Wanting to leave work

dktreesea

micky2phones wrote: »

A few years ago the place i was working had meeting every monday morning to see/vote who was going to be finished that week.
After the meeting we then did four ten hours nights,six hours saturday and sunday morning.
This went on for three months until my turn came to be finished,many monday mornings i wished it was me.
The pressure, worry i and others worked under was unreal,management were watching everyone to see if they could finish people without paying redundancy.

Maybe you should name and shame the company involved on that boycott site. I wouldn't want any company that behaved like that to have a single penny of my hard earned income.

nannytone_2

dktreesea wrote: »

Are you suggesting that people should remain hostage, all their working lives, to poor decisions they made at some point in their past?

not at all, but there is no suprise element involved in a baby growing up and reaching the age of 18 .. it is inevitable.
the people that know their entitlement, and work out the optimum hours of employment to reach the maximum level of benefit .. then cry out that they didnt realise ALL their benefits would stop!
to place your financial security on the fact that you have children seems more than a little foolhardy considering they wont be children forever

FBaby

dktreesea wrote: »

Are you suggesting that people should remain hostage, all their working lives, to poor decisions they made at some point in their past?

People DO remain hostage of poor decisons for the rest of their lives in many aspects of their lives, why should this decision be any different, especially since many knew very well the consequences, just chose to seek immediate gratification rather than securing their future. Or are you saying that people should always seek immediate gratification and then be able to appreciate the same benefits than those who made sacrifices to get where they are?

BillJones

dktreesea wrote: »

But, at the same time, you can't imho, expect people to be hostage to the fact that, say, they mucked around at school, so now don't have much prospects of getting a job/escaping from their dead end job.

But I can, and I do. People need to understand that each decision that they make can have effects that can last for the rest of their lives. The other option, suggesting that it does not matter what you do as it one day the slate will be wiped clean, is corrosive to the person and to society.

The effect can diminish over time, and you can take other decisions which offset it, but you seem to imply that at some point the effect of decades of lack of effort should be forgotten. I don't agree with that.

BillJones

FBaby wrote: »

People DO remain hostage of poor decisons for the rest of their lives in many aspects of their lives, why should this decision be any different, especially since many knew very well the consequences, just chose to seek immediate gratification rather than securing their future. Or are you saying that people should always seek immediate gratification and then be able to appreciate the same benefits than those who made sacrifices to get where they are?

Very well said. There's a big difference between choosing to "punish" people for bad decisions (which no-one seems to be advocating), and just pointing out that a major decision can have life-long consequences.

The message that it does not matter if you just kick back, do nothing, and enjoy life, is genuinely a terrible one which sadly seems to be gaining acceptance nowadays. Yes, you have the choice to do it, but then don't you dare complain at being left behind by people who put in the groundwork to enjoy life later.

jetplane

OP are you planning to continue to home school your child and the other two? If so are you able to take over this role from your wife? Their education is paramount and if she is doing a better job than you could then in my opinion that is your priority.

Are you against using childcare? If your wife works 16 hours self employed then tax credits can help significantly towards childcare costs freeing up your wife to work. Meanwhile you continue to provide the financial stability your family needs until she is successful.

I'm unsure as to whether this post is genuine, if it is, then I have given a suggestion. However, I do wonder whether it has been written to demonstrate the fact that, while the unemployed and disabled no longer have the safety net of the welfare state, those who work can choose to work less hours and have the income of a full time worker.

Was it ever the intention that our welfare state would financially support a family who choose to give up a secure full time job to enable the wife to try her hand at self employment while they home school their children, which is surely a full time job in itself, with minimum loss of income?

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

People DO remain hostage of poor decisons for the rest of their lives in many aspects of their lives, why should this decision be any different, especially since many knew very well the consequences, just chose to seek immediate gratification rather than securing their future. Or are you saying that people should always seek immediate gratification and then be able to appreciate the same benefits than those who made sacrifices to get where they are?

