We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
More money working part time than full time? Am I going mad?
Options
Comments
-
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).
I think it's perhaps because the government now refer to any publicly funded payment as "benefits", including Retirement Pensions, tax credits, widows pensions etc., etc., The DWP do the same, as if you are retired, they will refer to *you* as a person on benefits.
This has crept over to the media, and gradually, everyone else is lumping everything together.
The only difference in government-speak is "working age benefits" and "non working age benefits".
Not sure why, though.
LinYou can tell a lot about a woman by her hands..........for instance, if they are placed around your throat, she's probably slightly upset.0 -
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.
Yes, there is.
When you reach retirement age, whatever that might be, and claim a retirement pension, there is no longer any expectation from government that you should work.
Lin :doh:You can tell a lot about a woman by her hands..........for instance, if they are placed around your throat, she's probably slightly upset.0 -
With so many people on here with such amazing morals, I don't understand why the country is apparently in the state it's in?
If you are on a low income then your choice is either that both parents work full-time, paying one parents wage on hideously expensive and often substandard childcare (generally speaking a young baby is not going to receive the same level of care in a nursery when it is one of several being looked after than if it is at home being cared for by its mother or father) and for what? When one parent can work and the other can provide childcare, whilst receiving a top-up in benefits which equates to them being able to cover the same bills etc? Why shouldn't those who have paid into the system prior to having children, claim the benefits the government deem they are entitled to whilst they have young children?
People can bang on about morals, doing what is right, not relying on benefits etc etc, but at the end of the day when childcare costs the same and in some cases more than one parent's wage then I struggle to see why you would choose to work whilst your children were younger than pre-school age, unless you had a high-flying career which you felt was more important than being there for your children during their early years.
As I said, when I looked into it we were almost better off with one parent earning £18k working full-time and one parent providing childcare than both parents working full-time and earning £20k each, which was actually quite upsetting. We're both retraining/retrained with the hope that we'd get decent jobs and be able to bring more money home, but we'd be worse off by the time we paid for childcare. We will suck it up in the future, as we understand that we will not be in this 'fortunate' state forever and I don't want to feel continually ashamed of our situation (and I want to work!), but will my children appreciate me working when they are stuck in a childcare scheme all through the school holidays? People suggest that my children will be proud of me for working, that I will be instilling good values into them, but apparently as a mother I can only do this by not accepting anything the government wants to give me and having strangers look after them for 40+ hours a week?
People bleat on about their taxes paying for child related benefits, like every penny they pay in tax is lining my pocket. Be sensible! Your taxes are paying towards more than the 'welfare state'. I worked before I had children from the age of 16, I paid taxes then and my husband has also paid his fair share of taxes too since he started working at the age of 16, so if by your claims that other people are paying for families like ours, then I guess we are just claiming back what we paid out over many years of working and not getting a penny from the system?
So well said. I have friends who have their kids in full time childcare so they can earn a wage but they aren't really any better off for it and to think of all the things they are missing out on with their children.
I am pretty sure that one day they will look back (probably when the grandchildren come along) and it will hit them like a ton of bricks exactly what they have missed out on, and for what? A bigger house? Nice holidays? Posh car? Nah I'll leave it thanks. We want to be with our children and experience all their 'firsts' not hear about it from some nursery nurse.
So yes maybe we are taking a little back from all the years we paid in. At least we have paid in plenty.0 -
vinster549 wrote: »So well said. I have friends who have their kids in full time childcare so they can earn a wage but they aren't really any better off for it and to think of all the things they are missing out on with their children.
I am pretty sure that one day they will look back (probably when the grandchildren come along) and it will hit them like a ton of bricks exactly what they have missed out on, and for what? A bigger house? Nice holidays? Posh car? Nah I'll leave it thanks. We want to be with our children and experience all their 'firsts' not hear about it from some nursery nurse.
So yes maybe we are taking a little back from all the years we paid in. At least we have paid in plenty.
Really?
I wouldn't be so sure, you need to earn about 35k to breakeven, to pay the tax that equates to the services you receive.
Have you & your husband ever had an income of 35k each or 70k joint?0 -
So why didn't you spent all those years you were childfree working and saving hard so you could have children at a later stage and be able to stay at home and not have to rely on benefits?
If you think that your children will be grateful that you've stayed home when they are little when you have to tell them when they are in their late teens that you can't help them paying for their transport to go to college, or can't help them pay for them to take their driving test, let alone help them support them when they want to take a year out, help them move to their university accommodation, all this because you are earning a minimum wage and can't afford any of it, do you really think they will say thank you because at least you stayed home with me when I was a child?
I went to childcare from the age of 6 months? Do I wish she'd been home instead with me? No, I never ever felt my life would have been better if she had, however, I will always be so massively grateful that she was able to afford to send me for a year to the States when I was in high school. This experience transformed my life in ways I never would have thought possible.0 -
Where is the OP in all of this?
They seem to have long since disappeared never to be seen againThink of all the beauty still left around you and be happy - Anne Frank :A0 -
cattermole wrote: »Where is the OP in all of this?
They seem to have long since disappeared never to be seen again
Changed user names part way through.Its not that we have more patience as we grow older, its just that we're too tired to care about all the pointless drama0 -
So why didn't you spent all those years you were childfree working and saving hard so you could have children at a later stage and be able to stay at home and not have to rely on benefits?
If you think that your children will be grateful that you've stayed home when they are little when you have to tell them when they are in their late teens that you can't help them paying for their transport to go to college, or can't help them pay for them to take their driving test, let alone help them support them when they want to take a year out, help them move to their university accommodation, all this because you are earning a minimum wage and can't afford any of it, do you really think they will say thank you because at least you stayed home with me when I was a child?
I went to childcare from the age of 6 months? Do I wish she'd been home instead with me? No, I never ever felt my life would have been better if she had, however, I will always be so massively grateful that she was able to afford to send me for a year to the States when I was in high school. This experience transformed my life in ways I never would have thought possible.
Clearly spending a year in the States has had a major influence on you.
I really hope this Country never ends up as uncaring and materialistic as the States although in my life time that has started to become more of a reality.
I too went to the States in my youth, it had the opposite affect on me, so I guess we all draw on our own individual experiences. Through the Thatcher years Americanisms gradually crept in, small things at first but I noticed them. Now they practically own everything in this country from Asda, B&Q to our Power distribution.
I thought I had a successful career ahead of me I was quite a high flyer in my day. But that all changed when my first child was born severely disabled and our lives changed forever.
It took me into a world that I really had little or no experience of before and I've made many friends from all walks of life that I would never have met otherwise but the main thing it taught me was nothing ever can compensate anyone for having a severe disability or live limiting condition, no amount of money can do that. Anything that can make people's lives better makes us a better Society than the US will ever be.
Money also cannot necessarily buy the care you need either, that relies on caring people who work for very little often on NMW.
I do however agree that CTC were a mistake but you cannot force people to take a drop in their standard of living just like that and in particular when there is such a shortage of work.
I believe we value money far more than we do people many of whom do a lot for others for very little and that is very sadThink of all the beauty still left around you and be happy - Anne Frank :A0 -
All valid & sensible.
The cap (including rent & council tax benefits) should be no more than NMW.
People shouldn't get more in benefits than people can earn.
Maximum benefits for 2 children, if you want loads pay for them yourself, my daughter can only afford 2, most working people can only afford 2.
Should be less as they won't be taxed0 -
what happens when the kids are in school, will your husband look for work then?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards