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

StormyWeather_2

vinster549 wrote: »

My original post actually was only enquiring if any body else had come across the fact that you could be financially better off.

Are you sure you will be better off? If you're working part time you might not get WTC? As a couple you'd need to do 24 hours between you and one needs to work at least 16 hours.

Couldn't your husband look for a better paid job with reliable hours and income?

Will your business really be family friendly? Working women will want their beauty treatments evenings and weekends.

MrsE_2

tinkledom wrote: »

Let's put it this way.


We hear very little about when ordinary people plan, rearrange their financial affairs in such a way that they only pay the minimum amount of tax that they have to. It may simply be moving some capital about so as to maximise the use of the personal allowances. It may mean deferring the sale of an asset until the next financial year to avoid Capital gains Tax. A simple trust may be set up to avoid Inheritance Tax.
I very rarely hear complaints and criticisms about that sort of activity.


Yet people have the sheer nerve to complain and object if someone wants to maximise their benefit entitlements. I have experienced this myself when I was told many times that even if you are entitled to a benefit, you should not claim it if you don't really need the money.
And as with the poster who is also re-arranging their affairs to maximise their income, - all hell breaks loose!


Sorry but many on here are hypocrites.

Ordinary people go to work, get by, pay their bills (without benefits), keep a roof over their head (without benefits) & try to put a few quid aside to cover Xmas, car bills, emergencies, all that sort of stuff.
I'm ordinary, I'm certainly not playing the stock market, just trying to get by, just with my own earnings.
Of course some of what I earn will go towards funding the OPs husband to sit at home.......
That's ordinary.

tinkledom

MrsE wrote: »

It shouldn't be optional........

Where on earth has this culture evolved from that a life living off others is an option?

Can you imagine if everyone wanted to live off benefits? Or if every one wanted to get more in "tax" credits than they ever pay in tax?

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.

StormyWeather_2

I thought nursery was good for mine. Plenty of activities and socialising. I couldn't have done what the nursery did on a daily basis, it would have been exhausting.

devilivus

No point in attacking the OP.
Everyone has the same options open to them. It's a matter of their own personal beliefs/morals/values.
Probably shouldn't try to impose them onto others.

Some people would sacrafice earning lots of money, to be able to spend all of their time with their kids etc and live on benefits.
Some people would rather earn loads of money in a high paid job but have to always be at work away from family/kids etc.
Some people are screwed and spend all of their time in a very LOW paid job(certainly can't blame these peope to choose benefits when the option is there)

vinster549

MrsE wrote: »

Ordinary people go to work, get by, pay their bills (without benefits), keep a roof over their head (without benefits) & try to put a few quid aside to cover Xmas, car bills, emergencies, all that sort of stuff.
I'm ordinary, I'm certainly not playing the stock market, just trying to get by, just with my own earnings.
Of course some of what I earn will go towards funding the OPs husband to sit at home.......
That's ordinary.

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!

vinster549

StormyWeather wrote: »

I thought nursery was good for mine. Plenty of activities and socialising. I couldn't have done what the nursery did on a daily basis, it would have been exhausting.

It is exhausting but I love every bit of it, I know it's not for everyone just like nursery isn't. I personally wouldn't have it any other way. I have amazing memories of my childhood always doing something fun with my mum, dad and grand parents and that's what I want for my children because I always felt loved and wanted, so safe and secure as every child should feel.

vinster549

MrsE wrote: »

I'm 46, my mother always worked.
My grandmother was born around 1900, she had 5 cleaning jobs, she had a crippled husband & my mother & 5 grandchildren from her other daughter to raise.

Have your family always relied on the state for support then?

No not at all.

MrsE_2

vinster549 wrote: »

No not at all.

I was asking Tinkledom, he stated he raised his children on the state, I just wondered if his family raised him on the state too.

MrsE_2

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!

I'm not asking for state support or advice on claiming it, I dont need to declare my income.
Its not because of luck I dont claim benefits, I guess its because I went back into higher education while working full time & raising my daughter (some of it as a single parent) so I could better my earning potential.
Its not a sum that will keep me in luxury, but I can pay my own way without needing others.