Housing for pregnant 17 year old

LillyJ

bubblesmoney wrote: »

aah the new deal meant to save the govt money by getting people into jobs but in actual fact ended up losing the tax payer more money as per the NAO report on the new deal "Helping people from workless households into work" 19 July 2007

some key facts from the same report

• What ar e workless households and who lives in them?
  A workless household is a household that includes at least one
  person of working-age (men aged 16-64 and women aged
  16-59), where no one in the household aged 16 or over is
  in employment.
• There are almost three million workless households in the
  United Kingdom, which represent 15.8 per cent of all workingage
  households (spring 2006).
• Over 4.21 million people of working-age and 1.74 million
  children (15.3 per cent of all children in working-age
  households) live in workless households in the United Kingdom
  (spring 2006).
• Over 50 per cent of the poor of working-age live in households
  where nobody works (2004).
• 80 per cent of workless households are economically inactive
  – they have no working-age members who are actively seeking
  work (spring 2006).
• Workless households comprise: one person households without
  children (33 per cent), lone parents (24 per cent), couples with
  children (9 per cent) and other households with and without
  children (1 and 33 per cent respectively) (spring 2006).
• Some ethnic groups are more likely to live in a workless
  household than others. The proportion of all working-age
  people living in workless households is highest for the Pakistani
  and Bangladeshi ethnic groups, at 22.3 per cent, and lowest
  for the Indian ethnic group, at 6.8 per cent (spring 2006). (for detailed statistics into what groups of immigrants are 'contributing' what and claiming what see the latest IPPR report. cant be bothered looking for the link but i have the article somewhere on my computer. some startling facts that the public need to see in that report. some stereo types are indeed true for some of these groups and wrong on other groups.)
• Over 4.5 million people claim working-age benefits, totalling over
  £15.9 billion a year.
  The total cost of workless households in benefits is difficult to
  calculate with precision, as the benefits data does not record the
  household status of claimants; however, we estimate the cost to be
  £12.7 billion a year, including £3.4 billion on benefits for lone
  parents. This figure does not include the cost of Housing Benefit or
  Council Tax Benefit.
• from OECD data - Internationally the United Kingdom has one of the
  highest rates of people living in workless households. - almost 3 times that of canada and usa

Does this "workless households" figure include people like my parents?

My mother gave up work due to cancer (never claimed a penny in her life - Dad supports them both). My father then retired age 50, and so there are 2 people in the household - neither working, and both in their 40s and 50s. A fair few of my dad's golf friends are in the same boat (fairly common in stockbroker belt), with wives who also don't work.

They are no drain on society (in fact they both do voluntary work), put their own kids through uni, etc, and never claimed any benefits, however they could be classed in this category, making the stats a bit pointless.

olly300

LillyJ wrote: »

Does this "workless households" figure include people like my parents?

Yes it would.

LillyJ wrote: »

My mother gave up work due to cancer (never claimed a penny in her life - Dad supports them both). My father then retired age 50, and so there are 2 people in the household - neither working, and both in their 40s and 50s. A fair few of my dad's golf friends are in the same boat (fairly common in stockbroker belt), with wives who also don't work.

They are no drain on society (in fact they both do voluntary work), put their own kids through uni, etc, and never claimed any benefits, however they could be classed in this category, making the stats a bit pointless.

Even though your Dad has a pension which he worked for and your mother will hopefully collect hers when she reaches the right retirement age.

LillyJ

olly300 wrote: »

Yes it would.



Even though your Dad has a pension which he worked for and your mother will hopefully collect hers when she reaches the right retirement age.

It seems stupid to include people like them then, it totally skews all the figures.

My Dad has a work pension which is a very good one, (really, really good), and Mum is a LONG way from claiming her pension (well over 10 years!) Hers is only a small one from teaching, and she hasn't paid in for a while as not been working.

Dad does very occasional consultancy work when a project comes up he is really interested in, but does tons of volunteer stuff (eg is a trustee of a hospice).

So really I think self sufficient people should be excluded from this.

bubblesmoney

LillyJ wrote: »

Does this "workless households" figure include people like my parents?

My mother gave up work due to cancer (never claimed a penny in her life - Dad supports them both). My father then retired age 50, and so there are 2 people in the household - neither working, and both in their 40s and 50s. A fair few of my dad's golf friends are in the same boat (fairly common in stockbroker belt), with wives who also don't work.

