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
1679111226

Replies

  • SixerSixer Forumite
    1.1K Posts
    This is probably going too far OT!

    I think the only realistic way forward is to make work properly pay, not force children onto less than the breadline. The current administration are creating a great deal of hot air on this one, but I personally have grave reservations about the likely success of some/many of their policies. We shall see what happens.

    Work can only properly pay with a number of conditions simultaneously attached, and one - only one amongst many, but still a vital one - is the availability of good childcare.

    If all these conditions are met, including the provision of affordable, good quality childcare, then all taxpayers will benefit eventually. Even the childless ones.
  • 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?
    Would it, oh that's kind of you.
    So the choices we have is don't get pregnant whilst on benefits, if you do abort, abort, abort.
    I'm sure sterilsation was banded about by another poster, so what happens if they come off benefits you going to reverse that?
    Only the rich can have children, lovely thought.
    But then if you defy the lot of them and have a child whilst on benefits, you will get cack all and once the anti single parent brigade decide they will whip that child from you and place it in care at the cost of about £300 per week.

    Lovely!
    *SIGH*
    :D
  • ceridwenceridwen
    11.5K 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?

    ....and surely if people are that !!!!less that they arent fit to be parents...then they will feed the children rubbish/send them off to school barely able to do the type of things children CAN do at that age if they've been properly brought up (eg dress themselves/feed themselves properly/talk properly/etc)/etc/etc

    - because that !!!!less sort of person will keep every bit of money they can for themselves anyway (regardless of whether its been given to them for the children - and NOT themselves personally).

    If someone is determined to feed their child chip butties for every meal and keep the childs money for themselves they will do so anyway - regardless of whether its £5 or £500 a week they get given "for the children".
  • Oh and just out of interest has anyone done a rough calculation on entitledto to see actually how much more benefits/tax credits a single parent on 16 hours per week would actually get. Seems the taxpayer is actually paying a lot more for a single parent to be in the workforce. Just a thought.
    *SIGH*
    :D
  • ceridwenceridwen
    11.5K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    sh1305 wrote: »
    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.

    <cough> the point I am making is that people get given no extra money for children born 9 months or more AFTER someone goes onto benefits (ie NOT children they already have BEFORE going onto benefits).

    <wishes people would read posts carefully......:cool:>
  • ceridwen wrote: »
    ....and surely if people are that !!!!less that they arent fit to be parents...then they will feed the children rubbish/send them off to school barely able to do the type of things children CAN do at that age if they've been properly brought up (eg dress themselves/feed themselves properly/talk properly/etc)/etc/etc

    - because that !!!!less sort of person will keep every bit of money they can for themselves anyway (regardless of whether its been given to them for the children - and NOT themselves personally).

    If someone is determined to feed their child chip butties for every meal and keep the childs money for themselves they will do so anyway - regardless of whether its £5 or £500 a week they get given "for the children".
    Just out of interest how many single parents on benefits do you know?
    Or are you basing your posts on Vicky pollard from Little Britian?
    *SIGH*
    :D
  • Indie_KidIndie_Kid Forumite
    23.1K Posts
    DX2 wrote: »
    Oh and just out of interest has anyone done a rough calculation on entitledto to see actually how much more benefits/tax credits a single parent on 16 hours per week would actually get. Seems the taxpayer is actually paying a lot more for a single parent to be in the workforce. Just a thought.

    I got £350.94 per week, based on the following:
    - child is over 1 and has no disabilities
    - council tax is £20 per week
    - rent is £120 per week
    - £100 child care costs

    Parent on IS would get:
    - 65.45 IS
    - £20 CTB
    - £120 LHA
    - £54.67 CTC
    Total = £280.72
    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
  • 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.

    Remove most of the benefits and the incentive to use children for cash cows, will be gone.

    The children will be better off if they are away from parents who don't think their children are worth working hard for.
    RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
    Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.


  • janninewjanninew Forumite
    3.8K Posts
    I'm sorry but I do have strong opinions on child raising and benefits. I really believe that when we have children, we need to take full responsibilty for their well being and care. I agree benefits should be there as a temporary stop gap in times of need, I don't agree that we should keep paying out to parents who keep having children when they have no way of providing for them. Living on benefits and getting a free ride for 7 plus years just because you have a child is not right. Women who work and have a partner don't get a free salary for 7 years.
    I know one single mother who has more family support than me and could easily work at least part time, but she doesn't, she prefers having a good social life, going to the gym etc when her child is being looked after by family. Granted she is the only single mother I know well, but her personal situation is a comfortable one and she has no intention of spoiling that by getting a job!

    Sorry if that offends, but its my opinion.
    :heart2: Newborn Thread Member :heart2:

    'Children reinvent the world for you.' - Susan Sarandan
  • Remove most of the benefits and the incentive to use children for cash cows, will be gone.

    The children will be better off if they are away from parents who don't think their children are worth working hard for.
    So all the benefits for working single parents will be removed also? Because these in work benefits cost a lot more than those on out of work benefits.
    Why not go the whole hog and remove all child related benefits from every single parent/couple. Everyone who has a child/ren doesn't get a bean, then every parent can't be accussed of having children as cash cows.
    *SIGH*
    :D
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides