MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

edited 27 December 2010 at 3:51AM in Benefits & Tax Credits
251 replies 14.1K views
1568101126

Replies

  • SixerSixer Forumite
    1.1K Posts
    ceridwen wrote: »
    I doubt things would get that drastic - the phrase "over-egging the cake" comes to mind here for that statement.

    What about the phrase "Personal Responsibility"? Time for people (and that includes would-be parents) to take personal responsibility and take account of their circumstances before deciding whether to conceive a child/another child - rather than going ahead and having one regardless.

    I do not take exception to your believing that people should take personal responsibility for their lives. In many cases, I share it. But you're sabre-rattling to no effect. You cannot compulsorily physically restrict fertility because of human rights. Even if you could plunge children into abject poverty because of the irresponsibility of their parents - and again, human rights probably won't allow this - you would then have to rescue them from it by removing them from their parents, which would cost more money than simply subsidising the !!!!less in the first place.

    I am not saying this is a GOOD state of affairs necessarily - I'm just saying that you are howling at the moon.

    If something can't be done, we have to concentrate on what can be done.

    PS: I did not swear! I said f-e-c-k-l-e-s-s. A perfectly good English word. Computer intelligence sucks.
  • SingleSueSingleSue Forumite
    11.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    Agree, eldest was in a child care nursery from 14 months until he was 4 and went to a school nursery. It was a huge amount from my weekly salary and at times, people did ask why I did it as the gain from working was only around £10 a week from not working.

    My view was that £10 was better than nothing, he was getting socialisation, I was not going brain dead from boredom and it gave me something to strive for.

    At that time, there was no childcare element....well that I know of but then we didn't know we could claim family credit (as it was then) either!
    We made it! Two graduated, 1 currently at university doing a Masters, been hard work but it shows there is a possibility of a chance of normal (ish) life after a diagnosis (or two) of ASD. It's not been the easiest route but I am so glad I ignored everything and everyone and did my own therapies with them.
    Eldests' EDS diagnosis 4.5.10, mine 13.1.11 eekk!
  • janninewjanninew Forumite
    3.8K Posts
    sh1305 wrote: »
    Why should the children suffer?

    Children won't suffer, we all know what happens to children if their parents can't/won't provide for them. If parents aren't willing to provide for their children's basics needs, they aren't fit to be parents. Children shouldn't be used as cash cows.
    :heart2: Newborn Thread Member :heart2:

    'Children reinvent the world for you.' - Susan Sarandan
  • nottslass_2nottslass_2 Forumite
    1.8K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    ceridwen wrote: »
    If that happened to children - it would be the parents' fault. They would have been the ones to choose to have children deliberately whilst on benefits - therefore the child could "point the finger at" their own parent and say "YOUR fault - YOU were the one who had me/the youngest/whatever whilst on benefits."

    The reason many children didnt have adequate food etc prior to the Welfare State is because there wasnt effective contraception/legal abortion then (nothing to do with whether we have any sort of Welfare State or no). No-one now has a child they cant afford themselves - unless they have made a deliberate decision to do so. Prior to effective contraception/legal abortion people had no option as to whether to have children or no and many then DID have children they couldnt afford themselves (because for most of history to date children just "happened" regardless). WE have had control of our own destiny in that respect for about the last 40 years.

    If the rest of us keep having money taken out of OUR pockets to pay for children born to those already on benefits - then that means WE OURSELVES maybe not having enough (due to no fault/choice of our own) - but just because OUR money had been taken off us one way or another and given to someone else.


    I can't disagree with your statement. BUT As a member of a civilised society I would not be happy to see a neighbours/relatives/friends child live in poverty regardless of who's fault it is !!!

    As a society we should be looking after the vulnerable in our community and simply taking the stance that a child can "point a finger" at their parent when he or she is an adult is inhumaine and will not solve anything !!

    As a tax payer there are many things that I object to paying for,but as they say "That's Life".
  • Some very distasteful thoughts on this thread!
    *SIGH*
    :D
  • janninew wrote: »
    Children won't suffer, we all know what happens to children if their parents can't/won't provide for them. If parents aren't willing to provide for their children's basics needs, they aren't fit to be parents. Children shouldn't be used as cash cows.
    Yes children will be placed in care have you any idea as to how much this costs weekly. A lot more than what a single parent gets in benefits at the moment. But hey that's forward thinking for you.
    *SIGH*
    :D
  • janninewjanninew Forumite
    3.8K Posts
    DX2 wrote: »
    Yes children will be placed in care have you any idea as to how much this costs weekly. A lot more than what a single parent gets in benefits at the moment. But hey that's forward thinking for you.

    It would be a very last resort, but what else can be done if parents won't care for their children and provide for their basic needs? Is the answer to keep giving them more money?
    :heart2: Newborn Thread Member :heart2:

    'Children reinvent the world for you.' - Susan Sarandan
  • Indie_KidIndie_Kid Forumite
    23.1K Posts
    janninew wrote: »
    It would be a very last resort, but what else can be done if parents won't care for their children and provide for their basic needs? Is the answer to keep giving them more money?

    No. But if you limit the amount of money to be paid for x amount of children, then you will cause serious hardship to some people.
    Sealed pot challenge #232. Gold stars from Sue-UU - :staradmin :staradmin £75.29 banked
    50p saver #40 £20 banked
    Virtual sealed pot #178 £80.25
  • nottslass wrote: »
    Would just like to point out that for every woman who has a child whilst on Benefits there is indeed a man who is jointly responsible for the well being of his child !!!!
    They do indeed have "fathers" it's just a shame the CSA doesn't do what it was set up to do. Many "fathers" and I use that term loosely as I can't call a man who walks away from a child and never cares/pays for their child a "father".

    But these men never once get the backlash that is saved for single parents and yes I know what the anti single parents are going to say "well you could have an abortion". Of course that's assuming the "father" left you when it was legal to have an abortion.
    *SIGH*
    :D
  • You're right, it's gone off topic, but lone parents do often think that their problems are different from couples'.
    They are different.
    *SIGH*
    :D
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides