Couples 'up to £200 a MONTH worse off than single mothers'

carolt

Great article - wherever it's from.

Truly shocking and makes me v v cross:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269819/Singletons-200-month-better-couples-benefits-report-claims.html

lostinrates

And on average single parents stand to see their income fall by well over £100 a week if they live with a man, it found

and heterosexual single dads? I'm sure its interesting but...that silly error annoys me...

edit: annoyed is probably taking it too far. I'm not really PC mad...I'm possibly just grumpy tonight.

DVardysShadow

carolt wrote: »

...

Truly shocking and makes me v v cross:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ ...

I'm not shocked that it made you v v cross. You buy the Daily Mail for a daily fix of anger. Looks like you got you money's worth today.

A._Badger

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I'm not shocked that it made you v v cross. You buy the Daily Mail for a daily fix of anger. Looks like you got you money's worth today.

Addressing the issue might have been more productive.

SingleSue

lostinrates wrote: »

and heterosexual single dads? I'm sure its interesting but...that silly error annoys me...

edit: annoyed is probably taking it too far. I'm not really PC mad...I'm possibly just grumpy tonight.

I wish I could find one! :rotfl:

carolt

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I'm not shocked that it made you v v cross. You buy the Daily Mail for a daily fix of anger. Looks like you got you money's worth today.

Money's worth?

You think I BUY it?

No, dear, I read it for free...

Nevertheless, a good article that makes a point that needs to be made.

torontoboy45

carolt wrote: »

Great article - wherever it's from.

Truly shocking and makes me v v cross:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269819/Singletons-200-month-better-couples-benefits-report-claims.html

I'm apalled (sorry, make that disappointed) that a normally well-adjusted, insightful poster chooses to post this.

Degenerate

carolt wrote: »

Great article - wherever it's from.

Truly shocking and makes me v v cross:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269819/Singletons-200-month-better-couples-benefits-report-claims.html

What makes me cross is seeing how people knee-jerk react to these situations without thinking them through.

So a single parent receives benefits intended to cover living expenses and accommodation for them and their offspring. Someone moves in with them. Should this person share the benefits bestowed by the state on the single parent, or should they be expected to make a fair contribution? Even if the the person who moves in is also on benefits, their costs together will be less than living separately, so they will receive less housing/council tax benefit. Shock horror, they would have been better off single...

All the talk of "loss of income" from cohabiting could just as well be applied to say that an unemployed person suffers "loss of income" from benefits when they get a job. So should we pay benefits to everyone, working or not? Benefits are intended to cover living costs for those who are unable to afford them, so when living costs reduce, or other income increases, the associated benefits reduce. There is nothing wrong with this concept, only with the moronic responses it elicits from Daily Mail readers.

torontoboy45

Degenerate wrote: »

What makes me cross is seeing how people knee-jerk react to these situations without thinking them through.

So a single parent receives benefits intended to cover living expenses and accommodation for them and their offspring. Someone moves in with them. Should this person share the benefits bestowed by the state on the single parent, or should they be expected to make a fair contribution? Even if the the person who moves in is also on benefits, their costs together will be less than living separately, so they will receive less housing/council tax benefit. Shock horror, they would have been better off single...

All the talk of "loss of income" from cohabiting could just as well be applied to say that an unemployed person suffers "loss of income" from benefits when they get a job. So should we pay benefits to everyone, working or not? Benefits are intended to cover living costs for those who are unable to afford them, so when living costs reduce, or other income increases, the associated benefits reduce. There is nothing wrong with this concept, only with the moronic responses it elicits from Daily Mail readers.

exactly, deg. and well put.

the mystery is why carol bought into the mail rubbish in the first place.

Andy_L

and why (although to be fair its not just the Mail who do this) do they reference an Institute for Fiscal Services report & then not provide a link to it?

chucky

carolt wrote: »

Great article - wherever it's from.

Truly shocking and makes me v v cross:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269819/Singletons-200-month-better-couples-benefits-report-claims.html

there is a very simple solution to all of this - if it makes you that cross leave your husbands/partners and live the single mum life