MSE News: MPs vote to limit benefit rises to 1%

SandraScarlett

clemmatis wrote: »

I sense reading comprehension and inference are not your forte.

No they're fine thank you, it is your sense that is not.

seemed to me to imply that you objected to your receiving -- as you think -- less than you paid in. Who might have paid in the same as you but receive more during their retirement? (Well, someone disabled might.)

I find it odd that you keep harping on about the disabled, as if I am unaware of their existance, when my DH is both physically and mentally disabled, and I'm his sole carer. As I've mentioned many times before.


It is still though the case, and this is my point, that it is not open to you to complain that a neighbour who paid the same premium, or even possibly a lower one, has received more following claims than you have, unless the claims were identical.

What, I cannot express an opinion now!

Because that really does not help readers of the thread and because I was addressing your reply to Morlock and specifically your



Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise that it was up to you to decide what I could post.

But I do now see that your real objection is to paying for children's welfare.

OK. Fine. Goodnight.

xx

zoominatorone

Morlock wrote: »

The anecdote wasn't that single parents claim benefits, the anecdote was:



The facts prove that if the above stereotype exists, it is a very small minority, which is not really conducive with the phrase 'too many'.

Well if three quarters of one particular school falls into that category........so hardly a small minority is it?

Morlock

zoominatorone wrote: »

Well if three quarters of one particular school falls into that category........so hardly a small minority is it?

Is this some random school near where you live? And if so, how do you know all of the personal and benefit details of the parents in order to deduce that 3/4 of them are career benefit claimant single mothers?

FBaby

My understanding is that although most single mothers do work, the vast majority of these working parents only do so part-time and are more reliant on tax credits than on their salary. What I really would like to know is the percentage of single mothers working full-time, therefore either not requiring tax credits, or it making only a smaller part of their general income.

Personally, if you work 16 hours and that salary only equates to say 25% of your overall income, it's nothing to shout about proudly. You are only a small step ahead of relying fully on benefits.

I can sympathise to an extent chosing to work part-time until children are at school, but afterwards, especially once the children are old enough not to rely on childcare, I think it is using the system, yet how many single mums of 12 yo + still only work 16 hours?

ILW

Or to look at things from a different angle.
If the benefits for single mothers were a lot less (basic survival only), would we find a lot less women becoming single mothers over a period of time?

FBaby

I think we would find more single mothers determined to make employment work for them. How many times do we hear that the reason for not working more is inevitability of childcare, yet I know quite a number of mothers, single or not, working full-time in different places in England who managed to find childcare to fit around their working requirements.

The problem is that it is not easy and involves a lot of reasearch, planning and networking in addition to managing a job. Why put yourself through all this when you can end up with not much less disposable income at the end of the month without all that hassle?

I think it would be totally reasonable to expect mothers to go back to work after their children are two rather than 5, part-time until they are 5, and then expected to work full-time. If they can't find childcare where they are, then it is totally acceptable to expect they move where it is available. Tax credits should not only go back to topping up childcare to 80%, but even make it 90% for single parents on low full-time income.

dori2o

FBaby wrote: »

I think we would find more single mothers determined to make employment work for them. How many times do we hear that the reason for not working more is inevitability of childcare, yet I know quite a number of mothers, single or not, working full-time in different places in England who managed to find childcare to fit around their working requirements.

The problem is that it is not easy and involves a lot of reasearch, planning and networking in addition to managing a job. Why put yourself through all this when you can end up with not much less disposable income at the end of the month without all that hassle?

I think it would be totally reasonable to expect mothers to go back to work after their children are two rather than 5, part-time until they are 5, and then expected to work full-time. If they can't find childcare where they are, then it is totally acceptable to expect they move where it is available. Tax credits should not only go back to topping up childcare to 80%, but even make it 90% for single parents on low full-time income.

So your idea is to increase the amount of money given in benefits, because that is what your idea would do.

It is cheaper for the state for single parents to work part time and restrict the amount of childcare, rather than have them work full time and for tax credits to pay 70/80/90% of childcare costs.

That little fact however doesn't fit in with your benefit bashing. It's far easier to call single parents lazy scroungers.

ILW

Why is the reason they are a single parent not taken into account?
I believe it used to be with such things as widows pension.

FBaby

dori2o wrote: »

It is cheaper for the state for single parents to work part time and restrict the amount of childcare, rather than have them work full time and for tax credits to pay 70/80/90% of childcare costs.

That little fact however doesn't fit in with your benefit bashing. It's far easier to call single parents lazy scroungers.

Do you know what investing means? If supporting a single mum for 5 years means that she ends in a position to then pay much higher tax once she doesn't require tax credits any longer, then it is a beneficial investment.

Paying benefits to a mum only working part-time for the next 18 years or so when she will always claim more benefits than she pays in taxes isn't...

Yes, I do believe that single parents with no intention to support themselves and prefering to rely on benefits are lazy, mentally lazy...

lukieboy96

It is not easy to find childcare for children at school. Not many childminders want children only in the mornings and afternoons. Not all schools do the breakfast club or after school clubs. There are less chilminders due to the government wanting them to be like nurseries.
If the government wants people to work more hours then they need to make more facilities available. They are shutting Sure Start nurseries.