The Cost of Being Single (not single mums, proper single)

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

Exactly, child benefit is a (slight) state subsidy. Living off welfare implies that the state is paying all the costs of bringing up the child. I doubt anyone can bring up a child on £10 a week.

Lets call a spade a spade. Child benefit is welfare. I filled in the forms and claimed it for my two. I was shocked to read on the benefits board that child benefit can, in some cases, be claimed until the "child" is 20 year old.:eek: With that benefit in place, they can then continue to claim child tax credits too.

Child Benefit is more than £10 a week: it is £20.30pw for the first child and £13.40pw for every other child.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/TaxCreditsandChildBenefit/Childbenefits/DG_073828

Really2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Quite a few people get most of their childcare costs paid by the state.

Everyone with a child over 3 is entitled to a maximum of 15hr PW child placement at a nursery. Below that I do not think there is any aid (not as we are aware anyway) but there are things like "Busy Bees" vouchers that come out of your pre tax earnings, they help lower the costs a bit.

Our kicks in this sept (free 15 hours that is).

MissMoneypenny

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Really ? Why's that ? My children should be discounted or devalued somehow on the basis of how much I've claimed in benefits in the past ? Why should that be ? Or just that I should be ashamed of having them ?

Nothing to do with the child being devalued as it is the parent who claims. There is nothing to be ashamed of with people needing help in the short term, as that's why the welfare state was created. Most people are happy for their taxes to help in this way and happy to have that safety net.

Breeding on benefits when parents are unwilling to work a full week to support their children, or breeding lots of children they can't afford, is the thing to be ashamed of imho.

LilacPixie

I think being single costs far more. I now have more surplus income now i'm married and have 2 kids than I did as a single person.

As a single person I lived in the same home. My mortgage is now on an SVR and is slightly lower now than it was pre being a couple. Council tax is higher as are food bills. Utilities pretty much the same usage as single but unit cost has increased but if i was still single those costs would be the same so no impact there. Car costs same as it would being single but now we have OH car too. Biggest difference is we have 2 wages now not just mine so even although I have cut my hours I still have more disposable income.

MissMoneypenny

Really2 wrote: »

Everyone with a child over 3 is entitled to a maximum of 15hr PW child placement at a nursery. Below that I do not think there is any aid (not as we are aware anyway) but there are things like "Busy Bees" vouchers that come out of your pre tax earnings, they help lower the costs a bit.

Our kicks in this sept (free 15 hours that is).

A lot of parents are saying that childcare costs and nursery costs went up when the government starting paying these benefit payments.

To keep it on topic, singles pay again for other peoples children. I do get what PN is saying. In the last decade, parents have been given a lot of money in all sorts of new benefits, from the state. Prior to that, the only benefits parents received were child benefit and FA (as I recall).

Forgot to say, yes there is aid below the age of 3 if the parents work for a few hours a week; but that will depend on your household income. Start reading the benefits board for more info.

Really2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I do get what PN is saying. In the last decade, parents have been given a lot of money in all sorts of new benefits, from the state. Prior to that, the only benefits parents received were child benefit and FA (as I recall).

I do to and of cause being in a couple is cheaper as you get economies of scale.
I agree with subsidising child care for workers as it creates jobs , lowers unemployment (unemployed mothers would get more help) and increase GDP

But the reason the governments offer support to parents are because their is a future tax income to claim off children.

A single person with no children is the end of the tax line for the government. If no one had children would would be paying the next generations pensions etc.

Another way of looking at it is people get pensions regardless to what if any future generation wealth they have created.
People who are single do not receive less even though they will have not created any future benefit to the country.
A couple of state pensioners receive less than two single people.
(we all know it is future generations that pay pensions not your actual stamp )

It all evens out in the end.:)

PS We work anyway so not much point checking, just going off personal experience, I work full time my wife does 3 days.

ninky_2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

To keep it on topic, singles pay again for other peoples children. .

as part of a dinky setup (double income no kids) can i point out having children has nothing to do with being in a couple or being single. you don't actually have to be in a relationship to get pregnant - or to stay in one. lots of parents are singles and lots of couples are childfree.

carolt

carolt wrote: »

Have to argue with this one.

I am clearly the 1 out of 10 couple that doesn't claim welfare.

We both work - not that I wouldn't rather be one of The White Horse's example couples with 1 earner and 1 stay-at-home parent who looked after the kids, but we can't afford to. So we pay our way now.

As for my kids, when they're older, they will - having inherited a good work ethic - likewise work and support themselves.

Your "singles also pay for schools, NHS (giving birth and any treatment the children need), universities", is illogical - presumably those same singles themselves went to school and possibly uni, were born in an NHS hospital and have recived NHS medical treatment. They got that free, but then pay it back in later life through their taxes. My children will do the same.

You, or other singles, are not paying for my children - they will pay for themselves, just as you now do.

The only reason they don't pay for it now is because they are small children and, understandably, being a civilised society, we don't expect small children to have to work up chimneys/in factories any more to pay for their own medical care or education! Thank goodness.

We pay for them now, just as we did for you when you were a child, on the understanding that when they are older, they will pay that back through their taxes. Just as you are now repaying your costs through your taxes. NOT their costs.

As some seem unable to understand this, I'll repost this.

Couples don't get child benefit - children get child benefit.

All current singles have been children and got child benefit then.

They now repay that early 'welfare benefit' through their taxes, just as today's current crop of children will repay the cost of their child benefit through their taxes when older.

And anyone who claims that that money isn't actually spent on the children, has clearly never had children. Anyone who thinks that parents can bring up a child for less than £20.40 (which I think was the highest figure quoted above?) per week, covering all essentials, is frankly loopy.

Really2

I wrote similar earlier.

Perhaps we should only admit this once carol, but we agree.

pop_gun

original quote from PN

I'm probably old enough to be his mum ...

age is but a number

and 300-400 miles away

.

love will find a way :j

Go read some Mills & Boon if you need a fix

i have the internet


p.s. sorry i couldn't resist. :cool: