Home Work & Volunteering
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

How much am I worth?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
If I accept the two jobs I've been offered on a self employed basis, working 32 hours per week, guess how much more money I'll have weekly compared to if I stayed home??? £78.32! That makes my time worth £2.45 p/h :(

I worked it out using online benefits and tax calculators and couldn't believe the results, I checked and re-checked! Gah, working 32 hours for and extra £2.45 ph really puts me off. It also goes to show how the current benefits system doesn't encourage people to work. For the two jobs, I will actually be charging £7.21 ph and £10.63 but I'll only benefit from two pounds bloody forty five worth! I will of course be checking these figures with inland revenue and benefits but... I think I'm right.

Unfortunately I'm purdy darn skint so... I will be starting this in January and deferring my university semester until next sept *weeps with frustration*
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And, you sooo won't believe this- If I only work the higher paid 16hrs and forego the other job, I would be £82.36 better off a week than if I stayed at home! Now get the really screwy bit, yup, working 16 hrs leaves me £4 a week better off than working 32 hours!!!! NOOOOOOO

    This seems to be because the more I earn, the less rent I'd be helped with in benefits, which is reasonable in theory. Reasonable until you see the practical application of it showing twice as much work = no return!

    Where can I go to check all these figures that I've worked out? I just want to work out exactly, presicely how much I'd be getting under each set of circumstances before I start... I have a New Deal advisor but she couldn't help me with this when I asked her last week, she couldn't work out the tax credits, or what the situation would be if my earnings were all/partly self-employed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's christmas, what on earth are you doing up at 6 in the morning working out tax calculations and whatnot?

    that's life i'm afraid. i'd rather have the satisfaction of working for my money personally.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think all this means you get paid too much benefits
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeah but when you balance that 'satisfaction' with the less than ideal situation of using childcare etc... and where's the satisfaction in your work value equating to £2.45 ph? And as for claiming too much benefits???? wtf? I wouldn't be working if I could afford not to, Motherhood is the most importrant 'job', which society should be supporting!!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i don't think he meant you were claiming too many benefits. more that there were a lot available to you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't get your point? the fact is there obviously aren't enough benefits available as I'm being forced into work through financial hardship.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not really, as why should you get a free ride?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmmmn, who's asking for a free ride? I draw the conclusion that we're coming from differing ideological stances. I believe that the future of humanity and society can be bettered for the current and future generations by the gearing of society towards motherhood. I use the term motherhood here as a specific term to cover those who have pinicle roles in educating, caring for and ensuring the safety of children, thereby not excluding men by design or machinations. With this in mind, along with the knowledge that there is enough 'money' in this country for no person to starve, what is the purpose of, and who benefits by me as a mother being forced into work?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What is it that you work as katralla?
    I'm in a similar position as yourself, the only way I can get a job I'd be happy in is to go self-employed but it's a total nightmare with no guarantee of financial security or success. I could try to get a job in a shop or factory or something but I wouldn't be any better off and I'd be so depressed.
    Work is supposed to be productive and with some kind of reward....I'm just totally lost (in general!).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    Hmmmn, who's asking for a free ride? I draw the conclusion that we're coming from differing ideological stances. I believe that the future of humanity and society can be bettered for the current and future generations by the gearing of society towards motherhood. I use the term motherhood here as a specific term to cover those who have pinicle roles in educating, caring for and ensuring the safety of children, thereby not excluding men by design or machinations. With this in mind, along with the knowledge that there is enough 'money' in this country for no person to starve, what is the purpose of, and who benefits by me as a mother being forced into work?

    Let's look at it another way. Why should other people work so that you don't have to?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you've obviously missed my point, of which a salient point is that - the best financial providers are not neccesarily the best at 'motherhood' and that motherhood is the most important role or 'job' in bettering humanity's and society's future.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    why is it?! we still need people to work else how is the economy going to expand? we need people to work to pay for our pensions/nhs etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    we do don't we. providers should provide and mothers should mother.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what so a woman's place is in the home? at what age do you propose a woman goes out to work after having children?

    how do you propose we look after our children if we don't work? who's going to pay the benefits that you'd receive?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nope, I definately didn't say and don't think that 'a woman's place is in the home'. I do however think that 'mothers' should be able to mother. If you read my previous post this role of 'motherhood' is not female exclusive or nuclear family either, thereby not excluding gay/lesbian/single parent families and extending beyond the full-time carers and biological parents of the child too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    you've obviously missed my point, of which a salient point is that - the best financial providers are not neccesarily the best at 'motherhood' and that motherhood is the most important role or 'job' in bettering humanity's and society's future.

    I obviously have missed your point as I thought that your thread was moaning about how little extra you are going to get paid.

    However, you completly missed my point, which is that we can't all live off the state, as some people have to provide the "state".

