MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

DX2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The solutions are always there, but some people don't want them.

And this is this crux of the matter, those who are hell bent on staying on benefits from now until the day they die will do.

If a single parent wants to stay on benefits all she has to do is get pregnant every five years, or every three years. Visit a grab and shag bar and job done. At least the children would be nicely spaced rather than the old 16 year gap that did happen

DX2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

No seperate budget as the state will already be providing the housing, council tax, all meals, clothes, shoes and clubs etc for the child under this system. Which is what the child welfare payments should be spent now.

The parent can pay for the utility bills and thier own food from their income support or jsa. The state has already said that this £65 is enough for all these things for an adult to live on. You don't need to pay for the heat in the house or pay for the lights, twice.

The difference will be that the parent now can't access their child's benefits to top up their own lifestyle and the child will now get all their own welfare payments spent on them.

So now you are saying single parents neglect their children. Good god woman just round us all up and shoot us all be done with the whole shameful parts of society. You really are very narrow minded aren't you?

Of course being a single parent would never happen to you or any of your children

Indie_Kid

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The parent can pay for the utility bills and thier own food from their income support or jsa. The state has already said that this £65 is enough for all these things for an adult to live on. You don't need to pay for the heat in the house or pay for the lights, twice.

Some parents may find that they don't need the lights or heating on; but the child might. Why shouldn't child benefits cover that?

MissMoneypenny

sh1305 wrote: »

Some parents may find that they don't need the lights or heating on; but the child might. Why shouldn't child benefits cover that?

The £65pw the adult gets has the cost of utility bills added into it when the government calculates how much they need.

As many parents do take their children benefits for their own use (in this example the benefit from the heating too), this is why I suggested that parents who didn't work full time, did not get the chance to take their childs money (which is meant for the benefit of the child and not for the adult to snitch).

MissMoneypenny

DX2 wrote: »

So now you are saying single parents neglect their children. Good god woman just round us all up and shoot us all be done with the whole shameful parts of society. You really are very narrow minded aren't you?

Of course being a single parent would never happen to you or any of your children

My idea won't be a problem to parents who aren't taking their child's welfare payment (sadly we all know some parents do this, from posts on this site).

I have already said in this thread, that I was a single parent.

SingleSue

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

No seperate budget as the state will already be providing the housing, council tax, all meals, clothes, shoes and clubs etc for the child under this system. Which is what the child welfare payments should be spent now.

The parent can pay for the utility bills and thier own food from their income support or jsa. The state has already said that this £65 is enough for all these things for an adult to live on. You don't need to pay for the heat in the house or pay for the lights, twice.

The difference will be that the parent now can't access their child's benefits to top up their own lifestyle and the child will now get all their own welfare payments spent on them.

So what do the children do when they are at home and need heat, water and light and maybe some snacks....£65 would certainly not feed and provide clothes for an adult plus provide heating, electricity and water for a family.

What about extras for education that a child may need but is not always provided at school, extra lessons that a parent may pay for, music tuition, musical instruments etc or are talented children not to be catered for either because their parents are on benefits?

Again, there is rather a note of generalisation in your post that all single parents will waste the money rather than spending it on the child, when that is the minority rather than the majority.

Even on your scheme, a one size fits all approach would not work, something like that could only work if all children had exactly the same needs or intelligence. It would not give outside of the average children a chance in life..yes it would deal with the basics but nothing more, no extras, something parents CAN provide under the current system as there is a choice...and without the children going without the basics.

ceridwen

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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



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!

Must admit that it is rather revealing when parents say "Now sonny boy/daughter has left home I am so much worse off - with not getting childrens benefits any more". Now why would they be? That money was for the children - so we are told. That "child" has now left home and costs have reduced correspondingly - so why on earth WOULD a parent be worse off then? (unless of course they were using some of that childrens benefits towards expenses they would have ANYWAY - ie a level of bills they would have anyway and/or the parents' own living costs).

DX2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

My idea won't be a problem to parents who aren't taking their child's welfare payment (sadly we all know some parents do this, from posts on this site).

I have already said in this thread, that I was a single parent.

I must have been far too busy banging my head against a brick wall to notice that you stated you were a single parent.

What exactly do other single parents use their child related benefits for? personally I use them to benefit my child, I don't use them for night's out on the town christ I couldn't tell the time I had a night out. I don't use the money for nails/hair I could go on and on, but it's pointless really isn't. It's a bit like an ex smoker giving a smoker a telling off "if I can do it anyone can do it"

SingleSue

DX2 - Same here, my hair was last cut in June, before that it was October 2009, I go out socially (without the children), once a year, I very very rarely drink, I don't smoke, I have no nails to get done and I spend less in a year on clothes for myself than an average person will spend on one blouse or a pair of shoes (I have one pair of heels, goodness knows how old and cost me £6 and one pair of trainers, a year old and cost me £5)

My children come first, always have done and any pennies left over, go for their needs, their interests, their extras....hell, I go without so that I can get middle son his musical instruments (second hand and paid for weekly on a layby), to get youngest son art essentials and eldest son to have special outings (cinema etc) for a break away from the caring role.

It is the assumption which really gets my goat, the assumption that all single parents or those claiming unemployment benefits, waste their money on booze or have enough for plasma televisions. The assumption that those on benefits will care little for their children, that the children come second best and the parent first, the assumption that all those on benefits need to be mothered because they couldn't possibly know which need has priority.

Indie_Kid

ceridwen wrote: »

Must admit that it is rather revealing when parents say "Now sonny boy/daughter has left home I am so much worse off - with not getting childrens benefits any more". Now why would they be? That money was for the children - so we are told. That "child" has now left home and costs have reduced correspondingly - so why on earth WOULD a parent be worse off then? (unless of course they were using some of that childrens benefits towards expenses they would have ANYWAY - ie a level of bills they would have anyway and/or the parents' own living costs).

In some cases, I think it's the child leaving education but choosing to live at home.