"Should" doesn't come into it. We live in a place where people who seek immediate gratification may well be rewarded by "The State", out of other taxpayers' purses, maybe even to the point where they have a higher disposable income and better housing than the person who has got to where they are under their own steam.

With work, there's not enough full time work to go around, evidenced by the number of people working part time who would prefer to work full time. But the fact a household with children is only expected to work 24 hours a week to get access to the benefits system suggests to me a push by the government to keep people in part time work, whatever they claim publicly to the contrary, in order to keep the lid on the pressure from the working population to have access to full time jobs. They are prepared to make money available to stop the people agitating for their right to a decent earned income.

Indeed, there may well be people, for example, who look at their current or future employment prospects and conclude that their best option from a financial standpoint is to start a family now rather than delaying their decision until they can afford children under their own steam. The government want more British born people, a policy they are at least open about, and are prepared to make vast resources available to people who are prepared to fulfil this policy.

dktreesea

jetplane wrote: »

Was it ever the intention that our welfare state would financially support a family who choose to give up a secure full time job to enable the wife to try her hand at self employment while they home school their children, which is surely a full time job in itself, with minimum loss of income?

Did the OP say they intended to home school their children? I must have missed that part of the post.

I can, to some extent, understand the government's calculations when it comes to supporting households into lower incomes, especiallyw here a full time job is given up in the process.

Say there is an unemployed person on full benefits, including housing benefit, also with 3 children, who can take over the freed up FT job. It could be that the one giving this job up is not entitled to some of those benefits himself. Maybe he owns his home outright. Maybe, as the OP intends, there is still some earned income coming into the household, but from someone else's efforts.

So that decision by the OP, to give his FT job to another person and accept a lower household income could end up, when taking both households into account, to be of financial benefit to the taxpayer.

The job is not lost. It's available for a person without a job to do.

nannytone_2

dktreesea wrote: »

Did the OP say they intended to home school their children? I must have missed that part of the post.

I can, to some extent, understand the government's calculations when it comes to supporting households into lower incomes, especiallyw here a full time job is given up in the process.

Say there is an unemployed person on full benefits, including housing benefit, also with 3 children, who can take over the freed up FT job. It could be that the one giving this job up is not entitled to some of those benefits himself. Maybe he owns his home outright. Maybe, as the OP intends, there is still some earned income coming into the household, but from someone else's efforts.

So that decision by the OP, to give his FT job to another person and accept a lower household income could end up, when taking both households into account, to be of financial benefit to the taxpayer.

The job is not lost. It's available for a person without a job to do.

the OP says in their first post that they home school their eldest child and that the other 2 are pre school age.
it also states that the children have no disabilities.
so no obvious reason for the home schooling apart from choice. it would be rather odd to choose to homeschool 1 and then put the other 2 into mainstream education.
so yes, i think you did 'miss' something

dktreesea

nannytone wrote: »

not at all, but there is no suprise element involved in a baby growing up and reaching the age of 18 .. it is inevitable.
the people that know their entitlement, and work out the optimum hours of employment to reach the maximum level of benefit .. then cry out that they didnt realise ALL their benefits would stop!
to place your financial security on the fact that you have children seems more than a little foolhardy considering they wont be children forever

I don't think it's 18 that is as much of a problem. 18 year olds are entitled to benefits in their own right. It seems to be if they become NEETs at 16 or 17, when there is no help available to them directly but the parents lose any support they receive for them.

For sure, it is possible to eventually face negative outcomes (from an income point of view) if you choose to arrange your affairs in such a way that the State is the main provider of your income. It's certainly not a secure income stream for life.

The government is free to re-set the playing field any way they so choose. To me it is reasonable, and even rational, for people to consider their income related decisions with regard to all potential sources of income, not just work related. Do I agree with all of what's on offer? Hell, no! But if we going to criticise the benefits on moral grounds, our first point of call should be the government, not the people who take them up.