Wanting to leave work

wildwestfan

dktreesea wrote: »

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 reqards 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.

My wife changed direction with no financial help from the state. In fact she took a 50% cut in income in order to study for 3 years. She could write the book on 1001 ways to make 500 grams of mince feed 6 people for 2 days.

State financial cossetting stifles ambition.

hardworking_mummy

dktreesea wrote: »

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.

But the money doled out by the state is not intended for the adult. It is, supposedly, to ensure children are not brought up in poverty. The state does not support people across the board to "live their dreams" so to speak. If you are single and childless and hate your job then you better get saving because the state is not going to help you change direction. You are getting £70 quid a week if you are looking for work and that's your lot.
The op is hardly breaking rocks for a living. He works in a supermarket. He can certainly change direction if he so chooses. His wife can start up her business - but he should stay in his job until she can support the family they chose to have. Why anyone would willingly welcome the state into their lives unless you absolutely have to is beyond me.
I would hate to sit in my home and look around me and think every thread of clothing, every morsel of food my family has, has not been provided by me or my husband - it has come from the toil of others. I think you are failing your family on a fundamental level if you have the capability to support them but decide it's just not for you.

dktreesea

wildwestfan wrote: »

My wife changed direction with no financial help from the state. In fact she took a 50% cut in income in order to study for 3 years. She could write the book on 1001 ways to make 500 grams of mince feed 6 people for 2 days.

State financial cossetting stifles ambition.

Why should the opportunity to change direction, hopefully thus achieving a happier life in the future, just be confined to those who can afford it without recourse to the state for financial aid? that sounds pretty elitist to me.

dktreesea

hardworking_mummy wrote: »

But the money doled out by the state is not intended for the adult. It is, supposedly, to ensure children are not brought up in poverty. The state does not support people across the board to "live their dreams" so to speak. If you are single and childless and hate your job then you better get saving because the state is not going to help you change direction. You are getting £70 quid a week if you are looking for work and that's your lot.
The op is hardly breaking rocks for a living. He works in a supermarket. He can certainly change direction if he so chooses. His wife can start up her business - but he should stay in his job until she can support the family they chose to have. Why anyone would willingly welcome the state into their lives unless you absolutely have to is beyond me.
I would hate to sit in my home and look around me and think every thread of clothing, every morsel of food my family has, has not been provided by me or my husband - it has come from the toil of others. I think you are failing your family on a fundamental level if you have the capability to support them but decide it's just not for you.

I'm not disagreeing with you, and those kinds of welfare states certainly exist, and are possibly even the norm, i.e. where you can't get financial support until you have paid into the system, where reducing your hours or leaving your job entitles you to no state aid for, in some cases, a year, even if you have paid into the system. Welfare systems where the self employed get no state aid at all, or even (New York) where you can't get welfare unless you work.

But that's not the system in the UK. Here, as long as you are prepared to work, as a family with children, for 24 hours a week, you qualify for state aid. And it's generous, especially if you rent and are prepared to have more children. It reflects the policies of the government, which want to encourage people to work part time and to increase the number of children they have, even if they couldn't afford them off their own bat.

And one outcome of this approach, and to me it's a very good one, is that people are not locked in to being slaves of the system. Societies were people have to take all the cr*p and poor wages dished out by their bosses day in day out because they have no choice are terrible places to live. I've lived in two such societies. They cause havoc at home.

We are all lucky to live in a place where we get the chance to change direction, to earn less than we need to survive for a while if that's the outcome of making a change. We should celebrate it, not lambast the few people with the courage to make the change.

FBaby

Why should the opportunity to change direction, hopefully thus achieving a happier life in the future, just be confined to those who can afford it without recourse to the state for financial aid? that sounds pretty elitist to me.

It should be confined to those who prepared to put the work into it and be patient. Not once have you provided an explanation why all what youv'e said couldn't take place whilst still keeping one's job. Getting to the point of suffering from mental health problems as a result of stress/unhappiness at work doesn't happen overnight. Plenty of time to start looking for another job before it gets so bad one can't stand it any longer.

However, most of the time, people put their head in the sand, can't be bothered to put the effort in to apply for other jobs, and then one day, decide they can't take any longer and expect the state to pick up the tab.

