What benefits can I apply for?

Vejovis

zagfles wrote: »

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).


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...

i'm not throwing in any strawmen, you are the one subtly suggesting that single mothers are a drain on society and should get themselves a man to look after their children. and if you don't mean that, then you need to re-word your posts significantly because that appears to be the underlying meaning behind them.

Dognobs

The fact she is 17 has not got her own home or means to support a child is the main fact here! Young people jump into having a baby like buying a dog. At 17 she should be out having fun (seems she has already!) not having babys and should not be expecting me and others around her to pay for it! I am also not in a relationship with the girl I was with at 17 so I give this relationship a 50/50 chance!

clearingout

zagfles wrote: »

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.

That's interesting - and not something I was familiar with so thanks for pointing it out. If both JRF and CPAG say it, then it is indeed quality information! I also take the point about single-person taxation vs. benefits as a couple.

I still struggle, however, to understand how this 'encourages' lone parenting. As you say yourself, you didn't marry to get a discount on your tax. Do you believe that lone parents sit down and work out the figures and decide 'well, that's it then, I'll be single forever as it's more advantageous to me to do that'?!!! Any extra money in my pocket as a lone parent means very little when I'm sat here night after night on my own, no one to talk to or share with, having to make major decisions about the children on my own, been terrified of the 'what ifs' such as what if I get seriously ill and how on earth will I manage.... There is something in our sociological and psychological make up which encourages us to pair up, does it not?

zagfles

Vejovis wrote: »

i'm not throwing in any strawmen, you are the one subtly suggesting that single mothers are a drain on society and should get themselves a man to look after their children. and if you don't mean that, then you need to re-word your posts significantly because that appears to be the underlying meaning behind them.

No I don't mean that. Perhaps you could try reading what I actually wrote rather than making silly assumptions about any underlying meaning.

I think the benefits systems is biased towards lone parents. I have backed that up with facts and figures in the past. I think that encourages some people to become and remain lone parents. As evidenced by the rate of lone parents in the UK vs the rest of the EU.

It could encourage me to in different circustances, so it's not a criticism of anyone in that situation, it's a criticism of the benefits system. That's all I'm saying. If you read any underlying meaning into it that's your problem not mine.

Now, if you want to challenge anything I actually wrote, then feel free. If you want to build another strawman to knock down I'll add you to my ignore list.

jonty1970

People need to remind themselves of this.... that is pinned at the top here

Its about helping people get their entitlement! Not about benefits policy!

This board is here for help and support for those on or looking to claim benefits, not for judgement.

It’s ONLY focus is helping people with their money.

It's here to help people find out what they are entitled to under the current system, and to help them get it.

Benefits provide a lifeline for many, and this site is here to help people with their money, and not to judge. Of course, how to illegally defraud the benefits system shouldn't be discussed here, but ensuring you're getting your entitlement is exactly what it’s about.

We all know the benefits system is a mess – but that’s for the discussion time.

Whatever you're political persuasion, we're all aware the benefits system is a mess. Whether it’s the malpayments of tax credits, benefit fraud, or simply the fact that sometimes it doesn't pay to work - everyone has their grumble.

Yet to discuss the benefits system itself and issues around it, the appropriate place isn't here but the Discussion time Board and even there, please remember courtesy and not to make it personal about anyone. This site's prime purpose it to help people with their money and I will always act to protect that.

Thanks for your co-operation


Martin




Good luck with the baby!

zagfles

clearingout wrote: »

That's interesting - and not something I was familiar with so thanks for pointing it out. If both JRF and CPAG say it, then it is indeed quality information! I also take the point about single-person taxation vs. benefits as a couple.

Yes, in order to measure poverty, household income needs to be "equivalised". For instance a single adult with no kids needs less money than a family of 4, obviously. The base used for equivalisation is a 2-adult household with no kids, this is multiplied a percentage to "equivalise" the household income, and this equivalised income can be compared with whatever "poverty" measure is being used (typically 60% median income).

The generally accepted "equivalisation" formula used to measure poverty is given here:

http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/income%20intro.shtml

As you can see in the examples, a couple with 2 kids needs about 30% more than a lone parent with 2 kids.

I still struggle, however, to understand how this 'encourages' lone parenting. As you say yourself, you didn't marry to get a discount on your tax. Do you believe that lone parents sit down and work out the figures and decide 'well, that's it then, I'll be single forever as it's more advantageous to me to do that'?!!!

Like I said there's all sorts of reasons people are in the situation they're in. For the majority, it'll be nothing to do with how the benefits/tax systems operates. But I think there's 2 situations where the benefits/tax system does encourage lone parenting (and I personally know people to whom this applies). And again, it's not a judgement on even these people, it's a judgement on the system.

The main one is "lone parent meets new partner". The new partner, or the lone parent, may feel that the kids are not the new partner's financial responsibility. We've seen this said time and again on this forum from both the lone parent and the new potential partner. When you look at the financial impact of (say) a man on a decent wage moving in with a lone parent on IS with 3 kids, it's pretty devastating, to be frank.

Of course people will moralise endlessly about it, but the fact remains that if you tell someone they'll lose most of their income if they make a particular decision, it will put some off making it. Particularly if they simply can't afford it (eg they have loans/other financial commitments from before meeting).

The second (and perhaps more controversial) is the "young woman on benefits/in a dead end job" who wants something more. Benefits paid to young single adults are very low, whereas benefits paid to families are quite generous. A single woman under 25 on benefits would see a massive jump in income were she to become a single parent, far more than the cost of bringing up a child. Obviously the desire to become a parent has to be there in the first place, people don't have children just because of benefits, but where the decision is marginal, the way the system works can swing it.

