Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

clearingout

bloolagoon wrote: »

Gingerbread is only one organisation. There are some ex partners who don't pay but many do via an informal arrangement. I know how much chuldcare costs and many lone parents will receive a portion of that back too.

That said I've always said we can only expect so much and if a single parent is working full time or even part time with Young children you can't ask for more.

But you can't blanket all lone parents as just surviving alone. Many do have ex partners who help, financially and otherwise. Some have their children's grandparents on hand. You can't say just because they are a lone parent they should be blanket excused from any cuts especially when their child is 16-19!

Gingerbread is an organisation that works exclusively with and on behalf of single parents. Their statistics should therefore be representative of their experience and that of their clients.

'Many' lone parents may well receive a 'portion' of their childcare costs back through Tax Credits. That portion is, however, a maximum of 70% of the total cost. This is also capped so if you have the misfortune to have your husband walk out when you have 3 under 4 and live in the South East where costs per child can be in excess of £50 per child, per day and you only earn minimum wage...well, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the figures will never add up.

I have not suggested single parents can't or shouldn't work or should not be working when their children are 15 years of age. My comments were an objection to the assertion that 'many' single parents receive child maintenance. Evidence (statistical, anecdotal) would seem to suggest otherwise.

BJV

Weary_soul wrote: »

No imo It's a sign we as a country are regressing back to a dog eat dog society whilst the rich who contribute nothing get richer.

We pay taxes and and national insurance so that people can be looked after when times are hard. They shouldn't have to queue up cap in hand like that.

I agree. We pay taxes and God I pay a lot and it should go to those in need those genuine people. Hey it could be me one day. IT SHOULD NOT however be a lifestyle choice.


I live in what some would say a nice area. I know a lady well several who have never worked, and we the tax payers pay a fortune so that they can have a nice home in a good area.


One long lady I know has just given up work. Left education worked 18 months . She is 22 and pregnant. Just like her sister 24 who has two children, ( who has never worked ) they do not have partners. Her sister has a house that I would love. Nice street, big garden, all paid for. No stress of worrying about council tax bills, child care.


Now not for one second am I saying that being on benefits is easy, but equally going to work juggling childcare with absolutely no state support is equally not a walk in the park.


Benefits should be a help in times of need. Support to get yourself back on your feet. Not a lifestyle choice. Having another child should not mean a upgrade to a three bed semi.


Instead we need a culture change. One in which we take responsibility for ourselves and have benefits there as a safety net and not used as a cottage industry to claim as much as poss. A change where the first thing anyone wants to know is what I am "entitled" to. God I hate that word?


For example did you know that just a few years ago Liverpool as the highest percentage of people claiming higher rate DLA in the whole of Europe. Does this mean that everyone in Liverpool is disabled? God no. Sad thing is that this means that non-genuine people are putting extra strain on genuine claims.


I was born in Liverpool, lived there until I was 8 and worked there for many years so yes I can say that in some areas there is almost a cottage industry of working out exactly what form to use, what to claim, what to say to make sure that they get the maximum no matter if they need it or not.


Again I stress this is not everyone and again I stress that I have all the time in the world and do not begrudge a penny being spent on people who have a real need. After all one day it may be me.

BJV

Weary_soul wrote: »

Imo for the majority they are not a lifestyle choice as anyone trying to exist on the pittance they pay would already know.

Thats just sound bites that the Tories have brainwashed people into believing is true because it suits their political agenda.

Not that is true there are some people who genuinely see benefits and having children as I way of getting a home and not having to work. In fact in a round about way I know some.

tomtontom

My sympathy fades fast when I see people claiming means tested benefits able to save £500+ a month. There is inequality in society but also in the benefits system, from those that are clearly receiving far more than they need to those that don't even receive that much in total each month

SnooksNJ

Weary_soul wrote: »

No, not imo, and nor do many other people. Sorry, he is the minister responsible for these draconian and (imo) unfair benefit measure after all.

Why do benefits cuts negate the fact a sister, who knew there was a problem, didn't put £20 on his electricity card or bring over a bag of food.

GirlFromMars_2

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

I'm not advocating charity stepping in the fill the void. Please read what I said: "Food Banks could be the first sign that people are beginning to realise that the Government shouldn't and can't continue to supply everything those in need require." That is a massive difference from what you are suggesting I said.

I hope that clears things up for you.

You genuinely think food banks exist because they don't think the government can/should make sure people have enough money to put food on the table?

Wow.

The problem with relying on charity instead of government is that charity is the worst kind of postcode lottery. Some people are lucky & find that charity is able to fill the gap, but many are not so lucky.

The government really does have a responsibility to look after us, and in particular I believe they need to start taking seriously their responsibility to assess people for benefits in a timely manner. And to apply sanctions only when absolutely necessary & certain an appeal won't be successful. At the moment the government is failing badly on both of these counts, leading to many people becoming temporarily unable to budget & needing to rely on their chances at getting hold of a food bank voucher for 3 days worth of food.

bloolagoon

clearingout wrote: »

Gingerbread is an organisation that works exclusively with and on behalf of single parents. Their statistics should therefore be representative of their experience and that of their clients.

'Many' lone parents may well receive a 'portion' of their childcare costs back through Tax Credits. That portion is, however, a maximum of 70% of the total cost. This is also capped so if you have the misfortune to have your husband walk out when you have 3 under 4 and live in the South East where costs per child can be in excess of £50 per child, per day and you only earn minimum wage...well, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the figures will never add up.

I have not suggested single parents can't or shouldn't work or should not be working when their children are 15 years of age. My comments were an objection to the assertion that 'many' single parents receive child maintenance. Evidence (statistical, anecdotal) would seem to suggest otherwise.

