What benefits can I apply for?

Oldernotwiser

tescobabe69 wrote: »

Rubbish !
Are you really suggesting that with all the contraception/education and support available the OP has'nt fully researched the subject and made an informed decision to start a family ?
It is'nt the fifties you know, when girls could get caught out, due to lack of knowledge/contraception, it simply does'nt happen now, every pregnancy is planned, isnt it ?

Except on MSE, whose members seem to have an exceptionally high rate of pregnancies that happened whilst using contraception!:rotfl:

zagfles

clearingout wrote: »

at 17 and pregnant, I would suggest you don't judge 'single mothers' in a negative way. I'm 40, single mum to 3 children, education coming out of my ears, travelled the world....I didn't ask to be a single mum, but my ex husband wanted out. I had to fall back on benefits for a couple of years as a way of helping out. I was not 'well off' being on benefits and the poor relationship my children have with their father is certainly not beneficial to them. But not much I can do about that. So don't judge me if you don't want me to judge you.

midnight_express wrote: »

Now who's being judgemental.It's worth remembering most single parents don't start out as single parents.

In what way was her post judgemental? It's not judgemental to have an opinion that the benefits system favours one group over another, which is all she said. Especially when it's basically true. It was a criticism of the system, not the claimants.

Otherwise are those arguing about the merits of recognising marriage in the tax/benefits system being judgemental?

clearingout

zagfles wrote: »

In what way was her post judgemental? It's not judgemental to have an opinion that the benefits system favours one group over another, which is all she said. Especially when it's basically true. It was a criticism of the system, not the claimants.

Otherwise are those arguing about the merits of recognising marriage in the tax/benefits system being judgemental?

the comment reads to me as one which is suggesting that 'single mothers' are 'single mothers' as a direct result of a) the financial gain (benefits) who then b) remain single to deliberately push the father way. This ignores the fact that many single parents were once people in long term, stable relationships that, for a million and one reasons, have ended. In such situations, the father may (as is my experience), remove himself from his relationship with his children, again for a million and one reasons but not because the mother has chosen to push him away and live on benefits. It also ignores the very, very important issue of domestic abuse.

I personally find the term 'single mother' akin to.....suggesting that all people of South Asian origin are potential suicide bombers? It's used in an all encompassing, usually derogatory way focusing on the one thing that hundreds of women have in common rather than the hundreds of things that have lead them to have that one thing in common.

I suspect the OP is fed up of feeling judged for being pregnant at 17 and has tried to remove herself from that judgement by focusing on believing her position to be temporary and on the fact that she has a partner (and is therefore not a 'single mother'), albeit not one she is living with. She has made some...naive (sp?) comments to show us she is not one of those 'young single mums'. In the process, she has upset at least one geriatric 'single mum' who frankly feels like screaming every time she is linked with the 'young, career 'single mum' on benefits to get a council house and all the maintenance she can from her 6 baby fathers'. I am long enough in the tooth to know that she probably didn't mean to upset me (or anyone else) but her tender age shouldn't stop me from suggesting that not everything is as it perhaps first seems.

zagfles

clearingout wrote: »

the comment reads to me as one which is suggesting that 'single mothers' are 'single mothers' as a direct result of a) the financial gain (benefits) who then b) remain single to deliberately push the father way.

That's a big assumption. All she said was she thought govt policy was "stupid" for favouring single parents. That is something I've said before and have backed up with facts and figures in other threads. It's about policy, not a judgement on claimants. Although this isn't really the place to discuss it...

This ignores the fact that many single parents were once people in long term, stable relationships that, for a million and one reasons, have ended. In such situations, the father may (as is my experience), remove himself from his relationship with his children, again for a million and one reasons but not because the mother has chosen to push him away and live on benefits. It also ignores the very, very important issue of domestic abuse.

Yes, but who said anything else?

Just because some people are in a particular situation (in this case single parenthood) through no fault of their own, doesn't mean we can't discuss whether or not the system encourages people to enter or remain in that situation, who do have the choice.

Look at all the posts we get about "how many nights can my partner stay" etc.

Not to mention the fairness of a system which mostly ignores the financial needs of a second adult in the household.

I personally find the term 'single mother' akin to.....suggesting that all people of South Asian origin are potential suicide bombers? It's used in an all encompassing, usually derogatory way focusing on the one thing that hundreds of women have in common rather than the hundreds of things that have lead them to have that one thing in common.

Sorry that makes no sense to me. How does merely using the term 'single mother' imply anything about the attributes of that group? It's a simple description, 'single' ie no partner, and 'mother' ie has children. What term would you prefer?

clearingout

The system favours low incomes over the number of adults in a household. By default, a single person with children will fare better. That's because a welfare state endeavours to give children a decent start in life. Otherwise the alternative is that 'single mothers' have their children removed from them, perhaps? Simply because they cannot afford to both pay childcare and work (depends on the area and on the skill and experience of the mother/parent, number of children who require childcare etc.)?

I get fed up beyond belief when, after 3 years as a 'single mother', people suggest to me that I should be in a new relationship and providing my children with a positive male influence (aka 'a decent father'). My children have positive male influences in their lives. They also have a father. I have dallied with dating, but so far haven't met anyone I would wish to pursue a relationship with. I am careful with who I date because I have children, because I don't want to introduce them to a series of 'uncles' throughout the rest of their childhood and have them de-stabilised should relationships go wrong. I believe this is in my children's best interests. It is not because the system encourages me to remain single from a financial perspective. Or would you rather that I marry the next guy who comes along and ensure my children have 'issues' for the rest of their lives? There are other issues - if I can find a paper I read recently, I will post a link. Was very interesting - but as you say, perhaps not the place to discuss.

