to wonder what MN's view is on this?

[ciabattav0nbreadstickz]

I know a couple, not friends but I know of them.

Both of them worked until recently, one full time, one part time.

They have had a baby. The mum has, for all intents and purposes, given up work. The dad now works p/t because they get more in benefits if he only works p/t. So they get more or the same income as they did before having the baby when he was working f/t and she was working p/t than they do now with only one of them working p/t.

Aibu to be curious as to how the population of MN view this?

I know that the general consensus seems to be that if you have kids you shouldn't claim any more benefits that you actually need to survive and that you should pay for your kids yourself if you can.

But equally so I've seen similar threads where a couple have been praised for being savvy enough about the benefits system to work out that they have had a better income by working less.

So which would in be in this situation?

Fwiw I don't necessarily agree with it but that is less a comment on the couple themselves and more of an issue with the way the benefits system works that means it is more financially viable for many families in many situations to do this.

I have nothing against benefits and have claimed them myself so no judgement against the couple!

So which would in be in this situation?

I'd argue neither.

I'm of an age where it's starting to become clear that parents who spent years unemployed and relying on benefits while they had their children are not in a very good place financially when those children reach the age of 18 and child-related benefits end.

It is very hard to get back into work after a decade or more of unemployment, particularly if you were unemployed for most of your twenties and early thirties.

Now that the pension age has risen significantly, I know people that are looking at thirty years of claiming JSA as they are struggling to find work now their children are grown and they have no viable work experience and, in many cases, few qualifications.

To me, not working and relying on benefits for a long time while bringing up your children is a road to penury in your late middle age.

Hummus, I am also hmm at the system which allows it. That's my real issue, not the people that take advantage of it, if the money is there and people are eligible to claim it them fair play to them but it seems somehow unfair that some have the option of not working and are still able to support their families and others don't.
I strongly suspect you think that they're on the 26 grand a year limit.They're not.

I would think it's up to them to arrange their affairs as they wish. I suppose if I was very close to them - like if it was my son or daughter - and I was asked I might say I thought it was short sighted. They're likely to end up much worse off over the longer term.

I have zero problem with the arrangement from a moral/ funding standpoint.

I agree splendid.

I have lived on benefits and it was definitely not a comfortable life with loads of disposable income, which is why I'm confused that someone would actively choose to do, which is seems like they have done.

Didn't a baby get born..? Their circumstances have changed. They've changed their lives to accommodate this

You'd hate me op! I worked part time as a single mum of one then had a baby and went on benefits. I'm now having another baby and plan to continue claiming benefit until the oldest toddler is in school, then I'm going to do childminding while finishing my degree. For added factor both babies were conceived via a donor so very much planned and I knew I would quit my job while I changed pathways and enjoyed their baby years.

No, sorry I have no fucks left to bother

They already had a child though, so their circumstances haven't changed a huge amount, same house, everything else etc but just an extra child. Obviously having a second child is a lot more work but financially its not double the cost of having one.

Why would I hate you Jw? I have also been a single working mother claiming benefits, I know it isn't easy.

The trouble is, and this isn't a comment on this couple or anyone else in particular, but while the current system allows people to be better off working p/t and claiming benefits, what incentive is there to work more hours? Then when the benefits stop when the child reaches 18, how easy will it be to increase them?

How many AIBU threads have you started in the past few weeks, OP?

You have a very busy life.

But op why would parents want to work more hours? Why shouldn't they be supported to be with their kids more? Why should parents have to leave babies in nursery and go to work if they would rather be at home? you're not talking about incentives you're talking about forcing parents to have to work more hours than they would like?

A few. Why, is there a limit?

Thank you

A limit? Not that I'm aware of.

Seems weird that you're starting so many threads on contentious issues though...

I think I've started 3 recently, one of which was about a wedding dress. Hardly contentious or excessive

Maybe I've just had things I want to discuss? I often so several weeks/months without posting anything.

But lots of parents have to work more hours than they would like Jw, almost everyone would like to spend more time at home with their kids but sometimes they don't have that option because they can't afford it.

Should everyone just work the amount of hours they feel like (say, 10) and claim benefits to top up the rest just because they can?

I'm not necessarily talking about putting a 6 week old in nursery and going back to doing a 40hr week straight away.

You just want a benefits bashing thread.

At least be honest about your intentions

Oh give over OP, you're being a goady fucker and you well know it.

Catfromjapan the only thing I like more than your posts is your username. I always imagine you with a big blue fan. I'm more of a "stuck in the doorway" cat myself

Err..no I don't.

I've been on benefits, I have no desire to bash those on them.

Please don't presume to tell me what I do or do not mean by creating a thread, you are not in my head so you can't possibly know.

Op your answer doesn't make sense! If parents want to spend more time at home but can't afford to then that's really tough for them. What you seem to be saying is they shouldn't claim benefit to enable them to make that choice? surely you're benefit bashing!

I thought benefits were capped at 26k. Do full time managerial positions that people boast about plus a part time wage really amount to less than that?

I'm constantly amazed at the amount of people on here who know people who are benefits cheats or lazy scroungers.

And who can't make decisions for themselves so just have to see what MN thinks.

Such a predictable thread, designed to whip up the hard of thinking.

Has anyone grumbled about 'their taxes 'yet? As in 'my taxes pay for these scroungers'.

In some parts of the country, yes, Armani. We live in a low wage area of the country.

I suppose what I'm saying Jw is that it makes sense for parents to work as many hours as they need to be able to support themselves and their families, if they are able and the jobs/hours are available, taking into account childcare etc. If their wages are so low that their wages do not cover living costs, then by all means claim the top ups, if they cannot get more than a p/t job, claim, if they are disabled and can't work, claim, if they are a lone parent, claim. But in this case there are 2 parents, one of whom is a SAHM so there are no childcare issues and the other one can work f/t but chooses not to and claims instead of working when they are capable of doing so.

I'm really not benefit bashing. I've not once used the phrase 'lazy scroungers', 'benefit cheats', 'scum', 'feckless', 'workshy', mentioned anything about taxes/taxpayers or any of the other choice benefits bashing bingo phrases.

1. Goodness, they can't have been earning much to start with if benefits (and note, not JSA because neither are looking for extra work) is enough to keep them.

1. By choosing to have 1 part-time wage, they are making a choice not only for current income but also future - this will have future career and earnings implications

1. Not to mention pension implications

1. If they are happy to subsist on whatever they make this way, fair on them. As you can see from 1-3, it's not exactly a dream life. I can only guess that they must value time with their kids more than being richer/having a more secure future. That's their decision to make.

1. The whole point of supplementary benefits (credits etc) is to top up measly salaries. I don't agree with the Tories on many things, but I get that are trying to cut these kind of benefits to put the responsibility for paying people fair wages onto employers, rather than the govt topping up. The current system enables this couple to make this choice, but it's not necessarily a bad thing that they spend more time with their children/in the voluntary sector/more engaged in the community/not chained to a desk all day/doing fun things/whatever. As said above, it comes at a price of financial security and a lower standard of living than people who work full time. And they can't rely on the system not to change.

1. What's with all the heavy implications that they SHOULD work more hours if they can? Why is this a desirable thing? I have a meaningful career, and probably have a decently higher standard of living than they do, and I can't wait for the future when I am rich enough to reduce my hours! The reason I haven't yet is because I want to be able to maintain a certain standard of living. They've just chosen a lower standard.

1. You are trying very hard not to be a GF but still are

Should everyone just work the amount of hours they feel like (say, 10) and claim benefits to top up the rest just because they can?

If you are prepared to have only this much money, then there is no legal reason why you shouldn't do this. And I don't think there's really a moral reason not to either. Like I said, you're paying the price in other ways, and equally there are probably benefits to your own health, relationships, non-measured productivity, etc of having a bit more free time - and society might see some of those benefits too.

Also it's disingenuous to suggest you can just 'claim benefits to top up the rest' - these are presumably benefits they are entitled to because of low wage and children - it's not exactly a free for all.

I say this as someone who doesn't claim any benefits and pays all the tax guv'nor.

I do agree aust that the government absolutely needs to force businesses to give higher wages to their employees. The fact that the government even needs to top up wages of f/t working people to an amount that people can actually live on is awful. I'm not sure it's fair to cut benefits in order to do this as I'm sure there will be people that suffer in the interim period before the wages so up, if indeed businesses even agree to increase wages at all.

I am slightly uncomfortable with the implication that those who work f/t don't value time with their families as much by comparison though. Of course they do, sometimes they just have no choice but to work more to keep a roof over their, and their children's, heads.

I also find that, in practise, people who choose this sort of way of living (not specific to this couple), tend not to really accept a lower standard of living but rather rely heavily on credit to get the things that they want/need that they can't afford. And then end up paying more for things in the long run that way, just look at Brighthouse (who, incidentally, I think are awful and take advantage of vunerable people in financial difficulty). Not always obviously, but I do know a lot of people on low incomes and almost all of them have some form of credit.

So glad I carried on reading this to get to cat from japan's post.
:)