Partner given up work now cant claim a penny

Podge52

BillJones wrote: »

One problem, of course, is that people believe that they "deserve" a more expensive lifestyle than their wages afford, and so they feel that it is justified that they take on more and more debt.

When my money ran low, my leisure activity became wandering around town. When my food money was low, I ate staples and basics. I never, never "allowed" myself a treat early in the month, and then ran out of money at the end. I knew how much I had per day available for luxuries, such as hot food or renting a video, and stayed within that. If I did well at the start of the month, I might allow myself something extra at the end, within that month's budget, but wouldn't have dreamed of borrowing from the month's budget at the start, the golden rule was never to be spending ahead of what I'd accrued.

I understand that nowadays there are many people who find such prudence ridiculous, and who refuse to live like that. They have to understand, though, that people like me who did live that way are not keen to increase our tax levels to subsidise others so that they don't have to.

You had a video recorder :eek:

Was that not a luxury back then ?

duchy

FBaby wrote: »

So everyone in this country should be able to afford these? Why sell anything else?

I think you should be able afford more luxuries as you get older. Unfortunately, younger people, who just had a job seem to think they should be entitled to these just because they work (or even some believe they should be entitled to them not working!).

Did you miss the magic word "save" ? You rather missed my point
I do believe people should have an incentive to work over and above subsistence living. Having a bit over for the "wants" and the ability to save for them is a good thing !



I don't have a problem with anyone young or old having "wants" rather than needs.......even when I started work back in the late seventies it wasn't uncommon for a young person to leave school at sixteen and walk into a (usually manual) job that paid more than their father was earning in an office job. The young having more disposable income than their parents is nothing new - the acceptance of credit for everything is however.

When I was nineteen I got a mortgage -it was the first proper credit I'd ever had-we'd saved for a deposit , saved for a wedding etc . Now saving is deeply unfashionable and the attitude is why save when you can get credit. We are not instilling the save ethic young. When I was a kid I had a variety of money boxes - all provided by various banks (TSBs came in multiple colours I remember) ........and then there was the very clever NatWest pigs - once you'd saved a certain amount you got a bigger and better pig. Kids used to beg to save so they could get the next pig. I can't think of any incentives for the very young that promotes the save mindset, currently been promoted,

duchy

Podge52 wrote: »

You had a video recorder :eek:

Was that not a luxury back then ?

You saved for it........or rented it along with your TV.
(Only the financially careless bought a TV - the majority rented and got an upgrade to a newer one every couple of years)

Podge52

duchy wrote: »

You saved for it........or rented it along with your TV.
(Only the financially careless bought a TV - the majority rented and got an upgrade to a newer one every couple of years)

I well remember renting a tv, I don't recall being able to rent a video recorder.

Morglin

BillJones wrote: »

Had I stuck it out for a decade, I'd have likely moved up to also being a "mid-range" civil servant, and been able to afford those things too. Starting out, the money simply wasn't enough.

As it was, I decided to aim higher, and returned to university to get my doctorate, and from there made my way into a better paid career entirely.

I also went into another career, but twenty years ago, it was much easier to go that, than it is now.

Lin

Morglin

dundeediva wrote: »

one if the problems is people not living within their means. I worked in a minimum wage job for 6 years and I didn't have the latest telly, I didn't have a night out every week. I knew what I was able to spend every month and what I had to save. Its not hard to work out, some people expect to be spoonfed everything.

I'm not saying that people who lose their jobs should get nothing, but if i lost my job, my mobile phone would be sold and I would be getting a cheap replacement. I would be downgrading my tv/broadband/phone package (if not getting rid). People dont do this though, and expect the taxpayer to fund the "normal" lifestyle.

Half of the problem is that with cable TV and phones, people are often tied into contracts, and even if they are cancelled, charges still have to be paid.

Lin

FluffyDuck3

Podge52 wrote: »

I well remember renting a tv, I don't recall being able to rent a video recorder.

I'm sure my parents rented the VHS along with the TV.

The wised up eventually to how much money they were paying each year, compared to buying one.

FluffyDuck3

Morglin wrote: »

Half of the problem is that with cable TV and phones, people are often tied into contracts, and even if they are cancelled, charges still have to be paid.

Lin

Also, initially you wouldn't know how temporary or permanent your job situation is.

FBaby

Did you miss the magic word "save" ? You rather missed my point
I do believe people should have an incentive to work over and above subsistence living. Having a bit over for the "wants" and the ability to save for them is a good thing !

No I didn't miss it, but the problem is that too many don't 'save' it in the way they should. Even if they don't buy on credit (which most do), they buy it ahead of things that should come first, such as various insurance. Then they complain when they don't have cash to fix the car, or the boiler that's broken down, or are stuck with an expensive phone deal because they've lost their jobs.

Being financially secure is much more than having the cash to buy something, or assuming that current circumstances will remain as is in the next two/five years.

flashnazia

To the op, did you remember to disregard statutory maternity pay from last year income?