The road less travelled

FBaby

I agree a 100% that those on low income, because those jobs do NEED to be done by someone should see their income supported, however, that should be on the basis of someone working full-time, not choosing to work 20 hours and then getting the difference supported by those who do work full-time and would also love to be able to have two days a week to do everything else that needs doing. But then, this arguement always come with the 'but there are not many full-time jobs around'.... are all those people working part-time getting their income supplemented by tax credits trully looking for a full-time job... I somehow doubt it unless of course they start being told that they will loose benefits if they don't up their hours...

In regards to single parents who find themselves with 'nothing' afterwards, i have to say that I am quite surprised that any woman can find themselves in such a helpless situation in our days and age. I think the ratio of divorce is now getting close to 50% and that's not taking into account people who separate having never married before. Surely on the basis that there is such a high chance that the marriage will breakdown, one would at least consider what life could be if that happened? I don't understand how any woman could enter a committed relationship and not protect her prospects in the event of separation (could be through death too) at least to some extent.

When I had my children, i would have loved to be a SAHM or at least reduced my hours significantly. I would have loved to have a 3rd one, but my partner then wasn't good with money at all, and I knew I had to be secured financially. Sure enough, the inevitable happened, and my remaining in employment allowed me to be able to continue to support my children after we separated. I am now in a very secure relationship, I have no reasons at all to think that my partner and I could separate, but still I insure that my interests and that of my children are secured in case lightning stroke. I could sell my house, pay off the one we share which would mean reducing my working hours, or find a less stressful job, nice holidays etc..., but I don't do it because of the 'just in case'. It's a choice to make, I might be making the wrong one, but you can't choose to invest more in the present and less in the future and then cry hopelessness when the future doesn't go the expected way.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

I agree a 100% that those on low income, because those jobs do NEED to be done by someone should see their income supported, however, that should be on the basis of someone working full-time, not choosing to work 20 hours and then getting the difference supported by those who do work full-time and would also love to be able to have two days a week to do everything else that needs doing. But then, this arguement always come with the 'but there are not many full-time jobs around'.... are all those people working part-time getting their income supplemented by tax credits trully looking for a full-time job... I somehow doubt it unless of course they start being told that they will loose benefits if they don't up their hours...

But there aren't many full time jobs! My friend is working full time at a job she hates, (I worked in the same place and couldn't retire quick enough!!!) she has been trying desperately to find another one. It has to be full time as part time is no good to her. I had a quick sqint at the job centre plus site (on the retail section, couldn't be bothered trawling through them all!!) and there are about 6 full time jobs, and the rest vary from 2 hours to 15, and before anyone says get two part time jobs, unless your hours are fixed you cannot!!

Most jobs are wanting people "between x hours and y hours a day", it could be anything between those depending on the business needs. So it would be virtually impossible to get two jobs if one has "floating" hours, even more so if you have kids! If jobs were as easy to get as some reckon, I don't think we'd have nearly 3 million unemployed somehow!!! Or are they all "benefit scroungers"?

FBaby

But the arguement shouldn't be around how many full-time jobs there are but about how hard anyone tries to get them, and that's where I am not convinced it does happen because it doesn't have to happen. Job centres website is not the place to start to look at full-time jobs, look in newspapers and suddenly, most of them are full-time. Funilly enough, the same arguement goes for those who are looking for part-time jobs but complain that there are only full-time ones on offer!

georgiesmum

I'm with you on that. We brought up 5 and never received a penny in benefits apart from family allowance which we didn't get for the first anyway. We both worked hard to keep them and were laughed at by some of our neighbours who thought we were fools.Now they are all working, and my grandchildren who are old enough are either working, in collage or university.
We now can afford decent holidays and own our house outright.
Still paying tax though to keep the lazy slobs who think it is their god-given right to laze around all day,.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

But the arguement shouldn't be around how many full-time jobs there are but about how hard anyone tries to get them, and that's where I am not convinced it does happen because it doesn't have to happen. Job centres website is not the place to start to look at full-time jobs, look in newspapers and suddenly, most of them are full-time. Funilly enough, the same arguement goes for those who are looking for part-time jobs but complain that there are only full-time ones on offer!

