More money working part time than full time? Am I going mad?

seven-day-weekend

tinkledom wrote: »

I could well ask when it became acceptable and the norm for mums to be made to go out to work, putting their little ones in a nursery?


OK, I am from a different generation, but as soon as my wife became pregnant 34 years ago it was the norm that she stayed at home and continued to do so until the children left home to do their own thing. The state provided financial support to us.

What financial support? All I got was Child Benefit. You couldn't run a home on that.

(I stayed at home with my son for four years, then did a degree which fitted around his nursery hours, then worked part-time school hours until he was fifteen. We did not use regular childcare (just the odd babysitter).

I have never claimed any Benefits other than this Child benefit for one child (unless you count my State Pension as a Benefit).

Morglin

tinkledom wrote: »

I could well ask when it became acceptable and the norm for mums to be made to go out to work, putting their little ones in a nursery?


OK, I am from a different generation, but as soon as my wife became pregnant 34 years ago it was the norm that she stayed at home and continued to do so until the children left home to do their own thing. The state provided financial support to us.

Well, I first became pregnant 39 years ago, and I wanted to go back to work, as I got so bored at home, with only kids and housework.....:eek:


Not sure why it was the norm for your wife, 5 years on...:think:

I had two kids, born 18 months apart, and I, and their father always worked, partly because I believe it's good for kids to have the 'role model' of both working.

My mum always worked part time, as did my nan! But, I was lucky in that career opportunities were much more available in my day, than in my mother's, as I wanted a career, as opposed to a job going nowhere.

Plus, there was little state support about at the time I had them, so the extra money was a help as well.

Lin

SnooksNJ

MrsE wrote: »

I actually find this pretty offensive.
Are you suggestioning that parents who don't/can't/won't maximise (manipulate) the benefits system love their children any less?
Many parents would love to stay at home with their children all day, but hey ho, someone's gotta pay the taxes.

I'm going to tell my Husband if he loves our kids he needs to quit his job tomorrow and collect benefits. :beer:

Nada666

debtdawg wrote: »

Benefit levels are so high when you are on a low income [AND have children], that you have to earn a massive amount to be able to replace the benefits you are receiving

Small edit.

SnooksNJ

vinster549 wrote: »

But you don't say how much you earn?

If you don't need to claim be benefits then aren't you the lucky one!

Yes she is very lucky to come from a family that instilled a high work ethic.

tinkledom

FBaby wrote: »

As it's been said, families have different values and whereas many would feel that giving up a job to gain more benefit is shameful choice, others will see it as opportunistic.

What does get to me though, is those families who have made the choice to live their life for years on benefits, enjoying all the benefits that come with staying at home with their children, but then who moan and complain about the government (and tax payers) letting them down when the children have left the nest and they are suddenly left with the bare minimum and having lived a comfortable life for years having got used to it, expect to continue to live in that lifestyle until the rest of their lives.

I keep saying the same thing, but life choices are investments. You either sacrifices some things earlier to benefit later, or you enjoy it all in the present, but accept that you will need to pay for it later. You can't have it both ways.

Of course they are, but I did it the opposite way. I worked all of my life and had a damn good salary at the peak of my career.


Since then I have seen the light and cashed in on what I could get out of the system - I paid in (probably more each year that someone actually earns), so I think I had every right to take what was on offer. Things change, I am now in the process of getting rid of my welfare claims including my State Pension and all of my disability benefits as my private pensions that I will start to get in June will be more than enough to live off on their own.

tinkledom

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

What financial support? All I got was Child Benefit. You couldn't run a home on that.

(I stayed at home with my son for four years, then did a degree which fitted around his nursery hours, then worked part-time school hours until he was fifteen. We did not use regular childcare (just the odd babysitter).

I have never claimed any Benefits other than this Child benefit for one child (unless you count my State Pension as a Benefit).

You will find that many on here do describe the State Pension as just another benefit much the same as contributory ESA & JSA.

FBaby

Since then I have seen the light and cashed in on what I could get out of the system - I paid in (probably more each year that someone actually earns), so I think I had every right to take what was on offer. Things change, I am now in the process of getting rid of my welfare claims including my State Pension and all of my disability benefits as my private pensions that I will start to get in June will be more than enough to live off on their own.

You keep comparing young families with your situation when the reason why you currently receive so much is mainly on the account of you and your wife's disabilities. I don't want to reach 60-70 and be well off benefits because I am so poorly I am assessed as needing that money to cope with my disabilities. I want to work hard so that when I am retired, I get to have a fab life, travelling the world, doing sports whenever I want, looking after my grand children without restrictions and being able to look after my property.

Any family that live most of their lives off benefits will not get the above, ie. enough money to claim once the kids have left to enjoy a nice lifestyle whilst being in good health to allow them to do so.

Of course, anyone can end up disabled at any time. I do everything I can to avoid it, but if it does happen, I have made provision so that I will be financially comfortable without having to rely on benefits. And if I were to claim benefit because of it, I certainly wouldn't feel proud of it and feeling the desire to gloat about it.

seven-day-weekend

tinkledom wrote: »

You will find that many on here do describe the State Pension as just another benefit much the same as contributory ESA & JSA.

I know they do, but don't know why. They are Benefits for people who are unable to work because they are sick or jobless, but the expectation is that they will work again at some point.

I, on the other hand, have finished my working life and no-one expects me to look for a job (although I do in fact work part time as a Pet-sitter and volunteer as a Job Club Coach).

tinkledom

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I know they do, but don't know why. They are Benefits for people who are unable to work because they are sick or jobless, but the expectation is that they will work again at some point.

I, on the other hand, have finished my working life and no-one expects me to look for a job (although I do in fact work part time as a Pet-sitter and volunteer as a Job Club Coach).

There is no such thing as 'at an age when I have finished my working life'.


The State Pension along with contributory ESA & JSA can change from year to year, the amounts can change, the rules regarding claiming them can change. They are all paid out of the same Welfare pot.


There is no longer an age when it is deemed that you are retired and no longer required to work.