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

wageslave

sjaypink wrote: »

I do not think you are right

I really challange anyone (well, couple) to work (either 1x ft or 2x pt etc) and come up with less than £200 per week after housing costs. Which would be what I imagine the going rate is for IS, CTC, CB etc nowadays

Financially a couple is always going to be better off than a single parent. Only an idiot with an axe to grind (and a seriously wonky calculator) is going to argue to the contrary.

But there is a reason articles like this gain credence.

None of us get to spend enough time with our kids and it both worries and annoys us.

So the DM, doing what it does best, offers up the perfect scapegoat to its' nice middle class, happily married, readership.

We read it and don't believe.

They would do far better to print a double page spread entitled. ... I have worked since my daughter could sit up unaided and, unless she sends me a text, that is the only landmark in her life I am liable to be present at.............

richardvc

What I find sad about this article is that it attacks single mums but doesn't truly recognise that the other guilty parties are the fathers who have disappeared and do not contribute to their child's upbringing be it financial or emotional.

Typical Daily Mail.

I wouldn't/couldn't be a single mum - I couldn't cope with bringing up kids on my own and relying solely on benefits.

Degenerate

carolt wrote: »

I don't see what's so controversial about my OP - the fact is that there are people who pretend not to be together so as to claim more benefits. And that we have a benefit system that rewards people financially for doing that; that encourages couples to split up and/or lie about it.

Yes, and that's called fraud. Any system will always "reward" successful fraudsters. It doesn't mean the structure of the payments is wrong, it just means we must do everything we can to catch these people.

treliac

wageslave wrote: »

Two points to address:)

The whole "if you deny it and he doesn't boast about it, it never happened thing". If a tree falls in a wood and everyone denies chopping it down, did it still fall?

As to reading the Daily Mail. I like it. I don't agree with half of their articles. I mean, did you read the fruit makes you fat thing? Utter nonsense.

If I only read stuff I agreed with, I'd be reduced to Adolphus Huxley and Asheron........

Point a - can men ever be trusted though?

Point b - no miss that one out. I didn't read it.

Point c - You've left out The White Horse. :rotfl:

treliac

richardvc wrote: »

What I find sad about this article is that it attacks single mums but doesn't truly recognise that the other guilty parties are the fathers who have disappeared and do not contribute to their child's upbringing be it financial or emotional.

Typical Daily Mail.

I wouldn't/couldn't be a single mum - I couldn't cope with bringing up kids on my own and relying solely on benefits.

I'm confused, richard could equal single mum? Sorry, I must be in a funny mood tonight.

treliac

carolt wrote: »

I don't see what's so controversial about my OP - the fact is that there are people who pretend not to be together so as to claim more benefits. And that we have a benefit system that rewards people financially for doing that; that encourages couples to split up and/or lie about it.

I'm not arguing that being a single mother is a cushy number or that all single mothers are lying or anything so ludicrous. But it does really annoy me that if I was single the state would pay benefits to me to stay at home until my youngest child was - what is it now, 7?

Whereas those in a couple are not afforded that same luxury - we have no choice and for some unaccountable reason our children don't need us in the same way as children of single parents who require their parents to be at home.

No, you're right carolt. I'm a (half-hearted) bitter mum who felt forced to work so that her family could afford the 'basics' that I considered, as parents, we should provide. If only I could have been a 'proper' mum - but allowing the rest of the tax payers to pay for us wasn't an option.

I have a close relative, buying their two-bedroom house, who has two kids, different genders and one already in their teens, who hasn't a cat's chance in hell of affording a 3 bed home. No-one gives a toss about families like them.

Prudent

Firstly, I apologise that I haven't had time to read the full thread, but will do later.

I am a single mum (not through choice). When my marriage broke up I was a supply teacher and had an uncertain income, so investigated the all the benefits/tax credits avaialble to dsingle mums. I was applying for full time teaching jobs so only ever intended to use them in an emergency.

I found that if I took a low paid (no stress) job and worked just 16 hours a week I would only be £8 a month worse off than working full time (usually 40 -50 hours) in a demanding teaching job. Its a complete nonsense.

I got a full time teaching job and have supported myself and my daughter. I think the system needs a real overhaul. I worked because I believe I am responsible for myself and my daughter, but the alternative is much more attractive.

carolt

Thank you Prudent, for making my point so well.

Our current benefit system discourages those who want to support themselves, by making it barely worth their while, if at all, and encourages those who are too lazy/dishonest not to bother.

sjay, maybe where you live it is impossible for a couple to work and be worse off than a single mum in receipt of benefits incl housing costs and council tax benefits etc - around London, owing to the highcost of housing, it's entirely possible. ~Not to say likely.

Part of the reason we left London and moved out to the sticks was because we'd had another baby, and as a working couple, we couldn't have afforded any kind of house at all. We'd never have been able to rent more than a 2 bed flat.

I checked the LHA for Ealing, where we used to live, and discovered that, if I was in a position to claim housing benefits, with 3 kids, I would be 'entitled to' a 3-bed house, up to a maximum of £370/week!!! That would get me a lovely 3-bed house, one of the beautiful Victorian houses next to the park, in the catchment for the best primary school in Ealing - that I could only have idly daydreamed of when we lived in a 2-bed maisonette on the main road round the corner - but as a working couple could never have afforded.

How many coples can afford £1600/month on rent???? Out of taxed income? And have the luxury of staying at home with their kids, being there for them at every need, baking cakes, reading with them, playing with them...?

I'm lucky that I've managed to find work to fit in withmy kids' school hours, so we can afford to eat... but I'm also aware that there are many working parents in couples who are not so lucky, many who have to work night shifts, don't get to see their kids or each other. I don't see why single parents should be advantaged in this way - why should they be rewarded - as Prudent says - for not working, when those, like Prudent, who want to contribute, barely benefit from it financially at al?

ILW

amersall wrote: »

that is exactly what all benefit claimants will get if cam the man gets in, he has to pay for the reduction in inheritance tax for properties over 3million somehow, lets look after the rich the poor dont matter. And trust me i know, i lived through thatchers term of office, sooner have the bnp in charge

How many of these "poor" are poor because they choose to be and the benefit system actively encourages them. eg having a baby at 17 with no means of supporting yourself or the child.

drc

Geez. Don't attack Carol. She's just relaying an article which is of interest, otherwise it wouldn't have attracted 3 pages of discussion.

If it had been reported in The Guardian would the responses have been different? Don't attack the messenger, attack the message - our benefits system is unsustainable and doesn't promote social or family cohesion.