Benefits payments

norvernrob

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

If we could ignore the morality and nutrition aspects it would be great if the OP could pop back and explain how the fvck he can get child care for £200 a month. Assuming he has a full time job and childcare provider is on site then that works out at about £1.25 an hour.

Well done. You managed to read the first post.
Now try reading the second post.

Then he should chuck his job in and become a child minder.

I have never quite understood the concept of going out to work earning (as an example) £300/week in hand only to pay £200/week for childcare.
And that is based on a roughly average salary. For the low paid...

And that is exactly why there are so many families with only one parent working full time, or the second working only part time. And it’s also why many single parents have zero chance of working.

My mum was telling me the other day that when I was born (41 years ago), they paid £5 per week for full time care for me. Their combined wages at the time were £50 per week, so 10% of their earnings went on childcare. Neither were high earners either.

It costs my wife and I £44 per day, so £220 per week full time. We don’t have to pay full time as my mum helps out (not for much longer probably as she’s ill, but that’s another story), but for those that do it’s £900 per month before you even think about paying your mortgage and all the bills. Further south it’s more, a friend manages a nursery in London and full time there costs £1300 per month.

Then if you have more than one child.... :oops:

pblakeney

NorvernRob wrote:

And that is exactly why there are so many families with only one parent working full time, or the second working only part time. And it’s also why many single parents have zero chance of working.

FWIW, I am old fashioned enough to believe that one parent should stay at home to raise their children. The money does not compensate for the benefits IMO. I am also modern enough to say that either parent can fulfil the role.
I agree that single parents have no chance of working, but is where child maintenance should come in.

surrey_commuter

NorvernRob wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

If we could ignore the morality and nutrition aspects it would be great if the OP could pop back and explain how the fvck he can get child care for £200 a month. Assuming he has a full time job and childcare provider is on site then that works out at about £1.25 an hour.

Well done. You managed to read the first post.
Now try reading the second post.

Then he should chuck his job in and become a child minder.

I have never quite understood the concept of going out to work earning (as an example) £300/week in hand only to pay £200/week for childcare.
And that is based on a roughly average salary. For the low paid...

And that is exactly why there are so many families with only one parent working full time, or the second working only part time. And it’s also why many single parents have zero chance of working.

My mum was telling me the other day that when I was born (41 years ago), they paid £5 per week for full time care for me. Their combined wages at the time were £50 per week, so 10% of their earnings went on childcare. Neither were high earners either.

It costs my wife and I £44 per day, so £220 per week full time. We don’t have to pay full time as my mum helps out (not for much longer probably as she’s ill, but that’s another story), but for those that do it’s £900 per month before you even think about paying your mortgage and all the bills. Further south it’s more, a friend manages a nursery in London and full time there costs £1300 per month.

Then if you have more than one child.... :oops:

On the other side of the coin somebody is only charging £5 an hour to provide childcare. They would be better off moonlighting as a cleaner.

cooldad

That's assuming they don't look after more than one kid at a time. And prefer sticking their hands down other peoples' toilets....

morstar

PBlakeney wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

And that is exactly why there are so many families with only one parent working full time, or the second working only part time. And it’s also why many single parents have zero chance of working.

FWIW, I am old fashioned enough to believe that one parent should stay at home to raise their children. The money does not compensate for the benefits IMO. I am also modern enough to say that either parent can fulfil the role.
I agree that single parents have no chance of working, but is where child maintenance should come in.

Unfortunately both left and right governments in recent years have taken the approach of get everybody working and pay for childcare.

bikes`n`guns

We want kids, but need to plan what benefits we can get first.

Jesus H Christ.

Buy a very small dog instead ffs.

morstar

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

We want kids, but need to plan what benefits we can get first.

Jesus H Christ.

Buy a very small dog instead ffs.

Why is somebody with limited finances working out what is available to them, perfectly legally, a bad thing?

Claiming benefits is no different than somebody who is comfortably off using accountants to reduce tax liabilities within the law.

Repeating myself now, taxes, salaries, benefits and cost of living (missed that one earlier) are all related to each other. None of them exist in a bubble.

RallyBiker

Matthewfalle wrote:

From the looks of things you can’t afford kids and intend to scrounge off the rest of us to pay for them.

