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

cattermole

FBaby wrote: »

Because you really think that the experience I gained living in the States for a year when I was sixteen had anything to do with my views on benefits!!! I didn't know anything about benefits until I was way in my 30s. Until then I naively believed that benefits were only available to people who couldn't work through no fault of theirs, not because as a choice when they found out they were better off not working. The experience I gained had nothing to do with money.

And your point is? (beside another reason to boast about how much money you had/have/will have)

Not sure why you have mixed up the two posts without names there?

Anyway no it wasn't just in reference to benefits, it was your posts about other aspects of things in general and you did say it transformed your llife etc etc.

When people say things like I have enough money in case I become disabled I won't have to rely on benefits. Implies that benefits are the only thing that matter if you one becomes disabled.

For example my father became very ill, he could afford to pay for 24/7 care at home and for a while it was paid for but it became unmanageable because of the severity of his condition in his own home. Having enough money to pay for care didn't mean you could find the good care.

In fact I would go further and say to find good carers is very difficult. It is a much under invested in terms of training and regulation and it is just a profit making enterprise for a lot of the Care Homes and Agencies who are exploiting the workers. Most of whom are probably on CTC.

FBaby

When people say things like I have enough money in case I become disabled I won't have to rely on benefits. Implies that benefits are the only thing that matter if you one becomes disabled.

You are looking for intentions behind my words that are not there at all, but I suppose you have portrayed be as a benefit bashers, hence look for justifications.

My reference to having made provision in case I become disabled. That is that instead of earning as little as I can to just support myself, I am actually also spending to protect myself as much as is possible in case I need to in the future. Many people say that they can't afford life insurance or other form of protection, but then ensure they work as few hours as they need to claim benefits. I do believe some people working 16 hours do so because they had their hours cut, however many do because it is the minimum they have to. I have seen this so many times at work, so many interviewees asking if they can work 16 hours only.

SnooksNJ

cattermole wrote: »

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 sad

Fair enough we are easy targets but the reality is much different than your stereotypes.

Harryonesock

Cuchimealla wrote: »

Hi my partner is a grafter and has always always worked. However he has never earns an awful lot, last year 23k before deductions self employed window fitter. We has 2 boys 3 and nearly 2.
I have been on entitledto .co uk to see what we could get if I worked part time and he stayed at home with the boys. Working it out I am better off part time earning just £160 per week than if my partner works (extremely hard 7-7 most days) yet bringing home less than £400 per week. I want to work part time while setting up my beauty business and building clientele. I need to buy stock first though and we actually could afford to save for it if I worked part time and he gives up his full time job.
It's utter madness. Any body else experience this please?

Thanks

Confused.

If your husband wants to give up work and be a sahd then fair enough but then you should work full time and not rely on benefits!!!!!

Morglin

tinkledom wrote: »

When does this magical day happen? It used to be 60 for a woman and 65 for a man. But since the removal of the requirement to give up work and claim your state pension, there is no longer any date when you would not be expected to work. This is unfortunately the effect of removing the age discrimination barrier.


Are you saying that a guy can no longer sign on and claim JSA when he gets to sat 63?

It begins the day that you reach official retirement age, and start to get your retirement pension.

After that date, there is no compulsory requirement to work.

Working of not does not affect receiving a retirement pension, and many pensioners work, and if you are on say, ESA, they transfer you to SP, on your retirement date.

The retirement ages have changed slightly, but you can look it up, on the net, on the Pensions Services site, if you don't know when they will pay your pension.

Lin

cattermole

My stereotypes as you call them, why are they so different from anyone else's stereotypes?

They are based on real people with real lives. We all have different experiences of life so we base things on that.

It isn't a claim about American companies owning a lot here, it is a fact. Google Western Power Distribution and you will see they are owned by the Pennsylvania Power Company as are most of our Power Distribution companies.

The helicopter rescue service was even sold off to an American owed Company. :eek:

B&Q is British I was thinking of BP which is primarily owned by American investors.

You have lost me on the "getting a target"?? You have edited it now and the bit about America.

Morglin

debrag wrote: »

Should be less as they won't be taxed

Why won't they?

The only non taxable benefits are DLA and AA, anything else is subject to income tax, as it is when you are working.

Of course, some won't be getting enough to go above the threshold, but if they do get enough, they pay tax!

Lin

cattermole

FBaby wrote: »

You are looking for intentions behind my words that are not there at all, but I suppose you have portrayed be as a benefit bashers, hence look for justifications.

My reference to having made provision in case I become disabled. That is that instead of earning as little as I can to just support myself, I am actually also spending to protect myself as much as is possible in case I need to in the future. Many people say that they can't afford life insurance or other form of protection, but then ensure they work as few hours as they need to claim benefits. I do believe some people working 16 hours do so because they had their hours cut, however many do because it is the minimum they have to. I have seen this so many times at work, so many interviewees asking if they can work 16 hours only.

I haven't portrayed you as anything, that's you description of yourself, I merely don't agree with everything you say. Perhaps you are reading to much into things?

I'm not saying either people don't do exactly as you say regarding working as few hours as they can in order to claim benefits, I know this is correct. That they would be no better off if they worked full time. So I think that would follow those who say they can't afford Life Assurance would still say they couldn't afford it. (Whether they can or not is another discussion).

What I am saying is that the "system" has caused it.

That the reality is there are very few jobs to be had. So even if the system changed overnight there would not be enough hours to go around that is the reality.

And having a young person at home with good qualifications searching day in day out I know the reality that there are very few "real" jobs to be had. Those that are have hundreds of applications, even for the most simplest of jobs.

I have said many times I don't think CTC was a good idea in the first place, although this part of what I say always seems to be conveniently ignored.

But unfortunately the clock cannot be turned back and with the world going the way it is, there will continue to be less and less jobs.

How we then deal with that I don't know.

tinkledom

Morglin wrote: »

It begins the day that you reach official retirement age, and start to get your retirement pension.

After that date, there is no compulsory requirement to work.

Working of not does not affect receiving a retirement pension, and many pensioners work, and if you are on say, ESA, they transfer you to SP, on your retirement date.

The retirement ages have changed slightly, but you can look it up, on the net, on the Pensions Services site, if you don't know when they will pay your pension.

Lin

The date you start to receive your state pension benefit is not the 'official retirement age' There is no 'official' retirement age anymore - the government removed it so that no one has to 'officially' retire but can carry on working with no legal reason to be dismissed.


You do not get 'transferred' from ESA to the state pension benefit on the date you are eligible to claim it. ESA stops being paid on the day that you could claim your state pension benefit.
Like all benefits, the state pension is no different than any other benefit. You have to claim it to receive it. Failure to claim it can and will result in you losing it.


I know the date when I am eligible to receive the first payment of the state pension, whether I make a physical claim for it and send off a whole load of documentary evidence to support such a claim it is another matter.


The Pension Service are supposed to issue a claim form approx. 4 months before the first payment can be paid (I presume it takes 4 months to prove that you are entitled to it). That form has not been received, and until it does there is little that I could do even if I wanted to make a claim for the state pension benefit.

SnooksNJ

cattermole wrote: »

My stereotypes as you call them, why are they so different from anyone else's stereotypes?

They are based on real people with real lives. We all have different experiences of life so we base things on that.

It isn't a claim about American companies owning a lot here, it is a fact. Google Western Power Distribution and you will see they are owned by the Pennsylvania Power Company as are most of our Power Distribution companies.

The helicopter rescue service was even sold off to an American owed Company. :eek:

B&Q is British I was thinking of BP which is primarily owned by American investors.

You have lost me on the "getting a target"?? You have edited it now and the bit about America.

So spending time in the US during your youth makes you an expert that we are all materialistic and uncaring.