Anyone else just completely skint?

[dizzyblonde]

oooooo I must be poverty stricken, my boys are 10yrs and 17 months, they share a room

Originally Posted by G

and what really is mental is that the goverment wants to cap benefits to £500 per week per household... that's £26k a year tax free some families are getting. Yet some MPs have put on a stop on it because 60000 families would be put into 'poverty'.

It's a feckin joke. If I worked fulltime in a job using a degree I worked hard to get I would not get 26k. Or even close

Originally Posted by Tim in Belgium

Poverty is classed by the government as kids having to share a room. That is not my idea of poverty.

Nor mine. Far from it.

Nail. On. Head. http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201201244803/

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by missyorkie_chris

It's a feckin joke. If I worked fulltime in a job using a degree I worked hard to get I would not get 26k. Or even close

Its FAMILY income, so you only need to be earning half of that yourself

The big issue is Accomodation costs really, brought about by the "you can have a family AND both parents working" rhetoric of the 80's.

Dual Income = more money that can be spent = prices go up = bigger divide between the haves and the have nots.

Its also why, IMO, we have so many issues with "feral" kids.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by missyorkie_chris

It's a feckin joke. If I worked fulltime in a job using a degree I worked hard to get I would not get 26k. Or even close

Just to make you feel even better, it's £26k without tax. You'd need to earn £36k gross to match that.

Nice work if you can get it.

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Its FAMILY income, so you only need to be earning half of that yourself

The big issue is Accomodation costs really, brought about by the "you can have a family AND both parents working" rhetoric of the 80's.

Dual Income = more money that can be spent = prices go up = bigger divide between the haves and the have nots.

Its also why, IMO, we have so many issues with "feral" kids.

You might be lucky to have a family AND both work to live the dream, but sadly its harder in reality, these days.

I gave up my job at Willy Wonkas with an income of 16.5k, as the hours couldn't be worked around the kids, its not a particularly family orientated firm. Our joint income had I have stayed, would have been somewhere around 42k, my kids childhood would suffer as a consequence. Dylans already has in some respects.

If I was to work now, I could only truely do it part time, around school hours.
In order for me to work I would have to put Oli in full time nursery, with a cost of averagely 600 quid a month(double my mortgage)!
If you do the sums, putting Oli in nursery at that cost, would not be beneficial to our family income, we'd be worse off, so staying at home is the only option for now. Oli is far better off being with me at home than at nursery for now anyway.

As for the feral kids, I am slightly biased towards the 'mum should stay at home'. If both parents are always working, sure the role model is there for working hard, but as for family values, and things that can only be taught as a family, these ultimately suffer, and can leave long term negative effects on kids.

Originally Posted by Tim in Belgium

Poverty is classed by the government as kids having to share a room. That is not my idea of poverty.

Same here.
But it also amazes me what people consider "essentials". Sky TV, broadband, getting lashed in the pub, fags etc.
A friend of mine went to Uni and got a full grant (this was some years ago) because his mum didn't work (his dad was dead, still is in fact), supporting her severely disabled daughter. My friend sent back half of his grant to his mum and sister and for 4 years drank blackcurrent and water in the pub because it was the cheapest thing sold (and when someone offered to buy him a drink, he ordered the same because that was his normal drink, not what he really wanted to drink).

Some people are skint despite all they do and for those I have complete sympathy (comments above certainly fall into that category); others are skint because they have no idea. I can't imagine the latter changing until these harsh times have hit hard for long enough for people to consider it the norm - reset the bar.
I'm just waiting for it to really hit me hard.

thing is it ****es me off when you get folks living on handouts (i class that as not working and recieving benefits) that complain for a start. If things are that bad that you dont like that your getting paid to sit on your ass then get a job! Only issue with that is i know somone who left a 30k a year job because it was cheaper than childcare.

Still its the country we live in and tbh when i have kids i will understand that i may have to give up the luxuries in life to have them. imo thats part of having kids and if you dont think it is you should be neutered now to prevent you from breeding further. I also understand that my pension can go up as well as down along with the interest rates and housing market. Yes im living with a massive amount of debt and i will not be as "well off" as the generation before me but in many respects i already am.

I wouldnt write it off as never being able to afford a house it will come again imo. House prices will rise past their already over inflated values (relitive to what?) and banks will lend again. Its just about being in the right place at the right time.

Originally Posted by AndyBrad

Only issue with that is i know somone who left a 30k a year job because it was cheaper than childcare.

A colleague of mine was saying that if his wife continued to work, they'd be worse off to the tune of a tenner a month so she stays at home.
That seems a very short-sighted view to me. If you want to be there for your kids, help them with their homework etc then great, it's the right decision. However, if someone gives up work, they'll be stepping off the career ladder and never be able to work up to a better paid job, so a bit of hardship now could reap rewards but it's not how a certain %age of society thinks unfortunately.

Iain Duncan smith went up in my estimation yesterday when talking of the cap, yes he said larger families will be worse off but if you want a lot of kids and large family you will have to get out and get a job to pay for it

It's really irresponsible to have large families now IMO, the world can't sustain population explosions for much longer.

Bout time we broke this cycle of certain people taking the p1ss, I blame labour for most of it, they gave the money to them in the first place, I've heard quite a few working parents bragging about how much their earnings were being topped up, it was money labour didn't have but they still spent it.

Btw, I agree with Tim, poverty my ar5e, after my dad died in 1978 my mom never had a pot to pi55 in with 3 kids at home, she had 3 jobs at times.

Being a widower and with a £78 pension off my dad she wasn't entitled to hardly anything at the time.

Modern day government would've put us lower than the poverty line which exists now that's for sure, does make me a bit annoyed tbh, I wish families moaning now could experience how things were 30,40, 50 years ago, they would appreciate what they have now that's for sure.

[dizzyblonde]

Its dependant on circumstance Andy. You can't get angry at someone leaving a job for their child......money isn't everything

I gave up work because I feel it is morally wrong to leave a child in a nursery all day, from birth, as does Peg. Logistically, it wasn't practical for me to work, because of Pegs working hours.
It costs more to put a baby in a nursery than it does for a toddler for a start, and why should your child be neglected of the attention a parent should be giving it?.
Nurseries cannot give a child one on one attention like that of a parent, or indeed another guardian, be it grandparent, aunt, Uncle etc.

You have responsiblilty for a child, why should people be handing that responsiblity to someone else, just because another says morally they should 'get off their ar$e and go to work'...especially when they don't have children of their own? I'm quite old fashioned in some respects, but also experience from my own childhood, gives me a certain slant on life.

When I worked nights, Dylan saw me for a couple of hours in an evening mid week(Monday to Thursday), and not at all during the weekend, bearing in mind he didn't see his dad at all.
For a child from the age of 3 to 8 to be put through that ripped my heart out. I was not going to put a second child through the same. Ok, so more money is on the table, but not at the cost of a childhood.