being heavily dependent on welfare' suggesting that people who fall into the above groups should not have children? The fact is that child support by the state has been around in the form of family allowance and increased tax breaks for years, and (in my view) it is not unreasonable to factor in those payments when considering whether having a child is financially viable.

Also, sadly, many mothers in low paid jobs find that child-care and travel to work wipes out their wages, so working may not be a practical solution if a baby comes along.

OP, if you want a baby, then go on the turn2us website and input your details. This will give you an idea of the child benefits you will be entitled to if you decide to have a baby.

Although to be honest, it does seem to me from your posts that the issues run deeper than whether you can financially afford to bring a baby into the world....

MissMoneypenny

HappyMJ wrote: »

I think it isn't but there you go.

If you don't think it is a lot than why don't people just go and earn another 4K instead of claiming? IMO, 4k is a lot.

HappyMJ wrote: »

If he increased his salary to £19,000 his net cost to the taxpayer would be zero. He would be paying about £3,700 in tax and national insurance (£640 more compared to a £17,000 salary) and claiming a total of about £3,700 in tax credits (£558 less compared to a £17,000 salary) and child benefit. Would that then be an acceptable amount to earn to be able to raise a baby and not be too heavily dependant on the taxpayer?

Hardly zero cost to the taxpayer: what about all the other things that family will want i.e. healthcare, schools, roads etc.?

In the last few years Labour were in government: for the first time ever, the revenue from income tax didn't cover the cost of the UKs welfare bill.:eek:

EDIT Melly beat me to it.