We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Is this calculation right?
Comments
-
zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »Willber (or should I say Andy?), I think both you and the OP are trolls.
I was a high earning corporate solicitor with excellent prospects when a maniac driver concertina'd my car and left me with a life on sickness and disability benefits in my 40's. I know a lot of professional people and I do not know a single person earning decent money who would willing give up their career for a life on benefits.
And for anyone who thinks benefits are secure or an easy ride - have you been living in a cave in outer mongolia? The change to ESA with its kafkaesque descriptors and assessments is a living nightmare to many vulnerable people. I know personally of two genuinely sick young people who tried to take their own lives and ended up sectioned on psychiatric wards because they could not cope with the process (now are both in the support group, but not without the anxiety and stress of lengthy appeals).
I am a qualified solicitor, and even I found the transfer from IB to ESA stressful, worrying for months about what I would do if I was placed in the wrag group, and lost my benefits after 12 months - I would have had to sell my specially adapted home and I would have had to live off the money which is set aside to pay for my carers. I am now in the support group, but it has been a very stressful couple of years, which has had a detrimental effect on my health.
And I continue to live in the knowledge that I could be recalled for re-assessment at any time. One of the young people referred to above received an ESA50 for review just THREE WEEKS after winning her appeal and being placed in the support group.
Yes, for some single parents and parents of young children, struggling on minimum wage in high rental areas, work does not pay, and that needs addressing by raising the minimum wage, and in work benefits. But for most people in a good job on a decent wage, benefits don't even enter their consciousness.
The key point is a decent wage, for many the benefits V minimum wage work far outweighs this. The poverty trap is so called for a reason.0 -
Anyway to the OP
It's your choice, remember that it is now 2 years that people can be dismissed for no reason - so it makes you vulnerable in those 2 years.
I totally understand where you are coming from, my OH works long hours and I wish I had him at home more when the kids were young (especially as I worked then part time). It's a tough few years on the household.
But .. It doesn't last for ever, then they are at school. Several years ago we were in a similar position and although I worked - 90% was paid for childcare.
Now we have a large disposable income and a good work life balance.
What if you want to buy a home? Can't on that mortgage
What if he dropped hours - could you survive on benefits alone?
What if your children when older ask why you are on benefits?
Remember Universal credit is due in soon, how will you feel when one or both of you have to sign on at the JC and it's just "benefits", not Tax Credits.
Whatever decision you make is your own, but personally I'd think of longer term. 7 years ago my OH was on £35K is (similar to yours), he's now on more than double that, works from home at times etc. He got this because he worked his way up (not down). I guess it's all down to what you want out of life, but you certainly CAN have both.0 -
princessdon wrote: »The key point is a decent wage, for many the benefits V minimum wage work far outweighs this. The poverty trap is so called for a reason.
Exactly, hence my comment:
"Yes, for some single parents and parents of young children, struggling on minimum wage in high rental areas, work does not pay, and that needs addressing by raising the minimum wage, and in work benefits."
BUT - Wilber and OP are claiming that they are/were professionals with higher than average salaries making a conscious choice to exchange this lifestyle for a life on benefits. Call me cynical if you like, but I don't believe them.I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.0 -
zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »Exactly, hence my comment:
"Yes, for some single parents and parents of young children, struggling on minimum wage in high rental areas, work does not pay, and that needs addressing by raising the minimum wage, and in work benefits."
BUT - Wilber and OP are claiming that they are/were professionals with higher than average salaries making a conscious choice to exchange this lifestyle for a life on benefits. Call me cynical if you like, but I don't believe them.
The OP is talking about In work benefits - so they are correct based on NOW but under UC it will be much less desirable when they have to sigh on. Travel to work can be costly depending on where you live with high rentals.
It really does need further addressing and UC only touches the iceberg. I am a parent and I can honestly say it does not cost £85 a week to keep a child on basics (with Free School meals). In fact I'd estimate my children cost approx. £50pw with their clubs, meals and none essential outgoings like swimming, clubs, meals out etc.0 -
I agree and disagree with both sides here...I am a single parent to a disabled daughter who will be 7 this week. As hard as it is I have stayed in employment and am still in the same job I had before I had her because I was brought up to pay my way... but as you can guess due to the amount of time I have off due to specialist appointments and illness etc me and my workplace decided to cut my hours to 20 and make me flexi so I can work around her appointments and needs (or take her with me if needs be). I am constantly exhausted stressed and poorly, and it is unlikely my daughter will ever leave home so we could ALWAYS live off the benefits, but I still refuse to do it. We do get a top up obviously as I'm only classed as part time... but the fact that I work my a55 off and look after a disabled child and I could actually get MORE benefits to be sat on my bum at home (and have time for me to relax and sleep when she is well and at school) really gets me mad, so in a way I can understand why people do it but it does get me mad that if someone like me has a great excuse as a carer to not work and just claim but still works then why should people who CAN work not just cos they get more money to sit at home... I obviously need to give my morals the boot lol...
Sorry rant over :-)0 -
Yours is a prime example of why in work benefits need to be increased.
And don't even get me started on the NMW - this keeps many working people in a poverty trap and relying on the state to supplement their income.
Yes, I can see that small employers may need subsidising in this way (because supplementing the income of low paid workers from the taxpayer's pocket is effectively a subsidy to the employer who is not paying a living wage) but large profitable multinationals? They can afford to pay a living wage, but choose to set their wages at NMW, because they know the state will meet the shortfall.I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.0 -
zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »Yours is a prime example of why in work benefits need to be increased.
In work benefits are a good thing when applied to people who can only work part time because of disability or caring responsibilities. They aren't when they encourage healthy non carers to work part time. They're at their very worse when they allow a parent couple to only work 24 hours between them!0 -
In work benefits are a good thing when applied to people who can only work part time because of disability or caring responsibilities. They aren't when they encourage healthy non carers to work part time. They're at their very worse when they allow a parent couple to only work 24 hours between them!
Yes I agree, 100%. I thought when UC comes in, those people will be expected to work 30 hrs a week?I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.0 -
zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »Yes I agree, 100%. I thought when UC comes in, those people will be expected to work 30 hrs a week?
I haven't really got to grips with U/C yet, hopefully it'll be an improvement.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards