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

tinkledom

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. When I said that the state supported us, I meant that my wife had the Family Allowance which she spent entirely on the two girls (twins).


The rest was down to me. I was young and ambitious and progressed through my career. Never unemployed. I provided for everything that the family needed out of my salary.
My wife did as difficult a job (without pay) in making a home for us all as well as being a supportive wife for me and a fantastic mother for my two girls.

tinkledom

vinster549 wrote: »

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.

My children say the same thing - it's when they say to their friends and us - we had a fantastic childhood, mum was always there when we needed her and dad was the quiet strong one that bound us all together. So much so that both of my girls try to re-live their childhood again through their children.

tinkledom

MrsE wrote: »

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.

No, my father was a senior civil servant with the Inland Revenue all of his life, whilst mum was always at home when we came home. She never worked.

debtdawg

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?

vinster549

Very well said Debtdawg.

stroodes

I hope you were a high earner to get back what you have taken out.

stroodes

amazing morals is dont have children you cant afford.

tinkledom

debtdawg wrote: »

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?

Well I want to know why and how was it possible in the early 80's into the 90's that one parent worked whilst the other stayed at home? There was no such thing as 'top up benefits equal to a working wage' available. It was sink or swim - generally the father had to work to support his family, sometimes doing two jobs.
Some were lucky like myself, in that I worked hard at school/uni etc and then studied for another 5 years until at age 25 I was on the bottom rung of the ladder. My responsibility was to progress anyway that I could knowing that we would start a family by the time I got to 30. I knew I had to earn enough to pay the bills, pay the mortgage and support the family.
Now it seems that all of that had disappeared. What is the point in taking on that role of responsibility especially when you can get benefits to top up your income. In todays workd I might just as well worked in a less paid job with little stress and responsibility knowing that the government would top up my income.
Talk about a nanny state.

osdset

tinkledom wrote: »

For us (just the two of us) on benefits taking into account all of our income, we get well over £600 a week. Working, would see no increase in that figure unless the salary was well over £60,000 a year.

Blimey Andy, your weekly benefit rate goes up by twenty quid every time you post.

FBaby

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.