They are no drain on society (in fact they both do voluntary work), put their own kids through uni, etc, and never claimed any benefits, however they could be classed in this category, making the stats a bit pointless.

if u read thru many of the IPPR reports, (i have done so) u will find that they are well researched and pretty well balanced. so atleast from my past experience of reading their reports i have no doubts about their credibilty. as for others it is for them to go thru the detailed reports as to what they say and the evidence and methodology used for analysis and the discussions pages and then make up their mind on the validity of what they say. some of their reports run into well over hundred pages and all i have read i have found them to be well researched.

they have loads of researchers and i think i know one of them in the passing. many of the researchers might be in teaching in various professions in various colleges etc and doing the research part time.

i dont think they mean people who are retired. people who are voluntarily retired arent eligible for unemployment benefits etc (as far as i know). neither is there any slur on people unable to work because of health issues. so i dont think this includes your parents by any stretch of imagination. people can retire if they can afford it at any age. they have earned their retirement by working hard before. we shouldnt read other meanings into research than what problem it was specifically targetting. such reports target problem 'unemployed' and not people who worked well and retired or retired on health grounds etc. atleast thats the impression i got by reading a few of their reports. some other interesting reports i read on similar employment or related issues were from 'kings fund' and also remember something interesting in the 'reform' website a s well but cant remember now what it was about

the NAO is doing a lot of good research and holding the govt to task in many areas, i feel their reports are well balanced. dont know what others feel. the NAO report is targetting waste in govt funds. people like ur parents who are retired (after working adequately) are not the group they are targetting. even in the initial pages of the report it is clear they are targetting those who claim benefits (unemployment related) when they can work but dont work because of 'voluntarily unemployed' reasons like 'i am better off on benefits' etc. it is those groups being targetted by NAO. they wont give a damn about people retired and using their own funds. the remit of NAO as far as i understand is about auditing public expenditure, so ur parents wont be covered by that report at all

this is what it says in the initial few pages of the report

The National Audit Office scrutinises
public spending on behalf of
Parliament. The Comptroller and
Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, is
an Officer of the House of Commons.
He is the head of the National Audit
Office, which employs some 850 staff.
He, and the National Audit Office, are
totally independent of Government.
He certifies the accounts of all
Government departments and a wide
range of other public sector bodies;
and he has statutory authority to report
to Parliament on the economy,
efficiency and effectiveness with
which departments and other bodies
have used their resources. Our work
saves the taxpayer millions of pounds
every year. At least £8 for every
£1 spent running the Office.

so their work has nothing to do with reference to ur parents situation who are retired and of independent means

LillyJ

bubblesmoney wrote: »

if u read thru many of the IPPR reports, (i have done so) u will find that they are well researched and pretty well balanced. so atleast from my past experience of reading their reports i have no doubts about their credibilty. as for others it is for them to go thru the detailed reports as to what they say and the evidence and methodology used for analysis and the discussions pages and then make up their mind on the validity of what they say. some of their reports run into well over hundred pages and all i have read i have found them to be well researched.

they have loads of researchers and i think i know one of them in the passing. many of the researchers might be in teaching in various professions in various colleges etc and doing the research part time.

i dont think they mean people who are retired. people who are voluntarily retired arent eligible for unemployment benefits etc (as far as i know). neither is there any slur on people unable to work because of health issues. so i dont think this includes your parents by any stretch of imagination. people can retire if they can afford it at any age. they have earned their retirement by working hard before. we shouldnt read other meanings into research than what problem it was specifically targetting. such reports target problem 'unemployed' and not people who worked well and retired or retired on health grounds etc. atleast thats the impression i got by reading a few of their reports. some other interesting reports i read on similar employment or related issues were from 'kings fund' and also remember something interesting in the 'reform' website a s well but cant remember now what it was about

I am sure it is good research, it is just that in the description of "workless households" it stated that it was a household with members of working age where no one worked. My family fit into that.

