Give up your job to live on benefits.

Loughton_Monkey

Another one guaranteed to raise the hackles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11743245

Shortly after the installation of a new Government, hell bent on cuts, the concept of someone "giving up their job" despite obvious responsibilities to her children, and financial commitments of an outstanding mortgage, I would call this a "brave" decision.

Am I being too polite? Why do we pay benefits for anyone 'choosing' not to work? Isn't this simply a case of 'chickens coming home to roost'? Or are we to be fooled by the BBC 'nanny spin' which is intended to have us all thinking "Now look what Cameron has done. Turning out mother and three children to suffer clifftop winter storms....."

On Thursday this week, winter storms were lashing the cliffs at Saltdean, near Brighton.

In such weather, having a secure home seems even more important than usual.

But Amanda Copeland, who lives in a bungalow in Saltdean with her three young children, believes she is about to lose hers for good.

"There's probably a good likelihood this house will be repossessed within the next year or so," she says.

Amanda is one of a quarter of a million homeowners in the UK who receive a benefit called Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI).

But as a result of some of the first government cuts to take effect, that benefit was cut by 40% from 1 October.

She, and more than 100,000 others, now face a shortfall in their mortgage payments.

...............

Mr_Mumble

Amanda gave up work as a nurse in June to look after her children, who are all under the age of eight.

She says she could not afford to pay for childcare while they were all so young.


She now lives on benefits.

What? *Mind Blown*

Childcare needs to be far cheaper. Presumably the pedophile scares and government bureaucrats are responsible for sky high costs. Having a couple of adults look after 30-40 kids should not be a large enough financial burden for parents to quit their jobs.

blueboy43

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

What? *Mind Blown*

Childcare needs to be far cheaper. Presumably the pedophile scares and government bureaucrats are responsible for sky high costs. Having a couple of adults look after 30-40 kids should not be a large enough financial burden for parents to quit their jobs.

Aged under 2 ?

Tell you what, why not ship them over to Romania to be looked after in one of the orphanages until the kids old enough to go to school.

It's expensive because its labour intensive even at close to minimum wage.

zygurat789

Somewhere, I'll wager, there is a man who is responsible for this. Responsible being the operative word. I really don;'t see why taxpayers should have to shoulder his responsibilites.

Loughton_Monkey

zygurat789 wrote: »

Somewhere, I'll wager, there is a man who is responsible for this. Responsible being the operative word. I really don;'t see why taxpayers should have to shoulder his responsibilites.

More like "irresponsible"?

We all know childcare is expensive. Nurses know about contraception (I'm making assumptions). So having the third child was a specific choice. In any 'rational' or 'normal' family, one would tend to imagine questions fired around the place like "Shall I give up work?", "If I do, what will I do for money...?", "Can we afford another child....?"

Does anyone know any other country in the world where someone would simply 'decide' to have a third child, give up work, and then expect all the other taxpayers to pay her living costs, grocery bills, mortgage interest....?

Seems that some people look on the taxpayers as a sort of rich set of parents. "I'll do what I want.... they won't let me go short of money..."

And what happened to the Child Support Agency? I thought the whole idea of that was "No benefits until father has paid his dues...."

Graham_Devon

zygurat789 wrote: »

Somewhere, I'll wager, there is a man who is responsible for this. Responsible being the operative word. I really don;'t see why taxpayers should have to shoulder his responsibilites.

Errr, women leave blokes too, y'know.

lemonjelly

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

And what happened to the Child Support Agency? I thought the whole idea of that was "No benefits until father has paid his dues...."

The Child Support Agency was a ridiculous farce. The legislation under which it was set up & given powers had to be revised 11 times in 10 years (surely a record). Staff would come into work a day after working through a caseload to discover it had been transported to another part of the country, for other staff to start the work all over again.

Never, has so much been wasted in a futile attempt to recover so little.

Mr_Mumble

blueboy43 wrote: »

Aged under 2 ?

Tell you what, why not ship them over to Romania to be looked after in one of the orphanages until the kids old enough to go to school.

It's expensive because its labour intensive even at close to minimum wage.

The youngest kid in the OP story is 2 and the parent was working when the children were younger...

The rest of your response is typical of L'Oreal Britain. Friends, family and neighbours used to look after kids when need be. They didn't require a 'minimum wage' which in this case causes a deadweight loss (you now have one adult looking after only three children - one/two of whom are school age - while childcare 'professionals' lose custom thanks to their high costs).

Loughton_Monkey

lemonjelly wrote: »

The Child Support Agency was a ridiculous farce. The legislation under which it was set up & given powers had to be revised 11 times in 10 years (surely a record). Staff would come into work a day after working through a caseload to discover it had been transported to another part of the country, for other staff to start the work all over again.

Never, has so much been wasted in a futile attempt to recover so little.

Is it still in existence, though? Serious question, because I don't know, and haven't heard of it lately. All I remember was at some stage they were ignoring the 'runaway' or 'anonymous' fathers, but instead interfering in ordinary, amicable divorce settlements which were being honoured correctly.

zygurat789

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Errr, women leave blokes too, y'know.

And your point is?

lemonjelly

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Is it still in existence, though? Serious question, because I don't know, and haven't heard of it lately. All I remember was at some stage they were ignoring the 'runaway' or 'anonymous' fathers, but instead interfering in ordinary, amicable divorce settlements which were being honoured correctly.

Yes & no. They still use the CSA website, but actually now technically are the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.

A rose by any other rose...

http://www.csa.gov.uk/