I suggest you put a hold on this folly until one of the two points is negated.

This. If you can't afford it, don't do it. Go on a proper holiday once a year instead by saving up your £150 a month.

RallyBiker

morstar wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

And that is exactly why there are so many families with only one parent working full time, or the second working only part time. And it’s also why many single parents have zero chance of working.

FWIW, I am old fashioned enough to believe that one parent should stay at home to raise their children. The money does not compensate for the benefits IMO. I am also modern enough to say that either parent can fulfil the role.
I agree that single parents have no chance of working, but is where child maintenance should come in.

Unfortunately both left and right governments in recent years have taken the approach of get everybody working and pay for childcare.

I think you mean Fortunately.

rjsterry

morstar wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

We want kids, but need to plan what benefits we can get first.

Jesus H Christ.

Buy a very small dog instead ffs.

Why is somebody with limited finances working out what is available to them, perfectly legally, a bad thing?

Claiming benefits is no different than somebody who is comfortably off using accountants to reduce tax liabilities within the law.

Repeating myself now, taxes, salaries, benefits and cost of living (missed that one earlier) are all related to each other. None of them exist in a bubble.

I seem to remember one of those who thinks claiming benefits is scrounging was very vocal on the Panama thread about the benefits of tax planning. I'm sure he sent back his child benefit.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

morstar wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

We want kids, but need to plan what benefits we can get first.

Jesus H Christ.

Buy a very small dog instead ffs.

Why is somebody with limited finances working out what is available to them, perfectly legally, a bad thing?

Claiming benefits is no different than somebody who is comfortably off using accountants to reduce tax liabilities within the law.

Repeating myself now, taxes, salaries, benefits and cost of living (missed that one earlier) are all related to each other. None of them exist in a bubble.

I seem to remember one of those who thinks claiming benefits is scrounging was very vocal on the Panama thread about the benefits of tax planning. I'm sure he sent back his child benefit.

I did.

You don't know the rules do you...
https://revenuebenefits.org.uk/child-benefit/guidance/how-do-child-benefit-and-guardians-allowance-work/high-income-child-benefit-charge/

You can move off the moral high ground now

norvernrob

PBlakeney wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

And that is exactly why there are so many families with only one parent working full time, or the second working only part time. And it’s also why many single parents have zero chance of working.

FWIW, I am old fashioned enough to believe that one parent should stay at home to raise their children. The money does not compensate for the benefits IMO. I am also modern enough to say that either parent can fulfil the role.
I agree that single parents have no chance of working, but is where child maintenance should come in.

Child maintenance is a couple of hundred quid a month for one child (assuming the other parent earns a normal wage and not a fortune). It’s nowhere near enough to pay full time childcare.

My wife is head of foundation stage in a school, and the hardest kids to settle are those that have constantly been with their parents for the first 4 or 5 years of their lives. They have far more issues than the ones who are already used to a learning environment with other children.

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

And that is exactly why there are so many families with only one parent working full time, or the second working only part time. And it’s also why many single parents have zero chance of working.

FWIW, I am old fashioned enough to believe that one parent should stay at home to raise their children. The money does not compensate for the benefits IMO. I am also modern enough to say that either parent can fulfil the role.
I agree that single parents have no chance of working, but is where child maintenance should come in.

+1

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

We want kids, but need to plan what benefits we can get first.

Jesus H Christ.

Buy a very small dog instead ffs.

Why is somebody with limited finances working out what is available to them, perfectly legally, a bad thing?

Claiming benefits is no different than somebody who is comfortably off using accountants to reduce tax liabilities within the law.

Repeating myself now, taxes, salaries, benefits and cost of living (missed that one earlier) are all related to each other. None of them exist in a bubble.

Nothing wrong at all in working out what you can afford.
The OP want to start a family but have just splashed out on a 17 plate car, resulting in unforeseen running costs of £140 per annum that he felt so miffed about that he ranted on a thread about it. He has credit card bills costing £230 per month, over what time frame he doesn't say, but would seem to be quite a while. It now seems that whether he is entitled to £20 a week is the deal breaker on whether he can afford a family.
It would suggest that a bit of belt tightening and change of priorities would be necessary if as it appears finances are that tight if he still wishes to start a family.

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

Unfortunately both left and right governments in recent years have taken the approach of get everybody working and pay for childcare paying taxes.

