is my husband hiding money?

Guest101

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Perhaps he's confusing paid work, with time spent working overall (i.e. for the benefit of the family of which paid income is one component.) I could be wrong, but I suspect you might work longer hours than he does.

In our family, personal spending has always been equal, regardless of who earnt the money, who was earning more at the time etc. We haven't had our own money since we moved in together.

I am also fairly confident that he has more than £250/month for personal spending, on the basis that he said he doesn't know how much he earns. Why did he not go and get a pay slip when you sat down to discuss this?...

Op must know the rough salary for when they applied for tax credits.

BigAunty

Guest101 wrote: »

1: I wasn't suggesting it suitable for everyone. But perhaps in this case. I'm not going to debate the benefits cutting down as I can't really see how it should stay the same if income increases. .

Fortunately the Turn2us online benefit calculator will model different scenarios for the OP.

On the benefits forum, we see posts from people staggered to find that they are similarly or more greatly better off when their circumstances change (for example, following redundancy, reducing their hours or becoming a lone parent). They come to forum to say 'I can't believe what the benefits calculator says, it seems to high, can anyone double check this for me'.

The majority, however, are from people who are annoyed that they work 10, 20, 30 hours a week more, or the 2nd parent returns back to work or they receive a promotion and they get scarcely any return from this.

My sister, who managed a call centre, had a bugbear about lone parents because they would steadfastly refuse to work any extra overtime or take up full time employment as it 'wasn't worth it'. So if there was high sickleave, for example, customer support would be affected - their benefits came first, not service.

Guest101

BigAunty wrote: »

Fortunately the Turn2us online benefit calculator will model different scenarios for the OP.

On the benefits forum, we see posts from people staggered to find that they are similarly or more greatly better off when their circumstances change (for example, following redundancy, reducing their hours or becoming a lone parent). They come to forum to say 'I can't believe what the benefits calculator says, it seems to high, can anyone double check this for me'.

The majority, however, are from people who are annoyed that they work 10, 20, 30 hours a week more, or the 2nd parent returns back to work or they receive a promotion and they get scarcely any return from this.

My sister, who managed a call centre, had a bugbear about lone parents because they would steadfastly refuse to work any extra overtime or take up full time employment as it 'wasn't worth it'. So if there was high sickleave, for example, customer support would be affected - their benefits came first, not service.

But service rarely comes first if there's no personal benefit. Which is where the thinking of you get what you pay for. Minimum wage, minimum effort.

I have little sympathy to companies who offer part time contracts and then complain. They had a choice, they wanted to offer a minimal contract, then expect staff to work extra?

I agree it's frustrating that you get a pay rise but little return, having been there, and I see it as a investment in future earning potential. I can earn 13k or 19k and get the same overall. But when my young son grows older, that investment will provide a solid return.

People getting more from leaving employment is ridiculous though. Where's the incentive for younger generations?

Buzzybee90

He only way to be truly secure in this odd financial relationship is to get a full time job!

Buzzybee90

Guest101 wrote: »

But service rarely comes first if there's no personal benefit. Which is where the thinking of you get what you pay for. Minimum wage, minimum effort.

I have little sympathy to companies who offer part time contracts and then complain. They had a choice, they wanted to offer a minimal contract, then expect staff to work extra?

I agree it's frustrating that you get a pay rise but little return, having been there, and I see it as a investment in future earning potential. I can earn 13k or 19k and get the same overall. But when my young son grows older, that investment will provide a solid return.

People getting more from leaving employment is ridiculous though. Where's the incentive for younger generations?[/QUOTE]

Pride?

Guest101

Lol, pride is not a motivator for a large portion of the young british population...

BigAunty

Guest101 wrote: »

But service rarely comes first if there's no personal benefit. Which is where the thinking of you get what you pay for. Minimum wage, minimum effort.

I have little sympathy to companies who offer part time contracts and then complain. They had a choice, they wanted to offer a minimal contract, then expect staff to work extra?