Any extra money in my pocket as a lone parent means very little when I'm sat here night after night on my own, no one to talk to or share with, having to make major decisions about the children on my own, been terrified of the 'what ifs' such as what if I get seriously ill and how on earth will I manage.... There is something in our sociological and psychological make up which encourages us to pair up, does it not?

Indeed. You only need to look at the lonely hearts columns to see how many lone parents there are there. If you want a partner then you are a victim of the system rather than a beneficiary. As per the first point above, and the similar points in the link you posted yesterday. It's a bit like the "poverty trap", the "lone parent" trap. Best of luck in getting out of it, if that's what you want:)

zagfles

jonty1970 wrote: »

People need to remind themselves of this.... that is pinned at the top here

I know. Sorry, I'll shut up now

FBaby

That's interesting this choice of 'lone parent' rather than 'single parent's because whereas I don't mind that lattest, I really do not like the first I guess it is all about personal preference, but to me, 'lone' denotes 'loneliness' and what I abhor is that affiliation between being single and lonely, as if you can't be happy if you are single. 'single' to me is what you are when you don't have a partner!

Going back to the issue of two household family versus single families. I really don't think you can compare a recomposed family with one that includes mum/dad and the children. Someone mentioned that little extra costs that comes with a new partner. I agree in theory, but it can be very different in practice. For exemple, my partner who is 44 never had children before and lived on his own for over 5 years in a 3 bedroom semi. Now that would certainly be big enough for a family of 4 and was when I was with my ex and OUR children, but when you are used to your space and have to suddenly share it with children who you haven't had the chance to get used to share their lives with, it is a very different matter. We agreed from the start that to be sure our relationship had a chance to cope well with the recomposition, we would need to extend his house. This is an exemple, and probably one of the most extreme one, but it is to illustrate how you can't compare both situations.

As to the discussion around single mums on benefits coming off it when meeting a new partner, I do find the expectation quite offending. How is it different for a single mum who relies on the state to then shift it to her new partner? it makes a nice difference to the tax payers, but I still think it is morally wrong if this is one of the incentive behind the formation of the relationship. A new partner should be expected to support children who are not yours. My view is that from the moment you have children, you accept you are financially responsible for them. If you agreed with the father of your children before having them that you would be a stay at home mum and he will financially support his family, fair enough, but to expect that from a new partner, I don't think this is right. Of course, I am talking about expecations, because if the new partner is happy with the same arrangement, then that is his choice.

Going back the OP, I don't think her situation is any different to that of many single/lone parents, she has decided to have a child without facing the financial consequences of her choice and expect the tax payers to support her choice. Her age is irrelevant but for the fact that you are of course less likely to be able to do so. Still, since they did make that choice, they should accept to make sacrifices with one giving up their studies and going to work whilst the other looks after the baby until they can, maybe, afford to do back to school.

clearingout

FBaby wrote: »

That's interesting this choice of 'lone parent' rather than 'single parent's because whereas I don't mind that lattest, I really do not like the first I guess it is all about personal preference, but to me, 'lone' denotes 'loneliness' and what I abhor is that affiliation between being single and lonely, as if you can't be happy if you are single. 'single' to me is what you are when you don't have a partner!

Yes, I see the point. It's possibly a lot to do with my own prejudices - never expecting to find myself in my late 30s as a 'single mum'. Possibly my age has something to do with it - growing up in the 80s with the rise of the 'single mum' and the negative attachments made with that. I find lone parent preferable because of the focus on parent ('cos let's face it, there are plenty of men bringing up children on their own - either because their partner walked out and left the children or their partner died) rather than it just being all about mums.

It also makes me angry that there is no equivalent 'single dad' derogatory comment. a single dad is someone to be admired, usually, I think. The Americans use the term 'deadbeat dad' to represent those fathers who walk away from their children which is as 'bad' as being a 'single mum', but here in the UK we don't really have an equivalent. Children have two parents and it always seems to be the mother that gets the flack, regardless of the quality of the job she is doing, because of her 'single' status and because society (aka The Daily Mail!) believes her to be a total drain, rather than someone trying to do a decent job in difficult circumstances. There is also the presumption that the mum decides to remove the child from the child's life rather than the dad having walked away.

I would interchange lone and single without too much of a fuss, I think! But I prefer lone. No doubt a psychologist would say something about our personalities based on that choice of word!

FBaby

When I was a 'lone' mum, I went on a date with a 'lone' dad, and he drove me mad.... He kept expecting me to be impressed by his status, especially as his child was a girl (same age than my boy). I quickly left some hints that I had no reasons to think differently of him because he was a single dad than I do of any single parents. He did nothing different to what I did (except that he actually had shared care with his ex whilst I had very little support from my kids's dad and I had one whereas I had two...), yet he seemed to assume that because he was a dad, it made him more special. We only went on a few dates before I realised that it just wouldn't work!

I know we had this discussion before, but as a single mum, I had a completely different experience of people perception of my status then you have and I do wonder whether in your case, it has to do with the environment you evolve in. None of my single friends had any issues with their status either but one... she is a devout catholics and most of her friends are too and activity evolves around the church. The way the treat her shock me. They are only too happy to use her as a babysitter when it suits them, but never ever invite her to any activities where their husbands are present. It really breaks my heart and I so want to tell her to ditch them!

It does help that my kids have none of the stereotypcal traits often associated with growing in a single parent family. They are very well behaved, do exceptionally good at school, are friendly, helpful and always happy. They are not the only ones, Thank God, and I really do think the stereotype is dying. my DD started a new secondary school and has made three 'best friends' and the three have divorced parents (one of them we discovered after they became friend happened to be my partner's ex' DD, but that's another story ), and all girls are very well behaved, well established in the school, popular kids who are doing well academically. Again, i think it might very much depends on the environment.