Another one of those benefits threads

SingleSue

Ahh with you now! Excuse my brain, been a hell of a week and I don't know if I am coming or going right now.

Re the trips though, not even a quiet word with the head teacher will work here, you either pay and your child goes, or you don't (or can't) and your child doesn't...no middle ground or allowances. In a way, I am lucky having autistic kids as they don't really like the trips out where they stay away, so they don't feel left out, real begger at times getting youngest to even go to a local museum with the school, let alone a 3 or 4 day trip away!

Eldest has been the only one to go on the year 6 trip to PGL but I was married and we were both working at the time, middle one didn't go because of his history and it was advised against (by his doctors etc) for youngest due to his not being able to cope with it and his myriad of different medical needs.

Must admit, none of my old business clothes (or hubbies come to that) were dry clean only so that was not a cost we had to bear but do get your point on that.

Yes, it is social rent and I do agree with your point re this. There is a choice of class (if that is the right word to use) of houses here, with social rents obviously being cheapest, right up to what is known as millionaires row where the rent asked makes your eyes water!

treliac

carolt wrote: »

I also think the current system where there are minimum room sizes and numbers of bedrooms applicable to those claiming benefits, but those earning above a certain threshold just have to make do with whatever they can afford at their salary, is also very wrong - I don't think it is right that those who work actually have less rights in this area than those who don't work at all.

This infuriates me above all.

Spartacus_Mills

carolt wrote: »

What is !!!!!?

What exactly do you think I will do???!

Genuinely mystified on that one...

Starts with a b and ends in itch.

carolt

Why would I b itch about it? I think I've made my opinions on this quite clear; I'd welcome change in this direction.

Can you clarify your remarks in this area?

carolt

SingleSue wrote: »

Ahh with you now! Excuse my brain, been a hell of a week and I don't know if I am coming or going right now.

Re the trips though, not even a quiet word with the head teacher will work here, you either pay and your child goes, or you don't (or can't) and your child doesn't...no middle ground or allowances. In a way, I am lucky having autistic kids as they don't really like the trips out where they stay away, so they don't feel left out, real begger at times getting youngest to even go to a local museum with the school, let alone a 3 or 4 day trip away!

Eldest has been the only one to go on the year 6 trip to PGL but I was married and we were both working at the time, middle one didn't go because of his history and it was advised against (by his doctors etc) for youngest due to his not being able to cope with it and his myriad of different medical needs.

I am absolutely shocked, Sue!

What your school is doing is ILLEGAL. I will find you the relevant links from a year or 2 back - schools are not allowed to require funding from parents for any essential school trip - they are allowed to ask, but if the parent can't afford it, it is absolutely against the law to insist on it. There are no 2 ways about it.

Non-essential trips (like holidays) aren't included in this, though I expect that funding is out there for people in your situation; I don't know enough about where to find the info, but maybe an organisation like Gingerbread, or equivalent, that advises single parents might have a better idea of where to find out about this?

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Why would I b itch about it? I think I've made my opinions on this quite clear; I'd welcome change in this direction.

Can you clarify your remarks in this area?

I assume he means that you're happy for benefits to be reduced for everyone but yourself (You've made that fact perfectly clear over the last week or so) and that as soon as you're impacted you'll be on here b itching about it. .

What was difficult about that to understand?

SingleSue

Thanks Carolt....I did wonder if it was correct (and this was back in the old days of working).

Re the bigger trips, it's no biggie as the boys don't really want to do them anyway and it is def not recommended for youngest at all! He gets over stressed about a change of poster in the classroom and takes weeks to calm down let alone a trip away to a place he has never been before!

carolt

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I assume he means that you're happy for benefits to be reduced for everyone but yourself (You've made that fact perfectly clear over the last week or so) and that as soon as you're impacted you'll be on here b itching about it. .

What was difficult about that to understand?

I think you need to reread my posts, Harry, as you appear to have misunderstood them, for some strange reason.

Shakethedisease

The quote from me that you gave had nothing to do with claiming LHA - it referred to the facts that in the current system, there is a massive bias in favour of single parents as they are not required to even seek work (let alone take it) until their youngest child is 7 years old. That compares to 1 year old for couples. As my youngest is 3, if my husband left me tomorrow, I'd be better off in terms of hours needed to work, as I could then afford to give up the work I currently have to do to make ends meet.

That is ridiculous.

As to whether I'd claim LHA - yes, of course I would.

There is no massive bias towards single parents. All benefits universally apply the old adage that 'two can live as cheaply as one'. From pensions, Income Support/JSA.. etc etc..Just about everything that applies to couples/singles. The singles always get more per head than couples living in the same house.

It's always been that way. Difference with LHA is that it's very 'simply' *coughs* 'set' ( by what method I dread to think but I read somewhere it was by asking local letting agents )... but by 'market rates' in the locality. Well there's no arguing with that really. House = x £££'s. End of. Couples or Single parent, that 2 bed flat is always going to cost the same either way.

If it's the 'system' you're annoyed at then fair enough. But your OP certainly didn't come across like that to me.
And if you're completely willing to claim the same as everyone else as a single parent, (hypothetically), should your husband leave you. Then I'm not entirely sure what this thead was about ?

That single parents aren't required to seek work until their youngest is 7. Hmmm.. well, yes. But I'd guess the cost of childcare has a lot to do with that. It's quite expensive, prohibitively so certainly, when you have two kids or more ..( taking into account for talking's sake the kids conceived are born in a relationship that 'was' financially stable' at the time ).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8506598.stm

Childcare costs in England, Wales and Scotland are continuing to rise, a survey by the Daycare Trust suggests. The trust found parents in England paid an average of £4,576 a year for 25 hours of nursery-based childcare a week for a child under two years of age.
Parents in Scotland spent an average of £4,368 and Welsh parents spent £4,056.
The Daycare Trust is now calling for an election commitment from politicians from all parties to make a greater investment in childcare

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/feb/10/childcare-costs-soar-survey

The findings of the annual survey by the Daycare Trust, the national childcare charity, show that despite the recession, nursery fees rose by 5.1%, with yearly parental expenditure in England topping £4,576. Parents in London pay the most, with nurseries costing as much as £11,050 a year. That equates to £212.50 a week for 25 hours of childcare.

Thats £95 per child per week.

That's the problem. And that's why the government aren't too ars--ed about getting single parents of those under 7 into work. They'd need a good wedge only to pay for the childcare involved. God help them when the summer holidays roll round, or if they have more than 1 child to pay childcare for.

At least couples have a bit more freedom that way in that one can work and the other can look after the kids, fit shifts round the OH's main job. Or even work from home when the OH takes over for a few hours ? Single parents have no such luxuries.

But hey ho, if getting annoyed at the above floats your boat then go ahead. However, until rental prices and childcare costs start coming down massively.. then single parents are always going to be facing challenges you would never want to face even in your worst nightmares...

exil

People who moan about benefits can never imagine themselves being out of work and therefore in need of them. It's a form of insurance that we all pay for.
I would get the princely sum of £65 a week if I lost my job. If I moved to Ireland and lost my job there I'd get 200 euros a week.... where's that ferry timetable?