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

Morglin

"The States" cannot describe a race of people, only a land mass, and, therefore, although it can describe a system as 'uncaring', it does no more than that.

"Americans" would be the descriptive word if a person were talking about the residents, being uncaring (which they don't appear to be, as my American DIL is very caring).

It's all in the grammar.....;)

Lin

FBaby

Morglin wrote: »

We can all be paragons of virtue, until something, unforeseen, goes wrong, in life.

And ironically that is the whole point of my posts, that people SHOULD prepare themselves for the possible unforeseen events they might face in their lives instead of thinking of what is best for them now and ignoring what could be. Nor all can be protected against bur a lot can be and working more than is financially required in the present to allow for what might be required later is being sensible and another way to be there for our children.

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

You have the sytem and you have those who abuse it because they can. You are those who consider it an opportunity, you have others who are aware of what they would get under the system, but appreciate that it is not a long term solution to their lives.

As for the few jobs around... they are jobs...for those who are prepared to accept that they need to adapt to the need of the job, not the job adapting to their needs, ie. flexible arrangements, friendly working hours and a good salary...all this whilst lacking qualifications, experience, and commitment. Getting a goodjob is not a due, it is something to be earnt.

I would agree with you that benefits are not an ideal long term solution, mainly because the goal posts are forever changing. Someone entitled to benefits in one scenario could lose their crutch with the stroke of a pen. The impact of UC on the low income self employed is a good case in point.

However, while there are jobs around - 500,000 Poles couldn't have got work here if there weren't - getting a good job is not just something to be earnt. For starters, it's the employer's choice whom they employ, not the potential worker's. Merit barely comes into it and luck plays a significant part. The idea that someone seeking work off someone else is in any way in control of the outcome is ludicrous.

Morglin

FBaby wrote: »

And ironically that is the whole point of my posts, that people SHOULD prepare themselves for the possible unforeseen events they might face in their lives instead of thinking of what is best for them now and ignoring what could be. Nor all can be protected against bur a lot can be and working more than is financially required in the present to allow for what might be required later is being sensible and another way to be there for our children.

The only two unforeseeable events in life are death and disability, and not everyone has the money or the salary to 'protect themselves'.

Many, of my generation, were also misled into thinking paying into the National Insurance system was actually there to protect us...:whistle:

From cradle to grave they told us.....:rotfl:

Lin

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

And ironically that is the whole point of my posts, that people SHOULD prepare themselves for the possible unforeseen events they might face in their lives instead of thinking of what is best for them now and ignoring what could be. Nor all can be protected against bur a lot can be and working more than is financially required in the present to allow for what might be required later is being sensible and another way to be there for our children.

Oh the idealism! I can't believe someone who has lived in the States can be so naive. 90% of Americans who lost their jobs probably did exactly what you are advocating. They probably did try to provide for their and their children's future. More so there than here, because the safety net in the States has so many holes. And it still didn't stop them losing their homes, ending up in their cars, if indeed they still owned one, once the extended unemployment benefit ran out.

So what if you do prepare? You could still lose your job and not be able to get another one. How about you climb off your high horse and be a bit less smug?

Morglin

My son and family live out in Illinois, and although their initial unemployment payments are very generous, with redundancy, at least, as the ex employer has to pay half, once that runs out, after 18 months, it is problematic.

As is getting anything other than very basic healthcare, if you are not insured - which is very expensive, unless part of a salary package.

Lin

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Last year I halved my hours - the increase in Tax Credits and entitlement to Council Tax Reduction and the reduction in petrol getting to work more than made up for the loss of wages.

FBaby

dktreesea wrote: »

Oh the idealism! I can't believe someone who has lived in the States can be so naive. 90% of Americans who lost their jobs probably did exactly what you are advocating. They probably did try to provide for their and their children's future. More so there than here, because the safety net in the States has so many holes. And it still didn't stop them losing their homes, ending up in their cars, if indeed they still owned one, once the extended unemployment benefit ran out.

So what if you do prepare? You could still lose your job and not be able to get another one. How about you climb off your high horse and be a bit less smug?

FGS, forget the States, my spending sometimes there has nothing at all to do with my mindset, let alone my beliefs. Incredible how some people like to read what they want and use it to make pointless arguments.

In the end, people lost their houses because they took too big mortgages without considering what would happen with interest going up and/or if they lost their jobs. It was the typical attitude of assuming that they could live the dream as it was sold to them and no worry about what would happened if they lost their job.

Was it fully their fault? Definitely not. Were they completely blameless, no. Everyone is at risk of losing their main/only income and struggle to get another job, whether during recession time or not. That's what you get insurance for rather than relying on the availability of benefits.

Morglin

FBaby wrote: »

FGS, forget the States, my spending sometimes there has nothing at all to do with my mindset, let alone my beliefs. Incredible how some people like to read what they want and use it to make pointless arguments.

In the end, people lost their houses because they took too big mortgages without considering what would happen with interest going up and/or if they lost their jobs. It was the typical attitude of assuming that they could live the dream as it was sold to them and no worry about what would happened if they lost their job.

Was it fully their fault? Definitely not. Were they completely blameless, no. Everyone is at risk of losing their main/only income and struggle to get another job, whether during recession time or not. That's what you get insurance for rather than relying on the availability of benefits.

I also know of a lot of people, over here, who put all their faith in insurance policies etc., only to find, when they tried to claim, that many insurers try every which way to get out of paying out on things like 'loss of income', 'critical illness cover' etc., :whistle:

Many Watchdog type programmes have covered, more than once, the ongoing problems with these types of policies.

Because if they don't pay out, then the insured, like most of the rest, had to rely on the state.

Nothing is foolproof, and certain things aren't predictable.

Lin

SnooksNJ

Morglin wrote: »

My son and family live out in Illinois, and although their initial unemployment payments are very generous, with redundancy, at least, as the ex employer has to pay half, once that runs out, after 18 months, it is problematic.

As is getting anything other than very basic healthcare, if you are not insured - which is very expensive, unless part of a salary package.

Lin

I'm a big fan of Ross Dress for Less because if you work 12 hours a week you get health insurance plus an employee discount.