I find that ads in newspapers tend to be for those with experience and qualifications. There are very few jobs for "low level" workers, in retail most of the jobs are for managers (with "proven experience") or specialist like pharmacy experience. It's very rare you'll get jobs for full time sales assistants in the paper. Even jobs like care workers are mostly part time, or nights which would be impossible for a single parent to take.

I feel desperately sorry, especially for young people, with the job situation as it is, I think the government should "come clean" and admit there will never be work for everybody, as there are just too many people chasing too few jobs. I'm just glad I'm at the end of my "working" life and not just starting out!!:)

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

In regards to single parents who find themselves with 'nothing' afterwards, i have to say that I am quite surprised that any woman can find themselves in such a helpless situation in our days and age. I think the ratio of divorce is now getting close to 50% and that's not taking into account people who separate having never married before. Surely on the basis that there is such a high chance that the marriage will breakdown, one would at least consider what life could be if that happened? I don't understand how any woman could enter a committed relationship and not protect her prospects in the event of separation (could be through death too) at least to some extent.

When I had my children, i would have loved to be a SAHM or at least reduced my hours significantly. I would have loved to have a 3rd one, but my partner then wasn't good with money at all, and I knew I had to be secured financially. Sure enough, the inevitable happened, and my remaining in employment allowed me to be able to continue to support my children after we separated. I am now in a very secure relationship, I have no reasons at all to think that my partner and I could separate, but still I insure that my interests and that of my children are secured in case lightning stroke. I could sell my house, pay off the one we share which would mean reducing my working hours, or find a less stressful job, nice holidays etc..., but I don't do it because of the 'just in case'. It's a choice to make, I might be making the wrong one, but you can't choose to invest more in the present and less in the future and then cry hopelessness when the future doesn't go the expected way.

You are lucky then, that you made decisions within marriage that were helpful to you when your marriage broke down. When I married, I did what I believe a lot of people do and I made my husband's dreams my own and consequently dumped my own by the wayside! We set up a business and I worked hard alongside my ex in the early days to support that - I know we wouldn't have had the early success we did without my input. I could afford to work part-time and be with my children, I could afford not to pursue a career aggressively, because I was secure in my marriage and believed that between us, we were working towards a joint future. With the benefit of hindsight, I was daft, I agree, but had my marriage lasted, it wouldn't have mattered, would it?!

I've done my best with what was left me and thankfully had an education to fall back on. Not everyone has that. And not everyone gets dumped in their late 30s when there's still a possibility of re-building and learning from mistakes. You are suggesting that by not putting myself in a position within marriage that secured my single future, I was somehow amiss? Isn't that going against the ethos of marriage somewhat?

FBaby

I know hinsight doesn't help, but that's life is about and more importantly, what we should be teaching our children. I am so grateful that my parents taught the importance of education, because it is something that you will always have to fall back on, and working hard towards qualifications is one of the most precious investment. Same thing with relationship, my parents have taught me that no matter what, I should always keep a certain level of independence...just in case. This applies to health and the rest.

The problem is, from my perspective, is that as a society, we are becoming lazier and lazier, unwilling to invest, only wanting to enjoy in the present, then blame everyone else but themselves when the consequences fall upon them. Those who do invest complain that their choice to protect themselves mean that they work harder, yet see no benefits of it in the present....and as no one can predict the future, it really is a gamble. You can work hard for the future, but not get the future you wish for, or you can ignore the future and enjoy the present, but as it is, this is becoming a safer option because the future, when becoming present, will still be protected to a large extent to those who didn't protect themselves.

I sometimes get the urge to forget about the future and enjoy the present to its maximum. If I did, I certainly would enjoy it indeed...but I've brought up to look ahead, and I just can't do it. I really really hope it will pay off, but I do keep realistic that life is not about reward and fairness, the statistics are on my side, but there are never any garantees.

SingleSue

property.advert wrote: »

I don't attribute much weight to views of the single parent who decided to split up because it just wasn't working out that month or when they say that they would love to swap for the family life of a couple together because they could have had that but decided to split up and fill their pockets with lovely benefits.

