Its a wonderful life... Want to try.....?? A Single parents View.. !!xx!

wigginsmum

starlite wrote:

You missed my main point, What if you became chronically ill? your employer will only pay you for a short time. Will you then be cursing thoose who take state benefits!? I very much doubt so.

I pay for critical illness insurance and replacement income to 'hedge my bets' on that one.

And you failed to answer my main point - your admission that you COULD work but WON'T.

Broken_hearted

starlite wrote:

You missed my main point, What if you became chronically ill? your employer will only pay you for a short time. Will you then be cursing thoose who take state benefits!? I very much doubt so.

You are assuming people are complaining about benefit which is a different issue altogether.
People would never choose to be ill or disabled, people do choose to have children.

black-saturn

Broken_hearted wrote:

Ok I'll put another viewpoint as to why people are are hard on some single parents and wait for Black saturn to slam me down.
There are a lot of single parents with long term partner who work full time. They don't live with their partners as this would mean losing most if not all their benefit. Yet they are supported financialy (sp) by their partner. They are also allowed their partner to stay with them 3 nights a week. therefor getting more than a lot of families with 2 parents working. Some even having more children with their new partner and not naming them. These might be in the minority but they are the cases which upset and annoy tax payers.

Thats just the media view. Doesn't happen in every single parents house and I agree the ones that are doing it are wrong. Doesn't mean we are all doing it.

looby75

Broken_hearted wrote:

The issue isn't women staying at home it is other people working to pay for them to stay at home.

How about all the money I have paid into the system when I worked before my ex left, how about the money he pays to the csa for his kids, and how about the tax etc he still pays now. You could argue that between myself and my ex we have more than covered what I get in benefits now. And I won't be on them forever, once I'm able to start working again I will be paying back into the system so again will more than repay what I'm getting now.

black-saturn

viktory wrote:

No, I did it all on my own. The relationship I was in was/is lovely but actually getting off my butt was down to me. I relied on no one but myself.

But you didnt manage to do it before you had a partner

black-saturn

viktory wrote:

For pride. To teach your children the work ethic. To be able to say "I can stand on my own two feet and don't rely on the tax payer"

Your choice then. If you want to be worse off by working - totally your choice. Your children won't thank you for it, they will only resent you for it like I did with mine.

looby75

starlite wrote:

This would have been an ideal option for me, and something I looked into but I was advised that our house is not suitable.
I also looked into a nursery nurse course, but they seem to have tightened the laws on taking your children to work with you in that field , so again not viable for us.

It is indeed a great option for many women though, and I wonder why there is such a shortage of people doing so!

From what the lone parent advisor told me many people are put off by the safety requirements, the paperwork and now a 12 week course that our council requires you to take every 3 years and the week long first aid course you have to take every 12 months. Also, as you have found out, not everyone's house is suitable, I know mine isn't, it's just too small.

black-saturn

looby75 wrote:

From what the lone parent advisor told me many people are put off by the safety requirements, the paperwork and now a 12 week course that our council requires you to take every 3 years and the week long first aid course you have to take every 12 months. Also, as you have found out, not everyone's house is suitable, I know mine isn't, it's just too small.

If you do that though you will have the pleasure in knowing that the working parent can't do without the stay at home mum. Why do they pay someone else to look after their kids when they could be looking after them themselves?

starlite_2

wigginsmum wrote:

I pay for critical illness insurance and replacement income to 'hedge my bets' on that one.

And you failed to answer my main point - your admission that you COULD work but WON'T.

Not at all could work but won't, rather I , and my DH see little point in me working for a pittance whilst our babies are in childcare.

singlehouseholder

Pramface is on C4 tonight at 9.Looks like it may give a different perspective from that portrayed by the media in this country.

I shall be watching avidly, as a person making the choice NOT to bring a child into the world( and went through the worst day of my life to ensure that didnt happen!!) the area interests me greatly.
It always surprises me that certain people feel able to take the moral high ground? Those that are fortunate enough , that they've never needed help from the state are lucky.They may have a great support network, or friends or family in a financial position to offer help.Or they may have really really struggled on. Who knows, not me? Its not my business to dismiss anyones life choices, at the end of the day, what has it really got to do with me?
I have a bro who work for a pittance(always has), get a tichy bit of help from the state, share a 2 bedroom house with a couple, twin boys under 2, a 8year old and a 12 year old.Thankfully they're all boys!Single parent or not, he gets jack, but he and his Mrs and kids struggle on, but they're happy, yeah they'd be happier with more money, more room!! They get on with what they've got-whats the alternative?
Happy Days eh?
Please everyone be nice, as someones elderly relative probably said-" If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all!"