At the risk of continuing to make this thread off topic, it wasn't a NMW job and reciprocity makes for a better employment environment when, for example, staff realise that volunteering extra shifts to cover sick leave means that appreciate others will do the same when they are unwell.

Sure, organisations that offer zero hour NMW contracts, since they pay peanuts should expect their staff not to give a monkey - it's a two way street.

However, organisations that have staff present who are only reluctantly there and there only the minimum number of hours they have to do to maximise their benefits, means that the customer gets it in the neck because the same attitude that feels employment is something that other people should do, begats the same attitude that customers (and employers) are also a nuisance.

Organisations whose staff offer poor customer service can go down the toilet when their reputation suffers - not good for the local area when businesses fold.

Having a society where hundreds of thousands of employees work part time, paying no tax and each securing thousands of pounds in benefits each year for up to the majority of their working life, puts a strain on the economy.

A few years ago when Labour left office, more was being paid out in benefits than the state purse was receiving in PAYE from employees. Sure there are other forms of state income - VAT, corporation tax, etc. But crossing that line is v. bad - it is a fairly basic requirement for a country for its employees tax to cover its welfare bill.

Some countries in the EU do not have the working tax benefit system (and not much approaching child tax credits either, some don't have any kind of housing benefit whatsoever). They would find it bizarre that if a person works part time or runs their own business with low or no profit, that the taxpayers pick up the tab and bring them up to the level (or greater) than those in full time employment.

Anyway, I won't be straying off topic again.

I hope the OP finds a way to save her marriage and resolve her financial quandry. It's a shame that she will probably be much better off financially as a lone parent than under her current situation but there you go, thems the rules.

Buzzybee90

Guest101 wrote: »

Lol, pride is not a motivator for a large portion of the young british population...

Or a lot of the older generation.

fierystormcloud

Guest101 wrote: »

Lol, pride is not a motivator for a large portion of the young british population...

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

Or a lot of the older generation.

:T Well said Buzzybee.

I am sick to the back teeth of people vilifying the young.

pickledonionspaceraider

Guest101 wrote: »

Op must know the rough salary for when they applied for tax credits.

She does, on the other thread she says:-

'I cant find last year's tax renewal letters but I did find an old wage of his. It says his net wage is £1300 (is net before or after tax?)
Out of his wage he pays the following:
Gas
Electricity
Council tax
Weekly food
Sky tv/broadband/phone
Loans
Credit cards
Car-petrol et''

This does sound like an old wage slip and he may have had a raise who knows, but £1300 take home is not a great wage for a sole provider

Just to add a complete outsiders view OP
this is what the bills you state, cost my household PER MONTH - this may not be a great comparision as there are several people less living here than at your house
Gas £70
Electricity £45
Council tax £90
Weekly food £360 the month - must me far more for you as you are six pple
Sky tv/broadband/phone - £60
Loans - impossible to say
Credit cards impossible to say
Car-petrol etc £60
Just the items in green add up to nearly £700 already, then you need to factor in your loans, credit cards, and other things you neglected to add such as water rates, tv licence, home insurance, car tax, car mot/maintenance, any mobile phones, any pets?

Your outgoings are going to be more than the above in green,due to the amount of people involved, especially your gas, elec and food

I think you do not understand how much things cost, if you seriously think your husband is hiding money from you if he is earning just over a grand a month

IMO as well, you are only working 12 hours a week, that's four hours per night 3 nights a week - he's working to support you and your family for 28 hours per week more than you are - so in the spirit of true partnership, is it really such a big deal that you do the housework? Fairplay he should chip in at weekends, but during the week I mean.

I feel lost as to what you actually want from the bloke. If you plan to stay together it is clear you need to stop criticizing him or emotional blackmailing him 'I want more money or you loose your family....' Be careful what you wish for, as being a real single parent is no laughing matter