FTFY

morstar

RallyBiker wrote:

morstar wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

And that is exactly why there are so many families with only one parent working full time, or the second working only part time. And it’s also why many single parents have zero chance of working.

FWIW, I am old fashioned enough to believe that one parent should stay at home to raise their children. The money does not compensate for the benefits IMO. I am also modern enough to say that either parent can fulfil the role.
I agree that single parents have no chance of working, but is where child maintenance should come in.

Unfortunately both left and right governments in recent years have taken the approach of get everybody working and pay for childcare.

I think you mean Fortunately.

No, specifically in the context of the comment I was replying to. Staying at home and raising a child well is not of lesser value than working to pay somebody else to look after it.

morstar

PBlakeney wrote:

morstar wrote:

Unfortunately both left and right governments in recent years have taken the approach of get everybody working and pay for childcare paying taxes.

FTFY

Again, it was the context. I don't have an issue with encouraging productivity. Just not a myopic view that productivity can only be measured by revenue and taxes.

robert88

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

We want kids, but need to plan what benefits we can get first.

Jesus H Christ.

Buy a very small dog instead ffs.

Why is somebody with limited finances working out what is available to them, perfectly legally, a bad thing?

Claiming benefits is no different than somebody who is comfortably off using accountants to reduce tax liabilities within the law.

Repeating myself now, taxes, salaries, benefits and cost of living (missed that one earlier) are all related to each other. None of them exist in a bubble.

Nothing wrong at all in working out what you can afford.
The OP want to start a family but have just splashed out on a 17 plate car, resulting in unforeseen running costs of £140 per annum that he felt so miffed about that he ranted on a thread about it. He has credit card bills costing £230 per month, over what time frame he doesn't say, but would seem to be quite a while. It now seems that whether he is entitled to £20 a week is the deal breaker on whether he can afford a family.
It would suggest that a bit of belt tightening and change of priorities would be necessary if as it appears finances are that tight if he still wishes to start a family.

17 plate? i.e. 2nd hand? How much belt tightening do you want?

It's important to recognise that the UK has a consumer economy - as a nation of the first world, it's our duty to consume and also to breed consumers. We are failing..

Mothercare in rescue talks with lenders

Mothercare’s shares are, at the time of writing, at an all time low of 18p. With its shares in freefall the company, which has an £80m hole in its pension pot, is currently worth just £37m.

(Thankfully not a company I had any stake in)

As for breeding for care in old age, one of the problems with kids is that by the time they reach the age of legal responsibility it's too late to get them to sign a binding contract recognising their obligations in return for the costs of upbringing. Past consideration is no consideration.

rick_chasey

Nasties are all coming out of the woodwork aren’t they?

Not a “I really hope you find a way to make it work so you can have the joy of having a family”?

Good luck eddy.

nickice

type:epyt wrote:

nickice wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

From the looks of things you can’t afford kids and intend to scrounge off the rest of us to pay for them.

I suggest you put a hold on this folly until one of the two points is negated.

I'm no left-winger but this is a nasty comment.

But yet bang on what the OP lacks ... If you are nudging 40 and still can’t afford a kid, then accept it’s not for you and move on ... Even if it happens by accident, a hard look at your circumstances screams abortion in this case ...

edit: to make my stance clear, this reads exactly like one of those ‘bike to work’ tnreads where the OP is trying to work out if he can afford it ...

I don't disagree with the sentiment that we should all, as much as possible, pay for our own kids but the tone of the comment was just nasty and typical of that poster.

ballysmate

Robert88 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

We want kids, but need to plan what benefits we can get first.

Jesus H Christ.

Buy a very small dog instead ffs.

Why is somebody with limited finances working out what is available to them, perfectly legally, a bad thing?

Claiming benefits is no different than somebody who is comfortably off using accountants to reduce tax liabilities within the law.

Repeating myself now, taxes, salaries, benefits and cost of living (missed that one earlier) are all related to each other. None of them exist in a bubble.