I prefer 'lone parent' to 'single mother'. It is less derogatory, applies equally to both mums and dads and acknowledges that I am doing a difficult job in difficult circumstances.

clearingout

http://www.social-policy.org.uk/lincoln/Kelly.pdf

May be of interest on the subject of why 'single mothers' stay single, or at least attempt to appear still single.

zagfles

clearingout wrote: »

The system favours low incomes over the number of adults in a household. By default, a single person with children will fare better. That's because a welfare state endeavours to give children a decent start in life. Otherwise the alternative is that 'single mothers' have their children removed from them, perhaps?

Sorry, but that's a strawman too far!

The point I was making is that there is little account taken of the financial needs of a second adult. Research by the like of the JRF and CPAG and international "poverty" measurements show that a family with 2 adults and 2 children needs approximately 30% more money to achieve the same standard of living as a family with 1 adult and 2 children. But tax credits will pay both families exactly the same if their incomes are the same. And that's not counting childcare costs which (for obvious reasons) the single parent is more likely to get, or any maintenance they get.

Simply because they cannot afford to both pay childcare and work (depends on the area and on the skill and experience of the mother/parent, number of children who require childcare etc.)?

I get fed up beyond belief when, after 3 years as a 'single mother', people suggest to me that I should be in a new relationship and providing my children with a positive male influence (aka 'a decent father'). My children have positive male influences in their lives. They also have a father. I have dallied with dating, but so far haven't met anyone I would wish to pursue a relationship with. I am careful with who I date because I have children, because I don't want to introduce them to a series of 'uncles' throughout the rest of their childhood and have them de-stabilised should relationships go wrong. I believe this is in my children's best interests. It is not because the system encourages me to remain single from a financial perspective. Or would you rather that I marry the next guy who comes along and ensure my children have 'issues' for the rest of their lives?

You don't get it, do you? I'm not suggesting what you do. I never judge anyone on this forum or suggest they do something they don't want to do. If someone asked "what tax credits do i get as a lone parent" I would never suggest they get married. I would tell them what they'd get as a lone parent.
But that is separate to discussing whether the system does, and should, encourage a particular form of behaviour. And if it does it obviously doesn't mean that's why any individual is in that situation.

When I got married there was a married couples' allowance. But that's not why I got married;)

There are other issues - if I can find a paper I read recently, I will post a link. Was very interesting - but as you say, perhaps not the place to discuss.

No but it is inevitable here I guess.

I prefer 'lone parent' to 'single mother'. It is less derogatory, applies equally to both mums and dads and acknowledges that I am doing a difficult job in difficult circumstances.

Fair enough.

zagfles

clearingout wrote: »

http://www.social-policy.org.uk/lincoln/Kelly.pdf

May be of interest on the subject of why 'single mothers' stay single, or at least attempt to appear still single.

Indeed - I've skimmed that agree with most of the points made, although it had a rather skewed feminist slant. I've made a lot of similar points here, particularly about the obligation created to support other peoples' children if/when a lone parent finds a partner.
It is saying basically what I was, and the OP was, that the system encourages single parenthood.

Personally I support a system where it makes no difference whether you have a partner or not (Citizen's Income with a flat rate tax). But if not that, then a system without the hypocrisy of assessing people as couples for benefits but as individuals for tax.

Vejovis

zagfles wrote: »

Indeed - I've skimmed that agree with most of the points made, although it had a rather skewed feminist slant. I've made a lot of similar points here, particularly about the obligation created to support other peoples' children if/when a lone parent finds a partner.
It is saying basically what I was, and the OP was, that the system encourages single parenthood.

Personally I support a system where it makes no difference whether you have a partner or not (Citizen's Income with a flat rate tax). But if not that, then a system without the hypocrisy of assessing people as couples for benefits but as individuals for tax.

the reason it makes a difference is because two people can earn far more than one, but the cost of two people is a much smaller percentage.

some single parents stay single because they have no trust whatsoever in members of the opposite sex. personally i'd rather slit my wrists than be obliged to take on a new partner just because people cant understand why there are lone parents in the world.

zagfles

Vejovis wrote: »

the reason it makes a difference is because two people can earn far more than one, but the cost of two people is a much smaller percentage.

But if they're both out of work, or on low pay, through no fault of their own, then they get a smaller proportion of what they need (according to JRF etc) than a single parent family.

Although on high incomes the system is biased against single parents as they only get one allowance/basic rate band etc to support maybe 3 people (ie a third of an allowance per person), whereas a couple can use 2 allowances (half an allowance pp).

some single parents stay single because they have no trust whatsoever in members of the opposite sex. personally i'd rather slit my wrists than be obliged to take on a new partner just because people cant understand why there are lone parents in the world.

Nobody is suggesting anyone should feel "obliged". Why are so many strawmen thrown in to this type of discussion?

The UK has (last I read) the highest proportion of single parent families in the EU. There are various reasons for this. One of them, I believe, is the benefits system.

And that doesn't mean I think all single parents should be put in stocks before anyone else comes up with a silly strawman...