You seem to forget that many of those who claim no support from NRP is because they don't want to. Some may not even know their Childs father, some may not want them to have involvement. Some are actually still living with them or involved.

What is the % of CSA success. Ie how many who use CSA and provide details to them get nothing. Is this the 38%?

I'm sure I read a report that those in long term relationships that ended over 80% get financial support.

As for childcare 70% is better than 0%. You are now a working parent - if you became involved with a working partner and still wanted to work you'd get less/nothing. Your childcare bill wouldn't lower. So though it may be slightly disportionate against Single parents childcare is always a barrier for any working parents.

GirlFromMars_2

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

That's enough to buy:

A dozen fishcakes - Iceland 89p
907grams Roast Potatoes - Iceland 89p
15 Thick Pork & Beef Sausages 750g - Iceland £1.59

Total: £3.37

That's enough for quite a few meals. OK, not a great variety and maybe not so healthy, but hey it's food. There nothing on that list that I haven't eaten in the last year or so.

I well remember one complainant at an MP's surgery a few years ago berating him on the amount of money she received and how she couldn't make ends meet. "Do you know how much frozen chips costs?" she shouted at him, and he responded with: "No madam, I don't, but I do know how much five pound of potatoes costs."


Enough to buy 10 cigarettes.

Sort of puts things into perspective doesn't it?

You forgot to factor in the cost of getting to Iceland and having electricity/gas to cook the meal.

Please remember that this is a gentleman who was dying. How do you think he would have had the energy to get to Iceland in the first place & do some snazzy mental arithmetic get home & cook for himself.

Either you have no understanding of what it is to be destitute & ill. Or you are being wilfully cruel.

I am aware that this is a money saving site, and as such many members are used to eking out their pennies. But doing so when you are sick & at the very end of your tether is another matter entirely. I hope you have as much mental capacity and tenacity at the end of your life as you do now, but if not I hope somebody is there to make sure you do not die of poverty.

Bogof_Babe

clearingout wrote: »

.

I have not suggested single parents can't or shouldn't work or should not be working when their children are [STRIKE]15[/STRIKE] 5 years of age.

Fixed that for you. Plenty of mothers work around school hours, and there are jobs out there, even if it takes a bit of effort to find one.

GirlFromMars wrote: »

The government really does have a responsibility to look after us

Does it? It has a responsibility to maintain a society in which people are safe from external threats, and where there is an adequate infrastructure to support the population, but as for day-to-day living, we must accept that we are responsible for ourselves, plus any offspring and/or animals we choose to bring into our lives.

The dependency culture has to be tackled, as it disincentivises the natural human instinct of self-sufficiency. Where would we be now if cave dwellers had sat around waiting for someone else to feed them?

GirlFromMars_2

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

Interesting reading both the article and the responses.

I think for all argument on both sides, we appear to be losing sight of one fact. That this particular round of benefit cuts (specifically the lowering of the threshold and increase of the taper) will hit the working poor hardest rather than those out of work, as those out of work will not hit the threshold either way.
Whilst there are those who work the minimum to get the maximum top up, there are others who are at capacity either through personal circumstances or the employer being at capacity.
It is difficult for a minimum wage employee to increase hours past 24 as they begin to attract extra costs to the employer.

I would like to have seen a new system introduced whereby contributions are given greater weight and sanctions on spending are given to those who choose benefits as a lifestyle. Ie no more 20% of income on booze and 20% on fags

I think you're forgetting the scope of the Benefit Cuts. (And playing into the government's divide and conquer tactics of deserving & undeserving cuts.)

Yes, the Working Tax Credit changes hit the working poor very hard. But please remember these are not the only changes.

Child Tax Credit changes affect children whether they are in working families or not.

The benefit cap affects all larger families (where 2 children is a large family) where the parents have had the misfortune to be out of work for more than 1? week in the previous year, and are out of work again.

The benefit cap prevents people form accessing the minimum level of money that the government thinks a family of their size needs to live on.

The benefit cap was introduced as policy in the first place, as it looked good as a headline. It has always been very bad policy, and is now about to be significantly worse policy. The level at which the government are hoping to set the benefit cap is in no way connected to earnings, and the Welfare Bill will allow the government to change the cap arbitrarily in the future without reference to parliament. The original £26K benefit cap was supposed to be linked to median earnings, but never took into account the fact that Housing Benefit, and Working & Child Tax Credits would apply to large families on median earnings, meaning their take home would be much higher. The new lower benefit caps are just a punishment on being poor, and mean that most of the country is now too expensive for families who are even temporarily out of work.

The benefit cap also affects families where the parent is on ESA in the Work Related Activity Group. These are people who have been found unfit for work, and who may never be fit for work.

New ESA WRAG claimants are also facing a £30 (30%) cut to the income they are expected to live on. Again, WRAG claimants have been assessed as unfit for work, and in many instances are assessed as unlikely to return to work.

Single parents of young children are also affected by the benefit cap, whether or not their children are old enough for them to be able to return to work.

Carers are affected by the benefit cap if they do not live with the person for whom they are caring.

The Budget Changes & Welfare Bill are going to hurt everyone. While I agree that hurting working families is bad, I also think hurting workless families where nobody has any chance of moving into work because of illness or caring responsibilities is equally bad.

Even hurting workless families where the parents are fit to work, is not great, as it is children who will suffer in the long run. This also relies on there being jobs available for the parents to move into. And forgets that many long term JSA claimants face mental health problems which greatly affect their employability.

Even if miraculously you are unaffected directly by the budget changes this is going to take a significant amount of money out of the economy, and is going to mean businesses shutting and job losses.