Mum isn't retired on health grounds, she just gave up as she realised life was too short after she became ill, and wanted to volunteer instead as they can afford it (thanks to my Dad)

Premier_2

bubblesmoney - I agree with you completely people should be able to earn what they want in a free market

My issue was that I was picked up on a suggestion that barristers charge "huge fees" when I was talking about the costs that would be incurred if they were dealing with a case in the small claims court (especially as such costs are not recoverable)

Furthemore, we were being misled with examples of barristers working 12.5hours for £46 (from which they also had to fund the travel cost itself - which took a total of 3 hours) - yes £46 for 12.5 hours work!!! - that's far less than NMW.

Now, the facts have been exposed for people to judge for themselves how much a barrister really costs/earns.

bubblesmoney

Premier wrote: »

Furthemore, we were being misled with examples of barristers working 12.5hours for £46 (from which they also had to fund the travel cost itself - which took a total of 3 hours) - yes £46 for 12.5 hours work!!! - that's far less than NMW.

i dont think it was misleading. NMW is for hourly work. but might not apply for this situation. it might just have been a fixed cost work for a case. but any barrister who is interested in probono or legal aid work (out of the goodness of their heart) might have done the work which needed 3h (45/3 = 15/hourly wage). the fixed cost contract might have been decided on 3h costs. but if people decide to travel from outside the region then travel costs wont be reimbursed in fixed price deals. people might still be doing them because of their interest in probono/legal aid work but their actual earnings might be from other private work. i dont see anything devious in the statement in bold. we should not read too much into things otherwise we might be making wrong impressions. i know highly qualified lawyers who are interested in human rights etc who gave up very lucrative jobs in companies and opted for much lower earning while doing probono work / other subsidised cases and i mean lawyers who won highly competetive international scholarships for higher studies for practicing lawyers. so a lot of people do work for a lot less that they could make otherwise because of the satisfaction that they get doing just what they do. the world would be a less nicer place if it wasnt for such people

for eg. anyone can accept a fixed price deal (builder etc) but if there are time over runs due to unforseen reasons then the person who agreed to do fixed price deals still does it for the same amount. technically due to time over run it might look like it is below NMW but still would be legal as it was a fixed price deal. loads of people do fixed price deals, including me in my area of work(in past), but we dont get paid extra if there are time over runs.

bubblesmoney

LillyJ wrote: »

I am sure it is good research, it is just that in the description of "workless households" it stated that it was a household with members of working age where no one worked. My family fit into that.

Mum isn't retired on health grounds, she just gave up as she realised life was too short after she became ill, and wanted to volunteer instead as they can afford it (thanks to my Dad)

i repeat what i said in last part of earlier post. i think u didnt see that as probably i was editing my earlier post when u were replying to it. i saw ur present post after i had edited my earlier one.

anyway here it is again

the NAO is doing a lot of good research and holding the govt to task in many areas, i feel their reports are well balanced. dont know what others feel. the NAO report is targetting waste in govt funds. people like ur parents who are retired (after working adequately) are not the group they are targetting. even in the initial pages of the report it is clear they are targetting those who claim benefits (unemployment related) when they can work but dont work because of 'voluntarily unemployed' reasons like 'i am better off on benefits' etc. it is those groups being targetted by NAO. they wont give a damn about people retired and using their own funds. the remit of NAO as far as i understand is about auditing public expenditure, so ur parents wont be covered by that report at all

this is what it says in the initial few pages of the report

The National Audit Office scrutinises
public spending on behalf of
Parliament. The Comptroller and
Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, is
an Officer of the House of Commons.
He is the head of the National Audit
Office, which employs some 850 staff.
He, and the National Audit Office, are
totally independent of Government.
He certifies the accounts of all
Government departments and a wide
range of other public sector bodies;
and he has statutory authority to report
to Parliament on the economy,
efficiency and effectiveness with
which departments and other bodies
have used their resources. Our work
saves the taxpayer millions of pounds
every year. At least £8 for every
£1 spent running the Office.

so their (NAO) work has nothing to do with reference to ur parents situation who are retired and of independent means

brownbabygirl

this thread has really gone off topic!:D

Scarlett1

Dedward I don't think that a marriage certificate will provide a roof over a baby's head so that should be put on the back burner for now, I know its what your daughter wants but I don't think she is a position to be demanding anything, the main priority is getting your daughter housed, do you have the means to pay a deposit on a 1 bedroom flat and act as a guarantor ? they will be able to afford it as they will get housing and council tax benefit and when the baby comes along child tax credit and child benefit.