Why twelve?

Paley71

Just wondering how the goverment have come to conclusion that single parents with a child age 12+ should no longer receive IS?
I'm not on benefits myself but I do have a twelve year old and was trying to work out why 12 is the magic number?
Is it assumed that once a child reaches this age they can become latch key kids or is there another reason?

tink_the_stink

They haven't just pulled the age out of thin air, this year it will reduce to 10yr olds & next year 7yr olds.

Its not unreasonable for parents to work while children are at school & with the increase of childcare available now & help from Tax Credits why should some one sit at home all day!

Paley71

"Its not unreasonable for parents to work while children are at school & with the increase of childcare available now & help from Tax Credits why should some one sit at home all day!"

Thanks, and I do agree...I was just thinking as to why this age was different than any other and that maybe it was assumed that once a child reached twelve they could be left alone.

pink_princess

I ve always worked my whole life,but i have the luxury of my partner to have the kids when i work nights, he works days.I find it awful that the goverment can insinuate that a 12 year old can be left alone while a parent works.
Unless the goverment gets employers to offer more flexi contracts,i fail to see how this can be inforced.

Paley71

The reason I asked is that I have twelve year old and I too work part time around my partners full time hours but I do want to increase my hours and sooner or later that will involve leaving my two sons (youngest twelve) to fend for themselves...the trouble is my twelve year old would be horrified at the idea of being alone!
Perhaps he's just a wimp though!

tink_the_stink

There is no law which states you can not leave a mature 12yr old at home whilst you go to work.

This is obviously a parents choice whether they are happy to do this but I'm sure most 12yr olds would welcome some time alone at home to show their parents they can be responsible other wise how do we expect them to cope in their later teens & finally when they leave home

NASA_2

There was no special reason for twelve other than they wanted to gradually manage this process. Reducing it from 16 to 7 in one go would have resulted in even more chaos in Benefit offices than there already is.

I agree with the change - 16 was way too old - after 16 years away how many people are ready to go straight back to the workplace?

flossy_splodge

tink_the_stink wrote: »

There is no law which states you can not leave a mature 12yr old at home whilst you go to work.

This is obviously a parents choice whether they are happy to do this but I'm sure most 12yr olds would welcome some time alone at home to show their parents they can be responsible other wise how do we expect them to cope in their later teens & finally when they leave home

Hmm I see the argument. So really if 12 is OK then perhaps we should say 6 is OK to get ready for being 12, and so on.
I'm just appalled that we are still not making the connection between our largely out of control young people and the pressure on parents to be at work.
We should be fully supporting any parent who sees their responsibility to their child/ren as being around , seeing them off in morning/being at home for their return and not applauding the " but this way I can get a new telly/have an expensive holiday/buy lots of new clothes" type parent.
We really have lost the plot in the UK.:mad:

NASA_2

flossy_splodge wrote: »

Hmm I see the argument. So really if 12 is OK then perhaps we should say 6 is OK to get ready for being 12, and so on.
I'm just appalled that we are still not making the connection between our largely out of control young people and the pressure on parents to be at work.
We should be fully supporting any parent who sees their responsibility to their child/ren as being around , seeing them off in morning/being at home for their return and not applauding the " but this way I can get a new telly/have an expensive holiday/buy lots of new clothes" type parent.
We really have lost the plot in the UK.:mad:

So the working population should support those who want to have children without any expectation of a contribution back?

LizzieS_2

ESA wrote: »

So the working population should support those who want to have children without any expectation of a contribution back?

Precisely. Everyone should be allowed to make choices, but out of their own budget instead of the public purse.

The age cut-off of 12 (currently), is not actually forcing anyone to work - there are provisions there to prepare people for work first. The 16 year allowance per child was down to there being no other help available - tax credits inclusive of childcare costs have allievated that and now the only problem in some cases is actually having childcare facilities available.

Oldernotwiser

flossy_splodge wrote: »

Hmm I see the argument. So really if 12 is OK then perhaps we should say 6 is OK to get ready for being 12, and so on.
I'm just appalled that we are still not making the connection between our largely out of control young people and the pressure on parents to be at work.
We should be fully supporting any parent who sees their responsibility to their child/ren as being around , seeing them off in morning/being at home for their return and not applauding the " but this way I can get a new telly/have an expensive holiday/buy lots of new clothes" type parent.
We really have lost the plot in the UK.:mad:

Or perhaps you're not making the connection between the numbers of children who are out of control because they have no role model for employment and think that life owes them a living?

Why should the taxpayer have to pay for someone to be at home for all those hours when the children are at school? The requirement isn't even for full time work; only for part time.