Wanting to leave work

xylophone

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

The OP did not say that there was a plan to home school all the children.

And a parent might well consider that while home schooling would suit one child, it might not suit another.

http://ninetydeuce.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/why-i-homeschool-one-child-but-not-the-other/

FBaby

"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.

As 'should' doesn't come into it when you reach the stage that you can't claim all those benefits that are available on the basis of having children and you see those who decided to stick to that full-time job much better off as a result when they children leave the nest.

Whichever what you put it, you can't have your cake and eat it as some believe they should be entitled to.

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

As 'should' doesn't come into it when you reach the stage that you can't claim all those benefits that are available on the basis of having children and you see those who decided to stick to that full-time job much better off as a result when they children leave the nest.

Whichever what you put it, you can't have your cake and eat it as some believe they should be entitled to.

We are all surrounded by people who are better off than us, for whatever reason. And for sure, there are consequences to deciding to milk the benefit system by having a lot of children and taking time out at the taxpayer's expense to care for them instead of working at something and being self sufficient, without recourse to public funds. You could end up on jsa, with no prospects of getting a job because you have no skills, but with a DWP jobsworth sanctioning you because they don't think you are trying hard enough to get a job.

I wouldn't advise people to choose benefits as part of their income if they are in a position to stay independent and avoid it. But at the same time, staying in a job you hate, just so you can be materially better off compared to others down the track, when there is an alternative source of income can also have consequences. Mental health ones. I wouldn't like my children to have grown up in a household where working for someone else depressed one or both of their parents, and thank goodness they didn't have to.

I don't see anything wrong with someone like the OP stepping back, asking if staying in an unsuitable job is the right way to spend his/her life and using the funds available from the state, if necessary, to make the switch.

FBaby

staying in a job you hate, just so you can be materially better off compared to others down the track, when there is an alternative source of income can also have consequences. Mental health ones.

Well that could be me. I have been very unhappy at work for 5 years now and feel totally stuck. I have spent all this time looking at alternatives, I'm still doing so, am on my 4th plan to get out of it, which involves a high level plan as the chances of being able to take that new path is 1 in 10. It is those plans to make a difference in my life that has kept me away from potential depression.

It seems that for a lots of posters unhappy at work, the only alternative is to pack up their job and turn to benefits as an alternative, rather than looking at what they can do to change their situation whilst still in employment. It's the easy way out that transfers the responsibility of duty to others. Again, that's the easy option, but one that will potentially come with the consequences already mentioned.

duchy

xylophone wrote: »

The OP did not say that there was a plan to home school all the children.

And a parent might well consider that while home schooling would suit one child, it might not suit another.

http://ninetydeuce.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/why-i-homeschool-one-child-but-not-the-other/

Doesn't really matter if the intention is to homeschool one or three making the choice to do so means one parent needs to stay home . Lots of stay at home parents think it is possible to work from home and work to hours and standards that will bring in a decent income. Most discover that results are directly related to effort and time spent on the job so either fail or end up needing child care.

xylophone

Doesn't really matter if the intention is to homeschool one or three making the choice to do so means one parent needs to stay home . Lots of stay at home parents think it is possible to work from home and work to hours and standards that will bring in a decent income. Most discover that results are directly related to effort and time spent on the job so either fail or end up needing child care.

This is irrelevant to the points that I was making which were simply that the OP did not say that all children were to be home schooled and that a parent might make one choice for one child and a different choice for another - I was not commenting on the feasibility/correctness of either.

duchy

xylophone wrote: »

This is irrelevant to the points that I was making which were simply that the OP did not say that all children were to be home schooled and that a parent might make one choice for one child and a different choice for another - I was not commenting on the feasibility/correctness of either.

So what difference does that make to this discussion ?

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

Well that could be me. I have been very unhappy at work for 5 years now and feel totally stuck. I have spent all this time looking at alternatives, I'm still doing so, am on my 4th plan to get out of it, which involves a high level plan as the chances of being able to take that new path is 1 in 10. It is those plans to make a difference in my life that has kept me away from potential depression.

It seems that for a lots of posters unhappy at work, the only alternative is to pack up their job and turn to benefits as an alternative, rather than looking at what they can do to change their situation whilst still in employment. It's the easy way out that transfers the responsibility of duty to others. Again, that's the easy option, but one that will potentially come with the consequences already mentioned.

It isn't necessary to stay working for other people, even if you change your job, to make a living. Even for people going into self employment, sooner or later they either start to make a reasonable living or get sick of the "so much effort for so little reward" lifestyle and go back to working for other people.

I don't see why the implication is that accepting a lower income, particularly if there is self employment involved, means a long time thereafter on benefits. Nor why people should be excluded from using this funding to help finance a change in direction.

People who are unhappy at work but unwilling to make a change are usually people not wanting to risk their income or the material wealth they have built up to date. I would rather risk my income than my mental health, any day of the week, even if it means being as poor as a church mouse and having to live off public funds for a few years.

wildwestfan

dktreesea wrote: »

I would rather risk my income than my mental health, any day of the week, even if it means being as poor as a church mouse and having to live off public funds for a few years.

We had 4 children and were as poor as church mice. Took both of us working and then my wife doing a difficult 3 year training course....whilst still juggling with a home, mortgage and of course the 4 children didn't vanish!

We were however looking to the future, not entirely living in the here and now and looking for someone else to support us.

Now we are retired we take half a dozen holidays a year, cruises and land based and have a great standard of living, needing no means tested benefits. How can you pay and plan for when the children have gone if all your income is based on what you get for them?

It would have been a huge mistake to rely on the state to keep us, it would have condemned us to no choice in retirement plus we wouldn't have the knowledge of how well we have done starting from absolutely nothing except a few bits of second hand furniture when we got married.

dktreesea

wildwestfan wrote: »

We had 4 children and were as poor as church mice. Took both of us working and then my wife doing a difficult 3 year training course....whilst still juggling with a home, mortgage and of course the 4 children didn't vanish!

We were however looking to the future, not entirely living in the here and now and looking for someone else to support us.

Now we are retired we take half a dozen holidays a year, cruises and land based and have a great standard of living, needing no means tested benefits. How can you pay and plan for when the children have gone if all your income is based on what you get for them?

It would have been a huge mistake to rely on the state to keep us, it would have condemned us to no choice in retirement plus we wouldn't have the knowledge of how well we have done starting from absolutely nothing except a few bits of second hand furniture when we got married.

Maybe the vast majority of people are quite happy working for other people. Or are prepared to knuckle down and make enough money from their own business to not need any help from the state.

Yes, you were happy with your decision back then presumably and are reaping the rewards of those decision now. But not everyone is capable of enduring 30 years of misery, in a job they hate, in order to achieve what you have achieved. And crucially, the state is prepared to support them if they do want to change their direction. Sure, under a few limited circumstances, e.g. moving from employment into self employment, reducing the total hours worked in the household, reducing the income earned in the household, having more children, funding childcare for children.

If your current line of work is making you miserable, and you are in a position financially, yes, including with the help of the state, to change direction, imho you should do so. Life is way too short to spend most of your waking hours doing a job you hate just for the sake of material comforts.