Another one of those benefits threads

tomterm8

daily_mail wrote:

A lottery winner who scooped £164,000 and continued to claim more than £21,000 in benefits has been jailed.


David Smith, 51, won the cash after buying a ticket for the prize draw in 2005.
But despite the win he failed to declare his lucky break to the authorities and instead stashed the money in a secret bank account.

The fraudster was eventually found out by council officials after they carried out routine computer checks.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278120/Lottery-winner-jailed-continuing-claim-benefits-164-000-windfall.html#ixzz0nt59YG7R

Hm, guilty of housing benefit fraud, so they've given the booger some free housing... couldn't make it up;)

Harry_Powell

I think the benefit system should not incentivise having children and adding to an already overpopulated planet. End of.

If people can't afford to have kids without taxpayer's help, then they shouldn't have them. Certainly we would reduce teenage pregnancies if it wasn't such a gravy train.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

I think this kind of misses the point of the OP - there was no way it was aimed at women who were involuntary single mothers - the whole point of the link, and what made it so shocking to me, was that the single mother in question had deliberately chosen to divorce her husband (NOT the other way around) for financial reasons, as she was £200/a week better off single on benefits than she was married.

That is a lot of money. And she is no less 'real' an example than you or Sue, say, who didn't choose to be single parents.

I don't know the statistics for how many single parents actively chose that state, like the OP, and how many definitely did not.

But the fact is clear that the benefit system should not incentivise ANYONE to the tune of £200/week to choose divorce. There is clearly something very sick with a system where that can happen.

I think I agree, but how do you tell? Not very benefit claimant is someone we know like Sue or like this woman whose sage will be published. A what point does finding out whether their situations are 'real' or 'created' (for want of better words ATM) become more exensive than just giving?

lostinrates

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I think the benefit system should not incentivise having children and adding to an already overpopulated planet. End of.

If people can't afford to have kids without taxpayer's help, then they shouldn't have them. Certainly we would reduce teenage pregnancies if it wasn't such a gravy train.

This I agree with, though not without discomfort and some squeamishness. I think even with affordability not an issue people should perhaps think more carefully before having more than two children. It is not without discomfort I say this.

carolt

lostinrates wrote: »

I think I agree, but how do you tell? Not very benefit claimant is someone we know like Sue or like this woman whose sage will be published. A what point does finding out whether their situations are 'real' or 'created' (for want of better words ATM) become more exensive than just giving?

I agree - it's far from easy and clearly the aim is not to disadvantage the childen whilst motivating the parents.

I think the guiding rule should be - is this single parent better off ie advantaged over what a working couple would be and if so, that clearly needs to be changed.

I'm in favour of a short-term stop gap - say 1 or 2 years maybe? for people with children who lose jobs, to receive benefits to cover for example their rental costs at a previous level, so they don't have the stress of having to move their familes immediately. But after that time, they should be give a flat cap at a reasonable level - probably no more than £1000/month for any family, no matter of what size or where in the UK. That's enough to get a family home in the outer London suburbs, or anywhere else in the UK. If kids have to share - well, welcome to the world of people who work and don't live on benefits - there is no minimum number of rooms or space for those mugs like us who actually work for a living... :mad:

It's ridiculous to pay those who don't work, and in some cases never have and never plan to, central London private rental costs. If the £1000 won't pay them to live in zone 1, then they should be forced to do what working couples do when their salary goes down or one of them loses a job - move to a cheaper area or cheaper property in the same area. If it means the kids have to have a longish journey to school or have to change schools - tough. That's what the children of working couples have to do if their family income goes down - children of the unemployed might then put pressure on their lone parent to get a job, instead of learning the lesson that being on benefits is a cushy number...


At the moment, if you choose to live on benefits, as a single parent, you have certain clear advantags over those who work. For example:

1. Your housing needs are decided on the basis of your family size and minimum numbers of rooms and room sizes are laid down by law. If you work - doesn't apply - you have to cram your family into whatever number of rooms you can afford.

2. If you don't work, you can choose to live in any area of your choice - even though, ironically, as you don't have to get to work, you could really live anywhere. If you work, though, you can only live in areas you can actually afford out of your salary - if you wish to live close to your work, say, or a good school, but can't afford to - tough, you have to live with the long commute or your kids at rubbish schools.

3. If you choose not to work, you won't even be made to think about getting a job and losing a minute of precious time with your children until the youngest one is 7 years old. But if you work, you get maternity pay to cover 1 year only - then there is zero financial support from the state to enable you to spend time with your child, meaning that millions of parents have to face the heartache of leaving their children to go to work. Some working couples work shifts to fit around the children and still afford to eat - and so hardly ever see each other, and only see their children when exhausted from a full day at work. In my opinion, 1 year olds are best looked after by their parents, and financial incentives should offer all parents of pre-school children, whether single or not, equal incentives to stay at home with their children. Equally, once children start school, there is no reason why single parents should get some special dispensation meaning they don't need to work whilst their child is at school. Part-time jobs do exist - after all, most mums in couples I know manage to find them - and moreover, it would help the single parents get back into the job market longer term, and keep their skills up-to-date - realistically, if anyone is out of the labour market for 7 years (or more if they have more than 1 child), they are going to be virtually unemployable afterwards. Which is not doing them - or the country and our budget deficit - any good at all.

lemonjelly

fc123 wrote: »

I hate to add to the thread....but I wish the whole single mother label would be dropped and the descrip was ''absent father families'' instead.

..and don't feel a failure Sue...if the Daily Mail ever want to do an in depth on absent fathers, they should interview someone like you as a contrast.

fc123 wrote: »

I didn't intend it to be a negative thing but I get a bit fed up with the whole single mother label...it sounds so derogatory.
Loads of single parent families for so may different reasons....maybe they should just get rid of the word single altogether?

Lone parent sounds more tolerant though.

I just feel it's the women who get the flack...based on the OP.

"Single mothers" has negative connotations from the 80's, particularly through the media reports of the time & views that were prevalent in the time of thatcher.

Nowadays, in the sector in which I move, the terminology is, & has been for some time, lone-parent. The CSA (now defunct) also changed terminology to "parent with care" and "absent parent" (though the staff I met invariably used the phrase absent fathers, but that says more about the staff in my experience).

Initially, lone parent families were predomenently female led. As time passed though, the % which are a father with care has increased, though they are still the minority of course. However in my experience assigning a gender to lone parent status does provoke negative reactions. From those involved, & those who object to the implied sexism of a phrase like single mother, or absent father as generalisations, it can lead to quite aggressive responses...

ILW

If feel that more use of terms such as abandoned mother, divorcee, widow etc would help separate the wheat from the chaff. May come over as a little judgemental on the "pop out babies for a council flat" brigade but I believe judgements should be made.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

II think the guiding rule should be - is this single parent better off ie advantaged over what a working couple would be and if so, that clearly needs to be changed.

I think the guiding rule should be - is this individual better off, i.e. advantaged over another individual, regardless of whether they have children or not and if so, that clearly needs to be changed.

The first thing the government should do is get rid of Child benefit. This is paid to every parent regardless of whether they are living in poverty or living in a mansion. Following closely on its heels should be the Child Trust Fund - again paid out to the poor and rich alike.

carolt

What's your definition of "living in poverty or living in a mansion", Harry?

I am quite strongly opposed to that, because people with no earnings may actually be better off than people with nominal earnings, once you take housing/council tax etc out of the equation.

Many of those 'living in mansions' appear to be on benefits, with the tab being picked up by the taxpayer, so I hope they would lose their entitlement to child benefit too, Harry?

ILW

They could always sell the mansion.