I'll put a pound to a penny that if you were significantly worse off deciding to split up and claim benefits then far far fewer would do so.

We have to stop this lunacy where a chav girl gets pregnant by a known or unknown father and looks upon it as a way of life; council funded property and another feral brat on the streets in a dozen summers.

You know, a decade or two ago people used to look at Waynetta Slob from the Harry Enfield Show and laugh as it was hilarious, whereas today it would hardly be funny because it is not longer a parody of a life gone wrong but merely a reflection of the way life is in some areas.

When my marriage broke down, I ended up significantly worse off on benefits, purely because our joint income had been so good. He unfortunately, felt he needed to leave our town (and ergo his job) because his friends did not quite agree with his actions and with it went the ability to pay a decent amount of child maintenance (plus he cleared out one savings account to fund his move up country). He did not start paying any kind of maintenance for a very long time and when he did, it was not very much (I've seen people on these boards getting more per week than we get per month!)

As a family, we have gone from holidays at Disneyland Paris in the best hotel and first class all the way, weekends away, regular meals out in restaurants etc, to one who has to scrimp and save all the time...we are certainly not better off on benefits than we were as a family with a joint income (I am using our old joint income for comparison rather than what others are receiving as joint income)

I have only told the very condensed version of what happened in our marriage, there is an awful lot more unsaid, suffice to say, it was more than just a bump in the road that month.

determined_new_ms

ok I read this thread last night and it really made me feel uncomfortable, but wanted a bit of time to formulate a thought out response rather than knee jerk.

OP congratulations that you have supported yourself and your family, through hard work and you rightly should feel proud of your efforts. But there is something uncomfortable about the way you have framed it.

I was irresponsible as a teenager (go figure a kid acting like a kid!) and fell pregnant by a looser, had a child fell pregnant again and then he promptly left me and was never to be seen again for 12 years. I was on benefits, living in a council house, struggling to bring up two children with no family support. Believe me there was no living the high life, there was deprivation, at times choosing to go without food so my children could eat and I could pay the bills and buy them the basics, the constant stress and strain and sense of being a failure, people ostracising me from the community, someone stopping me in the street to let me when what a useful parent I was and how there are people in the world who really want children and then there are people like me who get them, being in a taxi and the driver gossiping about someone in the street who was me (all of it BS and twisting of the truth in the most cruel way). I put myself through night school, then uni and then went straight to work from there and have stayed there since. These experiences had a massive impact on my sense of worth and as a result an impact on my children's lives. I was not the f e c k less deserving and it is cruel for a community to not offer a person struggling some support.

I now work with vulnerable people and I would suggest the people who you are painting in a very dark light are few and far between. Mostly there are real complex reasons for why people aren't working, and right now there are very few jobs around and the ratio of people to positions is not equal. I have just secure a new position which I start in Jan. There was 1 position and 54 people went for it. Whenever I recruit there are many people who go for the role but only 1 or 2 positions.

Over the last 2 years there have been massive media coverage on the f e c k less, work shy bonvivonts living the high life while the rest of us pay for it. Do you not even have the teeniest suspicion that the government has been feeding these stories to the media to whip up the frenzy in the country to allow for the massive and horrendous cuts that are about to happen to the welfare reforms? As this is my field of work I am following the reforms very closely and they are frightening. What is going to happen within the next year is - 500,000 additional street homeless people by Oct 2012, child poverty is going to sky rocket and there are no jobs for people to go into. Its a really frightening to think about what is going to happen to these people and families.

kafkathecat

Thank you determined new ms. We have millions of unemployed and no likelihood of the number reducing but rather than empathise we as a nation are determined to kick people when they are down. Meanwhile large companies and the super-rich are avoiding billions in tax whilst enjoying the benefits of living/operating in a civilised country. The social cost of what is happening is incalculable. If you add in that the more you impoverish the poor, who spend all of their income, the less money there is being spent, leading to more job losses and the more downward pressure there will be on all of our incomes.