Single mum bein hounded

Murphy_Gooner

Face1992 wrote: »

That is why the rules are a changing:rotfl:

Rules are changing but people will still be entitled to a basic living.

It may well be worth you checking up on the facts of where your tax actually goes before making assumptions.
But not too worry i found out some of the figures for you.

This is based on a person earning £26k for tax year 2010/2011
You would have been taxed in total £6,134

Of that total amount these are the breakdowns of where some of that tax money would have gone towards

Housing Benefit £226
Incapacity/Disability Benefits £309
Income Support/Tax Credits £412
Pensions (including public sector pensions £803

Defence £335
Police £159
Schools £599
Prisons £43
Executive, Parliaments and council admin £198
Overseas Aid £60
Debt Interest £407

So as you can see the biggest chunck actually goes towards the public sector workers pension and another chunk of which goes on pointless war's

clemmatis

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

What do you mean that's why the rules are changing, that doesn't make sense..

Face1992can't get the benefits she wants, so she slags off successful benefits claimants and other would-be claimants.

To be fair, she is unwell, and it may be her illness speaking.

Ellejmorgan

clemmatis wrote: »

Face1992can't get the benefits she wants, so she slags off successful benefits claimants and other would-be claimants.

To be fair, she is unwell, and it may be her illness speaking.

Thank you for that...:)

marybelle01

Murphy_Gooner wrote: »

Pensions (including public sector pensions £803

Defence £335
Police £159
Schools £599
Prisons £43
Executive, Parliaments and council admin £198
Overseas Aid £60
Debt Interest £407

So as you can see the biggest chunck actually goes towards the public sector workers pension and another chunk of which goes on pointless war's

For someone keen on facts you don't seem to be able to use them. The "biggest chunk" does not go on "public sector workers pension" - it goes on pensions which includes public sector workers pensions. It also includes all pensions paid to the over 12 million UK pensioners (that is 31% of the total population - only 78,000 are actually "public sector pensioners").

You also forgot to factor in to your "facts" that a sizeable portion of the public sector pension "bill" is actually paid from pension fund investments to which both the employer and the employee contributes thoughout their working life.

The biggest chunk of the pensions bill goes to pensions for the general population - not public sector workers. Or are you suggesting we should be cutting the pensions of people, most of whom will have worked all their lives, to fund those who don't want to work - but who will also still draw a state pension when their time comes regardess of whether they have ever done a days work in their lives?

Miss_Havisham

pardon me if I'm repeating a point already made (not worked my way through all 11 pages).

I'm in my 50's and was brought up to believe that the "welfare state" is there to provide a safety net as a last resort. To help people who through no fault of their own and after exhausting their own efforts and resources are unable to support themselves - temporarily or long-term.

This based on the honesty of the claimants and the willingness of the tax-payers. Lack of honesty leads to unwillingness which is where we are now. How do we wind things back 50 years ?

helpfulperson

I have not read all the comment to your post, but what I have read seems very hard and unhelpful for you.

JSA is very harsh in the way they can sanction you for not doing what they say you should do, so you have to play the game with them.

What I would suggest, if you get to an interview, is to be upfront about your need for flexibility to meet your childcare needs. An interviewer probably will not ask you about your family circumstances, so if you get to the end of the interview and are asked if you have any questions, that is your opportunity to ask how they will help you if, for instance, your child is off work sick, or whether you will get priority for time off on holiday in the school breaks. My guess is that any firm that thinks you will be a nuisance to them as a single mother just will not give you a job anyway.

MissPiggy50

helpfulperson wrote: »

I have not read all the comment to your post, but what I have read seems very hard and unhelpful for you.

JSA is very harsh in the way they can sanction you for not doing what they say you should do, so you have to play the game with them.

What I would suggest, if you get to an interview, is to be upfront about your need for flexibility to meet your childcare needs. An interviewer probably will not ask you about your family circumstances, so if you get to the end of the interview and are asked if you have any questions, that is your opportunity to ask how they will help you if, for instance, your child is off work sick, or whether you will get priority for time off on holiday in the school breaks. My guess is that any firm that thinks you will be a nuisance to them as a single mother just will not give you a job anyway.

That is very useful, i can use that until the rihgt job comes along.

marybelle01

helpfulperson wrote: »

I have not read all the comment to your post, but what I have read seems very hard and unhelpful for you.

JSA is very harsh in the way they can sanction you for not doing what they say you should do, so you have to play the game with them.

What I would suggest, if you get to an interview, is to be upfront about your need for flexibility to meet your childcare needs. An interviewer probably will not ask you about your family circumstances, so if you get to the end of the interview and are asked if you have any questions, that is your opportunity to ask how they will help you if, for instance, your child is off work sick, or whether you will get priority for time off on holiday in the school breaks. My guess is that any firm that thinks you will be a nuisance to them as a single mother just will not give you a job anyway.

On the other hand, they might just think you are a gold digger looking to make a discrimination claim, and give you the job to knock that on the head!

Or , shock, horror - they could even be a good employer who answer the questions AND give you the job!

skibadee

likelyfran wrote: »

But it's ok for you and others to judge people who choose (because the gov lets them) to stay with their children instead of leaving them to work?
And expect them to justify every move they make or want to make?

Double standards or what! :rotfl:

Personally, I don't understand how any parent can trust 'childcare' in the form of non-family members. Some horrific things happen to children in the hands of 'carers'.

I actually find this post very insulting, I am a Nursery Nurse and have been so for 18.5 years, in that time NO-BODY that I have worked with or myself have ever done anything ''horrific'' ......I think you need to get into the real world....in an ideal world all mums would be able to be SAHM's if they wanted to be...in the REAL WORLD many can not afford to be.....and a fair number are fortunate enough to have found a job that gives them a work/child comprimise.

Anyway I think we are all diverting from the OP's question....I think that has probably been answered a number of pages back and we are now just bickering amongst ourselves.

Maybe the thread should now be closed.

FBaby

MissPiggy50 wrote: »

That is very useful, i can use that until the rihgt job comes along.

'Right' being defined by whom? The job centre? The tax payer? You?

That's the thing, what you might consider right might not be so for those who contribute to your benefits or their agent.

I applied to my job because it was 5 minutes from my home when I had previously been travelling for over an hour to work. That new job was definitely right for me. Well guess what, since then, I have been relocated 3 times and I have now been told our new office will be in the same town where I used to work... It certainly isn't right either for me or my children, but I have no say in it. If I don't want to relocate, I get nothing, no job, no redundancy money, no JSA because I will have given up my job voluntarily as per their rule.

It really demoralises me that people on benefit seem to think they are entitled to a level of control and choice that even those working don't always get. OP, if benefits didn't exist and you had no choice but to go to work to support your child, what would you do? Be grateful that benefits entitled you to 5 years with your daughter and over one year with even time for yourself instead of begrudging the system that is telling you that you now have to work whatever it takes to support yourself and your daughter.