MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

nottslass_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You're forgetting the extra TCs you get towards childcare costs.

Not everyone gets help with childcare costs.

Oldernotwiser

sh1305 wrote: »

Which is being cut to a maximum of 70% soon.

Even paying 30% of childcare costs is going to leave most people better off working, particularly when you're talking about school age children.

Oldernotwiser

nottslass wrote: »

Not everyone gets help with childcare costs.

We're discussing couples on low incomes, so they would.

DX2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

We're discussing couples on low incomes, so they would.

we are discussing lone parents, not a couple to be seen in sight on this thread

tts42010

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

I agree, my 3 children are now between 30 -35 years old and I paid 100% of their childcare costs with no help from the state.

I assume childcare cost less back then though?

ceridwen

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I don't see how you can legislate against having children.....

<sigh> been down this road many times before <sigh>

It's called effective contraceptive precautions - ie the Pill, sterilisation, abortion if need be.

If someone already has a child/children and wants to have some more whilst still on benefits - on their head be it - as they wouldnt get given any extra money by the State (ie us) for any subsequent children. So the woman would have to "spread" the same income over more mouths to feed/bodies to clothe/etc. A lot of women would then "miraculously" decide by themselves then not to have any more children after all...

Oldernotwiser

DX2 wrote: »

we are discussing lone parents, not a couple to be seen in sight on this thread

You're right, it's gone off topic, but lone parents do often think that their problems are different from couples'.

Oldernotwiser

tts42010 wrote: »

I assume childcare cost less back then though?

As was everything else, like wages.

seven-day-weekend

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

As was everything else, like wages.

Absolutely.

Childcare cost as much as it does now as a proportion of wages. And it was not so readily available. And the Government didn't pay for any of it.

seven-day-weekend

ceridwen wrote: »

<sigh> been down this road many times before <sigh>

It's called effective contraceptive precautions - ie the Pill, sterilisation, abortion if need be.

If someone already has a child/children and wants to have some more whilst still on benefits - on their head be it - as they wouldnt get given any extra money by the State (ie us) for any subsequent children. So the woman would have to "spread" the same income over more mouths to feed/bodies to clothe/etc. A lot of women would then "miraculously" decide by themselves then not to have any more children after all...

Yes, I agree with that.

These are indirect measures to discourage people on Benefits from having more children. What I meant when I said you couldn't legislate against people having children is that you could not pass a law saying 'thou shalt have no more children whilst on Benefits'.

Indirect measures like this, yes I approve of.