Nice People 12: Nice in Nice

PasturesNew

Doozergirl wrote: »

As someone who struggles to pay private school fees, I guess struggling is what ever you feel struggling is. . I don't need Caribbean Holidays or Hermes handbags and eating baked beans on certain days is a little closer to home than I'd like it to be.

Well, both were extreme ends

But there was some woman in the DM last week bleating how she's struggling on "just" £100k/year The comments section told her what's what

Generali

michaels wrote: »

We currently live on an income it seems most would struggle with in order to qualify for child benefit with and pay rises, bonuses etc all going into pension which makes fiscal sense but means our income is gradually squeezed by inflation, the answer has got to be for DW to find a school hours only job....

One of the very civilised things about Australia is that there are lots of school-hours only admin jobs. If you look hard enough there's work to be had in the Professions doing school hours only.

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

I think there is struggling to meet obligations of choice, and......not having choice. The latter is the real struggling IMO. However tough we find it to make things make sense financially at times we try to remember we are lucky to be making the choices we've made. Hard at times, but true.

I do agree with pastures though, that in many cases benefits are making un up equitable society that working people on top of trying to provide the same provision of housing/ etc ( though think they are making different choices) they are losing something infinitely harder to value: time. The system of so much eligibility for something little back, IMO, is convoluted, but keeps many not complaining too much for fear of losing their bit too, which is understandable.

There's also plenty of people that struggle because they made choices which seemed reasonable at the time but then they had their circumstances change.

lemonjelly

silvercar wrote: »

Was going to post something then decided the other side would be safer. If you have a moment I'd be interested in opinions.

Have posted a reply sc. Hope it helps.

michaels

LydiaJ wrote: »

I don't understand that. In order to qualify for CB you only need to be below £50k. That's way more than median income, so it can't be an income that "most would struggle with" because it's an income that's more than most get.

I understand that I only have 3 people to support rather than 5, but I've never been anywhere close to £50k and I consider myself quite well off. I wouldn't have described myself as "struggling" even before getting the capital from the accident.

I think lots of people would struggle to live on 75% of their income whatever that income was, it is more psychological than physical. However we 'do without' things like Sky, new cars, a second car, iphones, bling, huge wardrobes of designer stuff etc that means by St Albans standards we are pretty hard up.

On the plus side I wouldn't want any of those anyway. More/better holidays would be nice but are far from essential. It would be nice to have more money to spend on activities/opportunites for the kids. DWs solution is for me to get a 60 hour per week city/consultancy job and double my slary, not surprisingly that doesn't get my vote. I would rather get a 40k 9-5 job locally and have some free time to enjoy life. Have the day off today (DS class assembly this morning then DDs recorder concert this afternoon) and walking home from school it is amazing how many people work locally, when you commute every day it is easy to imagine most people just work 8/9/10 hours a day in an office with a commute at either end but then walking around in the day time you see that this is not the case at all.

Generali

PasturesNew wrote: »

But there was some woman in the DM last week bleating how she's struggling on "just" £100k/year The comments section told her what's what

I refer you to the thread about the $1.1mio terraced house.

Doozergirl

I think this is in danger of veering off NP territory. PN, I feel it's important that you address your income issues and I feel that NP like lemonjelly can be really helpful for you here but I am uncomfortable with any suggestion of a Daily Mail article being factual.

PasturesNew

Doozergirl wrote: »

I am uncomfortable with any suggestion of a Daily Mail article being factual.

.... it's a bible!

michaels

silvercar wrote: »

Out of curiosity, does rental income effect your child benefit entitlement? Or for that matter CTC/ WTC?

WE can set ownership of the asset so that basically the rent is earned by DW to keep me under the child benefit threshold, does mean half her tax free allowance is used up though if she was going to work part time. IT counts as normal income for WTC/CTC purposes which is assessed on household income. When universal credit was announced it was suggested that all benefits (except prhaps some disability ones) would then become means tested, not sure if this is the case?

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

I think there is struggling to meet obligations of choice, and......not having choice. The latter is the real struggling IMO. However tough we find it to make things make sense financially at times we try to remember we are lucky to be making the choices we've made. Hard at times, but true.

Very much agree with this. Some of the stuff I have, I'm lucky to have/own possess. There is a lot of deferred gratification too. & occasionally things might be a bit tight, but I'm definitely not struggling, despite not being a big cheese.

Generali wrote: »

There's also plenty of people that struggle because they made choices which seemed reasonable at the time but then they had their circumstances change.

Years ago, when I started work, I'd have agreed with you. Massive debts & financial difficulties tended to be as a result of death, divorce, disability, dismissal/redundancy & 1 other also starting with d that I cannot recall.
That was 15 years ago. When I first started doing debt work there generally were (in the case of 75% plus of cases) a genuine reason for it.
As time progressed, I think less so. Peoples poor personal budgeting, ridiculous ease of access to large credit, lack of consideration for the consequences, & also downright greed took over.
I'm now in a situation where people are coming to me for help, saying they're struggling, yet park on the same car park as I in a much better car than mine, a newer car, with 2 or 3 of the latest phones, more expensive clothes and so on, & they sit telling me how they're struggling!

lostinrates wrote: »

I do agree with pastures though, that in many cases benefits are making un up equitable society that working people on top of trying to provide the same provision of housing/ etc ( though think they are making different choices) they are losing something infinitely harder to value: time. The system of so much eligibility for something little back, IMO, is convoluted, but keeps many not complaining too much for fear of losing their bit too, which is understandable.

Agree with a great deal of this.
Whilst not necessarily the case, the perception seems to be that a lot of the welfare state is taken up by very few people (mainly people with kids, lone parents, those not working).
The system needs a drastic overhaul.

In reality, half the welfare budget goes on pensioners/the over 60's (cynic alert - their benefits have been protected for years, because they vote).
Jobseekers Allowance covers around 3% of the welfare budget. Tax Credits covers 35% of the budget.

The actions of the government in recent years, & their comments on benefits & benefit claimants has been disgusting, & imo hasn't been a debate, it has been more about demonising benefit claimants.