Tax credits down £280 per month

princess*daisy

BurnleyBob wrote: »

Both are not equally responsible. With all due respect you've merely repeated that as if it's true when it's not.

A prospective mother can have an abortion. Needless to state the obvious about a prospective father.

So you're pro-choice. Well at least we agree on something. But the key word there is "choice" - just as much as a woman should be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, she should not be forced or expected to terminate a pregnancy that she wants to keep, just because she's a single mother. I know lots of absolutely fantastic single mothers, and their children are no different to any from a "traditional" family.

sniggings

princess*daisy wrote: »

So you're pro-choice. Well at least we agree on something. But the key word there is "choice" - just as much as a woman should be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, she should not be forced or expected to terminate a pregnancy that she wants to keep, just because she's a single mother. I know lots of absolutely fantastic single mothers, and their children are no different to any from a "traditional" family.

sorry but you can not say that two good parents are the same as one good parent, no one is saying a single parent can not bring up a kid but it is a lot harder, if the kid has a propensity to go off the rails then one working parent will have a much harder time getting them back on track.

Maybe most kids in one parent families do ok but who is to say that all being equal a two parent family would have not turned out better for them.

princessdon

I absolutely agree that few people in their right minds would plan to raise a child alone (most end up that way via circumstances).

But family circs are so unique to each family they can't generalise or fit into a box.

I'd dispute anyone saying that my children (or those of good lone parents) are developing any less than 2 parent families.

The key word is parent(s). Good parent (lone or couple) will always have an advantage over those without good parenting skills. There are many instances where 1 good parent outweighs the benefits of 2 medicore ones.

Lifestyles, love, boundaries, routines, expectations etc have more impact than the quantity of parents who live in the home.

sniggings

you have to compare like with like, will two good parents bring more to a kids life than one good parent, surely the answer is yes every time.

Just your kids knowing their Dad is still part of the family I'm sure adds more to their lives than what school marks seem to be saying.

I just wish some people when defending single parents didn't think they had to weaken the role of a Dad or a two parent family in the process.

Can a single parent bring up a kid, yes but two parents is always preferred.

neverdespairgirl

By calling it "family allowance", I think you are being more than a bit confusing. My Granny claimed family allowance in the 1940s and 1950s, I think. I'm far from convinced that even my mother ever claimed "family allowance", and I'm her eldest child, born in 1978. I think it was changed to child benefit before I was even born.

There was also a reference, somewhere in this thread, to child benefit being paid only to mothers. I'm also sure that is not correct.

sniggings

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

By calling it "family allowance", I think you are being more than a bit confusing. My Granny claimed family allowance in the 1940s and 1950s, I think. I'm far from convinced that even my mother ever claimed "family allowance", and I'm her eldest child, born in 1978. I think it was changed to child benefit before I was even born.

There was also a reference, somewhere in this thread, to child benefit being paid only to mothers. I'm also sure that is not correct.

I've always known it as family allowance, I think the correct term is child benefit, and yes it is paid to the woman over the man if a woman is one of the parents, a man can only be paid the money if a woman is not in the relationship, also it is illegal for a man to hold the payment book if the allowance is in the women's name.

gravitytolls

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Or that benefits are far too generous and need to provide an incentive to work. Hopefully the government will wake up and do something about this.

This assumption really pushes my buttons. Whilst I accept that is a significant minority who haven't and won't work, the vast majority do wish to. You don't force folk into the workplace by pushing them further into poverty!

For a start they end up looking like they live in poverty at interviews, and even the affordability of applying, trawling high streets etc. is drastically reduced.

During the previous tory administration there were many who chose not to work and live on benefits. The tories introduced IB to fiddle the figures and many moved onto it for the extra £20 pw and no need to turn up at the dole office and pretend to be looking for work.

These people and their families lived in poverty ~ oh yes they did, and it's their children that are now raising their families on benefits. The point is, no matter how poor they were, no matter they never went anywhere or did anything, that everything they had was donated and shabby, that they rolled cigarettes from butts from ashtrays, hence why they were never emptied; they still didn't work.

Right now there are not enough jobs, so let's help those who want to work to do so, without punishing them for the sins of the fleckless.

sniggings

gravitytolls wrote: »

This assumption really pushes my buttons. Whilst I accept that is a significant minority who haven't and won't work, the vast majority do wish to. You don't force folk into the workplace by pushing them further into poverty!

For a start they end up looking like they live in poverty at interviews, and even the affordability of applying, trawling high streets etc. is drastically reduced.

During the previous tory administration there were many who chose not to work and live on benefits. The tories introduced IB to fiddle the figures and many moved onto it for the extra £20 pw and no need to turn up at the dole office and pretend to be looking for work.

These people and their families lived in poverty ~ oh yes they did, and it's their children that are now raising their families on benefits. The point is, no matter how poor they were, no matter they never went anywhere or did anything, that everything they had was donated and shabby, that they rolled cigarettes from butts from ashtrays, hence why they were never emptied; they still didn't work.

Right now there are not enough jobs, so let's help those who want to work to do so, without punishing them for the sins of the fleckless.

Hopefully I will be coming off ESA soon and I am dreading moving onto JSA as from what I have read they bully you into taking any job even if it is not suitable, it's a catch 22 as their job is to get people into work but do not care if the job they take will last any lenght of time, I understand that we should take any job offered but also know that the chance someone will stay in a job they don't like or are not suited too will be greatly reduced.

neverdespairgirl

sniggings wrote: »

I've always known it as family allowance, I think the correct term is child benefit, and yes it is paid to the woman over the man if a woman is one of the parents, a man can only be paid the money if a woman is not in the relationship, also it is illegal for a man to hold the payment book if the allowance is in the women's name.

What payment book? My son was born in 2005, and I've never seen a payment book for child benefit.

I looked it up, and it seems family allowance was introduced in 1946, and abolished in 1977. So it was introduced the year before my mother was born, and abolished the year before I was born - and I'm 34, now!

sniggings

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

What payment book? My son was born in 2005, and I've never seen a payment book for child benefit.

I looked it up, and it seems family allowance was introduced in 1946, and abolished in 1977. So it was introduced the year before my mother was born, and abolished the year before I was born - and I'm 34, now!

I'm a man so can only go by what my Mam got and it was a payment book back then, yes it is paid straight into the bank now I see but I did say it was either family allowance or child benefit, so not sure what point you are making, as it is still a payment that is paid mainly to the woman over the man, which was my main point.