Nothing wrong at all in working out what you can afford.
The OP want to start a family but have just splashed out on a 17 plate car, resulting in unforeseen running costs of £140 per annum that he felt so miffed about that he ranted on a thread about it. He has credit card bills costing £230 per month, over what time frame he doesn't say, but would seem to be quite a while. It now seems that whether he is entitled to £20 a week is the deal breaker on whether he can afford a family.
It would suggest that a bit of belt tightening and change of priorities would be necessary if as it appears finances are that tight if he still wishes to start a family.

17 plate? i.e. 2nd hand? How much belt tightening do you want?

It's important to recognise that the UK has a consumer economy - as a nation of the first world, it's our duty to consume and also to breed consumers. We are failing..

Mothercare in rescue talks with lenders

Mothercare’s shares are, at the time of writing, at an all time low of 18p. With its shares in freefall the company, which has an £80m hole in its pension pot, is currently worth just £37m.

(Thankfully not a company I had any stake in)

As for breeding for care in old age, one of the problems with kids is that by the time they reach the age of legal responsibility it's too late to get them to sign a binding contract recognising their obligations in return for the costs of upbringing. Past consideration is no consideration.

Plenty of people raise families on less income than the OP but to do so, their priorities must be geared towards that aim. Such as making do with an older car (If there is room in the budget at all) and don't run up debts you can't afford by buying stuff you want but don't need.

If stating what to me seems the bleedin' obvious marks me out as being 'nasty' to some on here, then I can live with that.

DavidJB

There are some absolutely horrendous individuals in this thread. You're acting like they are both on "job seekers" and wanting to knock out kids to get more money.

I find type:epyt a particularly appalling individual.

As for kids...mine is currently teething, so I wouldn't recommend it

pblakeney

Robert88 wrote:

17 plate? i.e. 2nd hand? How much belt tightening do you want?

As a perspective, that is newer than most. So not much in the way of belt tightening.
I bought a 2015 last year and I am not belt tightening.

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

morstar wrote:

Unfortunately both left and right governments in recent years have taken the approach of get everybody working and pay for childcare paying taxes.

FTFY

Again, it was the context. I don't have an issue with encouraging productivity. Just not a myopic view that productivity can only be measured by revenue and taxes.

My point was the the government are ONLY interested in tax revenue.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Nasties are all coming out of the woodwork aren’t they?

Not a “I really hope you find a way to make it work so you can have the joy of having a family”?

Good luck eddy.

That's all well and good Rick, but the OP is looking for some practical advice on his situation so your post above - while very nice - is no use at all.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Nasties are all coming out of the woodwork aren’t they?

Not a “I really hope you find a way to make it work so you can have the joy of having a family”?

Good luck eddy.

That's all well and good Rick, but the OP is looking for some practical advice on his situation so your post above - while very nice - is no use at all.

Right on. Having children is a responsibility that in the Britain of today doesn't seem appropriate for all:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/schoolchildre ... 05530.html

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

17 plate? i.e. 2nd hand? How much belt tightening do you want?

As a perspective, that is newer than most. So not much in the way of belt tightening.
I bought a 2015 last year and I am not belt tightening.

One of the benefits of mugs renting cars is how cheaply you can pick one up three years old with circa 15,000 miles.

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

17 plate? i.e. 2nd hand? How much belt tightening do you want?

As a perspective, that is newer than most. So not much in the way of belt tightening.
I bought a 2015 last year and I am not belt tightening.

One of the benefits of mugs renting cars is how cheaply you can pick one up three years old with circa 15,000 miles.

I thought I was in a minority of 1 thinking that leasing cars was lunacy.

shortfall

Gotta love this place. A bloke approaching 40 who can't manage his money comes onto a bike forum and asks for advice on the best way of negotiating the benefits system so he can afford to have children. When people quite rightly tell him that he needs to put his finances in order before even considering starting a family they get roundly criticised for telling him the truth.
No offence intended to the OP (and being as most of us are anonymous here why should I care anyway) but really? Pay of your debts first because having children will cost you tens of thousands of pounds over the long term and entering into fatherhood with a financial millstone already hanging round your neck is a recipe for disaster.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

I thought I was in a minority of 1 thinking that leasing cars was lunacy.

Certainly not. I've just bought a 14-year-old Nissan Almera from a friend for £700 - if I can make it last as long as my previous car (Renault Clio, owned for 11 years, taking it to 180k miles and 20 years old) I'll be very happy. I'd rather spend the money on bikes (they are cheaper than children).