MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

SingleSue

DaisyFlower wrote: »

I agree. those quoting lack of childcare or say it "damages" children are usually those on benefits trying to justify not working.

Whilst some children may be needed to sustain life and the economy, those brought up on benefits will in the main go on to claim themselves - that means two generations at least that will take any give nothing back. If we need more taxpayers paying into the system we should concentrate on using state money better rather than throwing it away.

I can assure you that it is not an excuse in my case....both myself and social services have tried to get child care for the boys and it was not possible due to their disabilities and more particularly, middle sons aggression and violence.

I would love to work, have been applying for employment which fits the boys term schedule, have improved my CV by volunteering in the education sector and by gaining more up to date qualifications to make me more desirable to employers but still no luck....the boys and their needs scare employers because I would need to take time off on a very regular basis and at very short notice.

My eldest son has a work ethic, he has a part time job, he studies hard for his A levels so that he will have the chance of not living on benefits...in fact, he has been told that I will not accept him giving up and living a life on benefits.

I have worked, very hard in fact from a very young age. I have always had a work ethic, some would say I was a workaholic but one thing I absolutely abhor is the presumption (I'm not saying you think like this, this is just my experience from here and real life), that I have never worked or if I have, the barest minimum of hours in minimum wage employment when this could not be further from the truth in my case.

Sixer

FBaby wrote: »

I agree with this until your last paragraph stating that the change needs to take place outside of the participants. Yes housing has had an impact, but it has done so on everyone, yet, some single parents wouldn't consider a life on benefits whilst others find all the reasons to justify why they don't have a choice.

The reality is that our nation has been one much more concerned about money and comparing material assets with others than by principles. It is not a question of pride in supporting yourself and your family that give you the self-esteem to better yourself, but of believing that what is a foolish principle is to work hard to get something you can get without doing so. It is about instant gratification rather than planning for the future.

No, no, you misunderstand me, sorry. I am saying that a SOLE focus on individual - or indeed a whole subsection of - benefits claimants will not provide the answers the people on both sides of this argument are looking for. The picture is bigger than that.

Society has changed and in many ways for the better. But financial arrangements have yet to catch up with the new social environment. Answers do lie in actions to moderate the actions of those who are f-eckless, I don't disagree about that. But ONLY doing that not only punishes those who are not f-eckless (and because of this are probably not implementable as I've discussed before on this thread) - it also won't solve the problem by itself.

I am saying that the way we are currently organised probably needs to change in lots of different ways. I would include childcare costs in that. I would include housing costs in that. I would include public transport in that. I would also include NMW (which acts to depress wages and encourage immigration - not that I'm opposed to immigration itself, just the way it works at present), employers NICs (terrible tax on jobs) and many, many other things that are seemingly unrelated.

What we ALL want is for work to pay, for personal responsibility to be something to be proud of, and for children to be raised in a way that enables them to become productive members of society.

I'm just saying that a single-pronged attack on single parents and their children, regardless of their actual circumstances, is not going to work even if it were an ethical idea (though I personally think it isn't, I get why some people do).

FBaby

I agree, but people learn by exemple and as sues48 commented, people copy those who they are close to and make it their normality. It is by imposing changes that will first affect individuals but then become more of a norm that the trend will change.

I do believe that most single parent want to work, the problem is with the many buts... i want to work but only if I earn more than what I am getting on benefits, but only if I don't have to travel too far, but only if I can get childcare that suits my needs, but only if I can get the holidays off etc... Being a single parent when you are young with little education and little experience doesn't give you an edge to all the other poorly educated and little experienced youngsters. They struggle to find a job they consider acceptable and will have to make many compromises to start with, and that goes even for those who have gained a good education. I have done jobs after uni that I would not consider doing now unless I had really no choice, but I had to do them then to be where I am now.

What single parents need is a reality check. They are lucky to be parents, something that some women don't get the chance to enjoy, and they should accept that life might be a difficult and hard and full of compromises until they can start having a bit more control over their lives. Very few employers give flexibility from the start of employment, but from experience, many do once you have shown your dedication to your job and company.

I do fully support any parent whose child is disabled, whether single or not, who have to look after their kids at home because no childcare will cater for their needs.

MissMoneypenny

DX2 wrote: »

See to me this sounds completely like segregation, and moving more and more into a nanny state.

Don't give them money to feed the kids, open the school kitchens feed them their three meals a day 7 days a week. Because of course school meals are healthy :rotfl:You missed the Jamie Oliver experiment then.

Don't give them money to clothe their children the schools can do that.