    Also, looking after kids is not a "job", I've been through this discussion on here and elsewhere countless times and really cannot be arsed to go through it all over again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    indeedy, my origonal post was whinging about how little extra better off I'll be my working more- do you not think that's valid? If I work part-time, I can do this without detriment to my 'motherhood' role, and I will be much better off- something like 80 quid as origonally stated. But, if work full-time, I will be worse off financially than working part-time and it will be detrimental to my mothering.

    And without debating it we'll have to agree to disagree as I do believe that looking after kids is and should be regarded as a 'job' if not one of the most important jobs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    nope, I definately didn't say and don't think that 'a woman's place is in the home'. I do however think that 'mothers' should be able to mother. If you read my previous post this role of 'motherhood' is not female exclusive or nuclear family either, thereby not excluding gay/lesbian/single parent families and extending beyond the full-time carers and biological parents of the child too.

    you seem to have ignored my questions of...

    how do you propose we look after our children if we don't work? who's going to pay the benefits that you'd receive?

    funny.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Those who are not in full-time motherhood roles, are providers, that is how i propose the system would work. Some people are therfore in both roles, teachers for example.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so the welfare system can cope efficiently with just the men working?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nothing to do with men/women, therefore your question has no relevance to my proposed system.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    Nothing to do with men/women, therefore your question has no relevance to my proposed system.


    With the greatest respect, your proposed system is utter nonsense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but it's very similar to what is in place now anyway, so what's so nonesensical about it? As the system is, any carer of a child who earns uder a certain threshold is entitled to money in various forms of benefits to keep them above the government set level of poverty, the claimant here can be male or female. And careers such as teaching are funded by the government too surely, I just think it needs a little tweaking. What exactly are you calling nonesense?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    but it's very similar to what is in place now anyway, so what's so nonesensical about it? As the system is, any carer of a child who earns uder a certain threshold is entitled to money in various forms of benefits to keep them above the government set level of poverty, the claimant here can be male or female. And careers such as teaching are funded by the government too surely, I just think it needs a little tweaking. What exactly are you calling nonesense?

    You seem to think that the money comes from nowhere. Who generates the cash whilst everyone is lording it caring for the offspring?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mist wrote:
    You seem to think that the money comes from nowhere. Who generates the cash whilst everyone is lording it caring for the offspring?


    exactly what i was trying to say but she seems to find a way of turning it around or something to make it look like what i said has nothing to do with her point.

    katralla: if women stay at home and look after the children, less taxes will be paid and so how do you propose the benefits for these stay at home mums are paid? full employment is the key to a healthy economy, not for half (or whatever the ratio of men to women is) of the working population to stay at home looking after the kids.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not going to go too much into this but I really do not think that anyone should consider having a child unless they can afford to look after him/her. And by this I don't mean surviving on child care benefits. I think you should "save" for a child the same way you would your house. Having a child is a big commitment and I hardly see how throwing money at those who have children helps our economy one bit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i don't think she necessarily means having children when you can't afford it, she just thinks it's beneficial to the economy for women to stay at home. :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    madraykin wrote:
    I'm not going to go too much into this but I really do not think that anyone should consider having a child unless they can afford to look after him/her. And by this I don't mean surviving on child care benefits. I think you should "save" for a child the same way you would your house. Having a child is a big commitment and I hardly see how throwing money at those who have children helps our economy one bit.

    Um, how much money do you think it takes to raise a child? Do you propose a woman saves this much money before having a child? I think your idea is silly as the age most women would be after saving this amount is well beyond the biological prime for childbirth. Not a great idea for hte children eh? Or the mothers!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i don't think she necessarily means having children when you can't afford it, she just thinks it's beneficial to the economy for women to stay at home. :yeees:

    I am a mother, educated, have been a company director, paid my taxes, contributed and will continue to contribute to the economy thank you very much. I am also a fully fledged feminist in the true meaning of the word but...If you want to believe that's^^^ what I'm saying, then to continue explaining is like flogging a dead horse! :banghead: but I'll try:

    I think it would be beneficial to the current and the future society for support financially and otherwise to be geared towards producing and caring for children the role of 'motherhood'. Nowhere have I asserted that women should stay at home or that it would be beneficial to the economy for them to do so. Now, think outside what you think you know about how a society and an economy run healthily, and imagine how beautiful we could make the world- for EVERYONE! I think the best way to do this would be to educate our safe happy and secure children, don't you? I don't think my ideology is particularly radical, Charlotte Perkins Gilbert was harping on a similar vein way back in 1915 in her feminist text Herland before the word 'feminism' even existed.

    And for those who are seemingly using their fear of benefits against my arguement, I suggest there is enough money available in the budget from the taxes as the are set, they could just do with a little re-arranging ;) I doubt any of the re-arranging I would suggest would affect 'you' directly so, don't scream "but I already pay enough income tax blah blah blah"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but WHY do you think it would be beneficial for women to stay at home looking after the kids? i do perfectly fine thanks and my parents have always BOTH worked.

    and something else..just because you've paid taxes before doesn't give you the right to think 'well i've paid them before so i don't have to do it again'.
Sign In or Register to comment.