What you seem to appreciate is that there are thousands of people currently unhappy with their jobs. If all took the attitude that it is ok to just quite with nothing to fall back on because the state will look after them, it might not be long until there isn't any left in the pot to do so. In the meantime, some continue to take responsibility for their situations whilst others just take the easy route out.

whodathunkit

dktreesea wrote: »

Why should the opportunity to change direction, hopefully thus achieving a happier life in the future, just be confined to those who can afford it without recourse to the state for financial aid? that sounds pretty elitist to me.

And what about the single person with no children, should they be able to chuck their jobs in and live on benefits because they're cheesed off with their jobs as well? Why should it be those who have a family to support can do it, particularly as it's parents who actually have the greatest responsibility to work?

Having children already opens doors to the advantages of the benefit system for many, how many more children would you likre to see born, just so their parents can achieve their wish of living off the money earned by others?

Sometimes I despair, I really do.

MacMickster

dktreesea wrote: »

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.

Who told you that people are entitled to a happy and fulfilling life, and should be provided with open-ended taxpayer support in order to achieve it?

The taxpayer does provide each person in this country with a free education, giving them the chance to acquire knowledge and skills, which then give them an opportunity to achieve (through hard work, determination, the right decisions and undoubtedly some luck) the kind of life that they aspire to. Some will succeed while some will not.

The benefits system is meant to provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times - not as an option for those who find themselves unfulfilled in their life so choose not to support themselves and their families any more.

In many countries across the world, people wake up each morning not knowing how they will put food on the table to feed their families. The idea of walking away from an income source because it is unfulfilling drudgery wouldn't ever cross their minds.

The OP has the chance to apply for other jobs whilst still in employment. He can start his (or his wife's) own business working evenings and weekends while supported by his regular income until the business becomes viable to support his family. He can study part-time to gain the qualifications necessary to achieve his dream career. If he doesn't have the gumption to do any of this then that is not the fault of the taxpayer and, as another poster has already said, he should suck it up and not rely on the taxpayer (me) for financial support to save him from the 9 to 5 grind that is the reality for so many (and which is actually the aspiration for many who are currently out of work).

It is also interesting to read that one of his children is home schooled. Surely that is an option normally only open to those who are both well-educated and already financially secure. As a taxpayer I already pay to provide an education for his child in a class of 30. Surely I should not be expected to pay extra for his child to have one to one tuition.

NYM

The benefits system is meant to provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times - not as an option for those who find themselves unfulfilled in their life so choose not to support themselves and their families any more

In - a - nutshell ! :T

BillJones

MacMickster wrote: »

Who told you that people are entitled to a happy and fulfilling life, and should be provided with open-ended taxpayer support in order to achieve it?

It's becoming the mantra of this site "I don't have to contribute, plan, or work towards a brighter future. It is not my responsibility, ever, to worry about the future. Everyone else should do what it takes to make me happy".

Fortunately it's not a view held by society as a whole, who rightly believe that people need to bear the fruits of their actions.

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

It should be confined to those who prepared to put the work into it and be patient. Not once have you provided an explanation why all what youv'e said couldn't take place whilst still keeping one's job. Getting to the point of suffering from mental health problems as a result of stress/unhappiness at work doesn't happen overnight. Plenty of time to start looking for another job before it gets so bad one can't stand it any longer.

However, most of the time, people put their head in the sand, can't be bothered to put the effort in to apply for other jobs, and then one day, decide they can't take any longer and expect the state to pick up the tab.

What you seem to appreciate is that there are thousands of people currently unhappy with their jobs. If all took the attitude that it is ok to just quite with nothing to fall back on because the state will look after them, it might not be long until there isn't any left in the pot to do so. In the meantime, some continue to take responsibility for their situations whilst others just take the easy route out.

Yes, it is possible to build a business on the side whilst keeping one's PAYE job going. Of course it is. And probably even a desirable way to do it, if the alternative is accepting a top up from the state.

But why should we be okay about someone who is unemployed being able to start their business, with all their benefits paid for the next 6 months and keep their profits as well (i.e. under the New Enterprise Allowance scheme) but not be okay with someone who is already working going down a similar path?

Going back to the OP, at no time did I see them proposing their household move from a working to a non working household. They intended their household continue to work, but just work for a lower income than they presently enjoy and accept any top ups they would therefore be entitled to from the state.

If the unemployed are able to enjoy a financial advantage on their way to setting up a business, then surely, in the interests of fairness, we should be prepared to make a similar opportunity available to people already in work?