It's not about segreation but is all about making sure the child gets ALL of their benefit money spent on them.

DX2 wrote: »

So who at the school is going to be given this task?

Private firms and this would provide jobs for those parents who are going without all their extras, because they haven't got their chilldrens benefits to spend on themselves anymore.

How many times on here do we see "all we are living on is my child benefit and child tax credit money". That money is not for the parents!

Googlewhacker

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Not much....but the CC and the council both said she wasn't allow to hire someone qualified to do it - it HAD to be the council who did it as it is a council property.

So why didn't she pay them to do it?

MissMoneypenny

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

TBH, if I had ever been a single parent wth a young child and the choice was never seeing them, never spending time with them, and nursery assistants bringing them up, or living on Benefits until they were five, I'm not at all sure I would not have chosen the Benefits as I think these early years are so important. I don't think it is right for little children to be institutionalised at this age. A good childminder, or friends sharing childcare, fine. Here they have something nearer to a family situation. But not a nursery where the children are just clients.

Before all these benefits came in, we didn't have a choice; and I'm only going back a decade.

In the village I moved to, we shared the childcare between ourselves. Some parents went out to work for companies, others ran their own business. A friend and I ran a business from home, so we were the ones who use to have everyone elses children. We didn't ask for money for their children as it was great for our children to have their friends around a lot of the time, but if ever we needed a favour such as a sitter for the evening, they were always there for us. We trusted each other and the children seemed to love it too.

If I had had the chance of all the benefits that parents have now, I hope I wouldn't have taken it. I've always been too independant and I never would be where I am now if I did live on benefits and I don' think my children would have the good work ethic they have either. Relying on the state seems to take peoples confidence away.

The biggest thing I would say to help parents in general, is to lower the rents. High LHA rates have just pushed up the rents. I hope this government stick to their pledge of lowering the rents; as they pay for 40% of all rents as this will have a knock on effect.

seven-day-weekend

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Before all these benefits came in, we didn't have a choice; and I'm only going back a decade.

In the village I moved to, we shared the childcare between ourselves. Some parents went out to work for companies, others ran their own business. A friend and I ran a business from home, so we were the ones who use to have everyone elses children. We didn't ask for money for their children as it was great for our children to have their friends around a lot of the time, but if ever we needed a favour such as a sitter for the evening, they were always there for us. We trusted each other and the children seemed to love it too.

If I had had the chance of all the benefits that parents have now, I hope I wouldn't have taken it. I've always been too independant and I never would be where I am now if I did live on benefits and I don' think my children would have the good work ethic they have either. Relying on the state seems to take peoples confidence away.

The biggest thing I would say to help parents in general, is to lower the rents. High LHA rates have just pushed up the rents. I hope this government stick to their pledge of lowering the rents; as they pay for 40% of all rents as this will have a knock on effect.

Yes I know this, my son is nearly 31 now!

The system you are talking about is a good one and I don't know why more parents can't do it now.

Sharing childcare has got to be a good option, hasn't it? I don't quite see what the objections are to the type of set-up that you describe.

DX2

FBaby wrote: »

Single parent who work will progess in their career so that one day, they will be able to support themselves and their children fully. I used to get £500 a month CTC when my children were at nursery. I now get nothing, but have started paying taxes at 40% and it won't take long before I will have repay what I generously got in benefits. That would not be happening if I remained on benefits. I would have to be on JSA now as my youngest in turning 8, but would be lucky to get a job at half pay to what I get now.

You had a career, how many young single parents even leave school with a Gcse under their belt. So is their much room from progressing up from a checkout operator at Tesco, becasue if they are lucky that's about the only employment they would get.

Oldernotwiser

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Yes I know this, my son is nearly 31 now!

The system you are talking about is a good one and I don't know why more parents can't do it now.

Sharing childcare has got to be a good option, hasn't it? I don't quite see what the objections are to the type of set-up that you describe.

Even if you don't do this informally, there's always the possibility of sharing a nanny. Several of my friends used this system when their children were younger and it often worked out cheaper and more flexible than paying for a good nursery.

DX2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Your POV is totally valid and I do sympathise with people in your situation. However, it's foolish to ignore the fact that there are many young women who are lone parents out of choice (I know because I've worked with a lot of them). The unfortunate fact is that the easier we make life for people in your situation, the more f eckless young mothers there will be as this will be an even more attractive life choice.

I don't know what the answer is but I do know that there are two sides to this, just like everything else..

I totally agree, and it is interesting that those single parents posting on this thread like myself are in the exempt category yet here we are fighting and defending the right for all single parents.