Wanting to leave work

dktreesea

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?

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.

Everyone is entitled to a happy and fulfilled life. That's a basic human right. If a person is fortunate enough to live in a group of countries like the UK, and feels they can better achieve this by working for a lower income and accepting a top up from the state, surely we will all be better off as a result? I'd rather my fellow Brits were happy and fulfilled in their work instead of being miserable.

We provide the unemployed with generous support to save them from the 9 to 5 grind. I saw something on Channel 5 about benefits in Great Yarmouth this week where a guy got a job in a bar and a few weeks later had chucked it in and gone back on the dole. So it's okay to support him but not someone in work, with no intention of becoming an out of work household, who just wants to change direction and work for a lower income, like the OP?

How is it, in your opinion, the OP should "suck it up and not rely on the taxpayer", while the unemployed can try out work for a while, decide it doesn't suit them and go straight back on the dole?

The least we can do is support those prepared to stay in work but wanting a better work outcome than they currently have. I'd much rather support workers on low incomes than non workers.

dktreesea

whodathunkit wrote: »

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.

It's not about low income or non working parents getting a financial incentive to have children. If the government thought the well off would do their part and all have the 6 to 8 children they presumably can afford to have, I doubt if they would be so generous in their support of the rest of the population.

However, since the rich won't breed to produce the quantities of young people the country needs going into the future, the only remaining choices are to increase the number of immigrants we bring in or provide a financial incentive to persuade native Brits to breed.

Personally I think open ended payments for children, to a max of £26k for the unemployed and with no max for working people, is a bit mad. But Britain has a rapidly aging population with no way of paying for them if they don't increase the future workforce. So I can understand the policy.

FBaby

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?

With that same logic, you could say that those who stay in their dreadful job whilst looking for something else to get them out of that horrible position should be entitled to claim more tax credits because the alternative would be for them to give up their job and get all those additional tax credits.

We can always compare ourselves with those who get more because of their different circumstances, but their situation is different, one doesn't have a job whilst the other does.

MacMickster

dktreesea wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to a happy and fulfilled life. That's a basic human right.

Oh dear! Happiness and fulfilment a basic human right? An entitlement? Not on your nelly. Sadly your attitude is a symptom of just what is wrong with this once proud (and now heavily indebted) country of ours.

FBaby

However, since the rich won't breed to produce the quantities of young people the country needs going into the future, the only remaining choices are to increase the number of immigrants we bring in or provide a financial incentive to persuade native Brits to breed.

This made me laugh! The rich don't breed because it costs them a lot to do so, compared to those who actually increase their income by doing so. No surprise the latter do tend to find breeding a much more attractive prospect.

Poppie68

Back to the OP who has started this debate...
How does a retail manager earning above the national min wage still qualify for some housing benefit?
Next question: Here we have someone earning a decent wage and claiming tax credits, child benefit and housing benefit who has produced 3 young children and has a wife that does'nt work...how on earth can this country reward him for chucking his job in and throw even more money at them?
People have a right to be happy with their life but this poster wants everyone else to pay for his happiness.
There is another option....don't resign until you have found a new job!
Or attempt to change your mindset with regards to your current job benefits are for people in need not in want!

dktreesea

Poppie68 wrote: »

Back to the OP who has started this debate...
How does a retail manager earning above the national min wage still qualify for some housing benefit?
Next question: Here we have someone earning a decent wage and claiming tax credits, child benefit and housing benefit who has produced 3 young children and has a wife that does'nt work...how on earth can this country reward him for chucking his job in and throw even more money at them?
People have a right to be happy with their life but this poster wants everyone else to pay for his happiness.
There is another option....don't resign until you have found a new job!
Or attempt to change your mindset with regards to your current job benefits are for people in need not in want!

Isn't this site about helping people to be aware of and take up their entitlement as opposed to lambasting them for even considering the possibility of doing so?

xylophone

So what difference does that make to this discussion ?

Please read the post (53) to which I made a reply which said,

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

In my reply, I pointed out

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/201...not-the-other/

I was replying to the specific points made (rather discourteously) by

nannytone.

I trust that this clarifies the matter?

dippy3103

dktreesea wrote: »

Isn't this site about helping people to be aware of and take up their entitlement as opposed to lambasting them for even considering the possibility of doing so?

Yes it is. Take away the argument about expecting the tax payer to support o/p and you are still left with the simple fact that it's foolish to walk away from his career (he would have worked his way up) with an income for an uncertain income from selling on a s/e basis... This site is about sound financial decisions and doing that ain't one of them.

lovetowinacar

How about you continue with your job and your wife starts with the business in the evenings when you are home to see how it goes?

The trouble with these selling/marketing schemes is they sound much better than they actually are and many people do not earn much from them. Often you have to sign more people up to earn money and the products are often expensive so difficult to sell.

Get your wife to try it for X hours per week in the evenings and see how it goes before you chuck a good job in that you may struggle to get again in the future.