universal credit - stay at home mummy

FBaby

I would have no issue at all with the bar being raised for families who both work-full time and need childcare. However, I would take away any tax credits to those families who do not work full-time. As every family who both work full-time, it is really tough and most would choose to have either one not working at all or at least part-time. Why should those working full-time end up with no more disposable income than the others? There needs to be much more incentive for those working full-time and much less for those who are not.

melly, I really don't know why you are so aggressive. For one, you are not the only one working hard and paying high taxes, it doesn't mean you have to be rude, and secondly, you chose to have 4 children. Children are expensive.

melly1980

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Your 1k that you say you pay also contributes towards the education for your 4 children; your child benefit money (over 3k per year at the moment); healthcare for all six of you, etc.

Your taxes also goes towards other welfare state payments. I assume you want a state pension; any other age related welfare; help if you get ill or lose your job?

No, the welfare system isn't fair at all now and hasn't been for the last decade. It has moved far away from the safety net it once was, to a system where people live on welfare and welfare top-ups, rather than feed themselves/their family. Moving it back to being a sefety net, is going to be a painful and angry process for some.

Your still missing the point.

I have no issue with it being a safety net if this was applied to all.

However Im being deemed too rich to have anything yet I see people having their money topped up to the same as me. This is wrong. Look at it this way

2 families with 4 kids each

Mine pays about 1100 - 1100 in stoppages / month and takes back 100 quid ish

Another pays a couple of hundred stoppages, takes out 1300 - 1500 quid

yet both families have the same nett income available to spend (give or take a few quid) - this obviously can not be right.

rose08

i suppose feeling among most shows that it's all relative, ie:-


those parents who both work full time feel miffed that some parents work a split of full/part-time.

those who work full/part-time, or work at all, feel miffed that some parents don't work full stop.

I'm a little baffled as to why some single parents feel that married couples have a problem with them. I know i don't. I was a single mum a few years ago, and i know what it's like. I was also brought up by my mother who was widowed at a very young age, and I know how hard it was for her. She received no support at all, and had to have two jobs in order to provide for me and my sister and to put a roof over our heads. This doesn't mean that i think it's right for single mums to struggle as my mum did, not at all, i wouldn't want any mum to go through what she did. The strain of losing my father and having to work so damned hard, and the relentless worry about money caused her to suffer from physical and mental exhaustion, and ultimately she suffered a complete breakdown.

Many parents work full time nowadays, not always by choice, but from necessity. The cost of housing in particular has pushed many parents into full time work, i doubt that all these parents would chose to work full time if their mortgage/rent payments weren't so high. Nevertheless, i doubt that many, who have worked part-time to fit in with their kids regret it. I also doubt that on their death bed many will say, 'i wish i'd spent more time working and less time with my children'.

melly1980

rose08 wrote: »

i suppose feeling among most shows that it's all relative, ie:-


those parents who both work full time feel miffed that some parents work a split of full/part-time.

those who work full/part-time, or work at all, feel miffed that some parents don't work full stop.

I'm a little baffled as to why some single parents feel that married couples have a problem with them. I know i don't. I was a single mum a few years ago, and i know what it's like. I was also brought up by my mother who was widowed at a very young age, and I know how hard it was for her. She received no support at all, and had to have two jobs in order to provide for me and my sister and to put a roof over our heads. This doesn't mean that i think it's right for single mums to struggle as my mum did, not at all, i wouldn't want any mum to go through what she did. The strain of losing my father and having to work so damned hard, and the relentless worry about money caused her to suffer from physical and mental exhaustion, and ultimately she suffered a complete breakdown.

Many parents work full time nowadays, not always by choice, but from necessity. The cost of housing in particular has pushed many parents into full time work, i doubt that all these parents would chose to work full time if their mortgage/rent payments weren't so high. Nevertheless, i doubt that many, who have worked part-time to fit in with their kids regret it. I also doubt that on their death bed many will say, 'i wish i'd spent more time working and less time with my children'.

from my own personal perspective I have no issues either way, i some ways the stay at home parent is being a better parent because there is more to parenting a child than just providing financially. The issue that I have is that work should pay, you should never have a system that makes a poorer person AS WELL off as someone who doesnt qualify for any benefits. If you choose to work and you earn good money through your own drive and determination then you should reap the reward for that not see someone else who earn less end up with as much.

neverdespairgirl

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

This is an interesting article about making parents work to support their children.

will be defined by an earnings threshold, the equivalent of a 35-hour week on the national minimum wage (currently £212.80).

To me, 35 hours / week is a funny definiton of full time!

SingleSue

Dognobs wrote: »

Wonder why you are single?

Lmao...nothing to do with our working hours believe me. We had always worked long hours and we had a common purpose...to improve our financial status (which it did, which pleased him no end as he could then buy his 'toys')

SingleSue

melly1980 wrote: »

maybe so but it highlighted a point.

The concept of family life shouldnt be ignored here. Lets not forget why all these cuts are happening, because of the greedy few at the top. Never forget that. So why should people be shafting up their family life because a system is inherently unfair in the way that it rewards non-working

I have no ill will towards Dognobs, he has a valid point if it were true.

We had no choice but to do opposite hours, childcare was and still is not available for our boys, so if I wanted to work (which I did as I was going brain dead), then it HAD to be opposite hours. Ours was not a benefit based decision, to be honest, that had never crossed our minds but more one for my own sanity and to improve eventually our financial standing.

The reasons of our breakup was more to do with the stresses of having disabled children...he couldn't cope with it.

melly1980

Sorry, I probably didnt explain my bit very well. I didnt mean that it was true just that as a general point / philosophy that working too hard can affect the family life. Its not all about money!!!

FBaby

rose08 wrote: »

I also doubt that on their death bed many will say, 'i wish i'd spent more time working and less time with my children'.

Of course they have no regrets since they got subsidised for their choice!!!! Had they not, like your mum, they would have had to work hard like many others are doing because they believe in supporting themselves rather than relying on others to do so.

Sixer

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

To me, 35 hours / week is a funny definiton of full time!

Yes - but you're a lawyer. I imagine National Minimum Wage is an equally funny definition of salary.

35 hours is actually an increase on the current system, which implicitly puts full-time hours at 30 or more.