Not entitled to JSA - I was a carer

Samsaragirl

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I never thought any such thing and had actually forgotten that you had anything to inherit.

I just can't get my head round the idea that "my life" is off somewhere else, waiting for me to come back to it rather than being what I'm living in the here and now. That's what I don't understand.

Actually ONW, you got me thinking. Maybe the fact that I've been a stay at home mum for many years, Worked in many call centres part time as could fit in with husband's job, including answering 999 calls for ambulance around his amazing career in the it part of the banking industry, as a highly paid contractor (working overtime at LLoydsd TSB today).

It's al coincided, my divorce, dad's stroke, that's what I mean

Maybe that's why my life's on hold. On hold means, been there, done that, so where do we go from here as a 47 yr old woman who has had a productive life so far?

SuziQ

I can see both sides of this. Yes, I believe that families should care for their elderly and frail, but communities are different now, life is different to what it was back in the 50's when families lived close to one another and could share the time and effort involved among a few people.Many families are struggling to survive in this economy and it might not be possible for someone to give up their job to care for a family member.

My mother is ill with alzheimers and has had 2 strokes, I would love to be more involved but I live over 160 miles away, have been ill myself and also have a child with special needs. When my MIL came out of the rehabilitation unit last year, she would have been entitled to quite a lot of free care from district nurses and carers. Instead, my SIL and I shared the work, with me being there during the day and her doing the evenings and night. She earned too much to claim CA and I was already getting it for my son, but either one of us would have claimed it if we had been able. It's a very small amount of money and no real recompense if the carer is unable to work due to their caring responsibilities.

aliasojo

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

That's where I disagree with you, as I've said above. The life you're living now is, for better or worst, your life and it doesn't strike me as particularly helpful to look on it as if it isn't.

The choices I make in life are not for me, they are for him, the way I spend my day is not for my benefit, it's for his. It's not my life. It's an extension of his.

I understand you look at it differently. I only offered my thoughts in an effort to explain how I personally feel.

Anyway, whether I view it as my life or an extension of his makes no odds to the reality, the end result remains the same.

All getting a bit too deep now, we're supposed to be arguing about benefits and such like.

Oldernotwiser

Samsaragirl wrote: »

Actually ONW, you got me thinking. Maybe the fact that I've been a stay at home mum for many years, Worked in many call centres part time as could fit in with husband's job, including answering 999 calls for ambulance around his amazing career in the it part of the banking industry, as a highly paid contractor (working overtime at LLoydsd TSB today).

It's al coincided, my divorce, dad's stroke, that's what I mean

Maybe that's why my life's on hold. On hold means, been there, done that, so where do we go from here as a 47 yr old woman who has had a productive life so far?

We obviously look at things differently, the sectionI highlighted seems like the non productive/life on hold bit to me.

Whichever is true, you obviously have the best bit of your life in front of you so I wish you well with it.

Oldernotwiser

aliasojo wrote: »

The choices I make in life are not for me, they are for him, the way I spend my day is not for my benefit, it's for his. It's not my life. It's an extension of his.

I understand you look at it differently. I only offered my thoughts in an effort to explain how I personally feel.

Anyway, whether I view it as my life or an extension of his makes no odds to the reality, the end result remains the same.

All getting a bit too deep now, we're supposed to be arguing about benefits and such like.

Interesting though; certainly more interesting than benefits!

Samsaragirl

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

We obviously look at things differently, the sectionI highlighted seems like the non productive/life on hold bit to me.

Whichever is true, you obviously have the best bit of your life in front of you so I wish you well with it.

In what way has mylife been non-productive, I got lifetime maintainance for exactly this reason :rotfl:

stroodes

Of course people should care for their family but why do they think tax payer should pay for it?

tottybum

QuackQuackOops wrote: »

How does that work then?
Example. Couple...one gets severely ill, the other has to give up work to care for them because they are at the stage of needing help with getting up, eating, toiletry habits, washing, dressing, moving, sitting, standing etc.
The disabled person cannot be left alone so if the partner wanted to work the government would need to supply a carer at much greater cost anyway. But even so, the partner does not have time for a part-time job.
By the time my mother is out of bed, had breakfast, showered, dressed and my father has put the bedding in the wash, cleaned up after breakfast, dressed and sorted out my mum its almost lunchtime.
Afternoons he takes her to hospital appointments, doctors appointment, therapy, on some days then prepares dinner, makes the bed when the bedding is dry, ironing, shopping, then feeding mum and then its time to wind her down.
Even if he had the time for a part-time job he has already worked a full time one and is exhausted himself.
Also, my father doesnt even get carers allowance because hes over 65 yet he saves the government thousands of pounds by caring for my Mum instead of having outside help.

Also, which other family members are available to help? Not everyone has a large family or a family who are near by. Besides that not all family members would feel comfortable wiping their parents bottom and other such things.

You talk about this kind of caring as though it is a walk in the park. It is not.
You talk of caring as though it is a couple of odd jobs here and there. It is not.
I would hope you will never be in the position of having to give up your job to care for your spouse full-time. It is not fun and noone chooses to do it.
Oh and you had better get yourself a rather large nest egg just in case because you will need it to live on if you do have to give up work.

I really dont know why I bother replying to be honest as you obviously dont understand.

I am disabled and my wife cares for me. She nor I receive any benefits for that work or my disability.
We have both retired and are nearer to 70 than 65!

Our children care for us.

No one thinks about claiming money for doing it.

So yes, we are in that position you mention.

tottybum

stroodes wrote: »

Of course people should care for their family but why do they think tax payer should pay for it?

Thankyou - that is the trouble with people today. No one will do anything unless they are compensated for it.

It seems children expect to be compensated for looking after mum or dad.

What a world we live in.

tottybum

QuackQuackOops wrote: »

Your poor kids!!
They are expected to care for you or your wife if need be for love?
What happenes if they are unable to work too?
How do they pay their own bills? Their mortgage?

There are very very few people in this country who would give up a fulltime well paid job that was essential for bills in order to care for a family member full time for nothing. They couldnt possibly manage.

No, our children have discussed it between them and their respective partners.

Daughter doesn't work - not since she had her children, has no intention of going back to work either. Her husband supports the family. The right way to do it in my opinion.

Not every family has both out working. Since when has it become the norm for both to work full time?
What about the children?