AIBU to think that I shouldn't have bothered working and paying into National Insurance for the 35 years I have done so?

I think if nurseries were treated much more as a necessity and subsidised much more by the govt a lot of these issues wouldn’t arise.

Well done, you are setting a good example to your children.

I agree, people see things differently.
However, I think employers should pay proper wages and not expect a hand-out from the taxpayer (me).

Hi, there are clearly different perceptions for different people. I have always worked full time on a very low salary ( initially) whilst raising my son. I would have likely been better off not working or working part-time.
I really struggled like many others.
I know people who have chosen not to work or work PT to retain their benefits whilst still choosing to have more children.
So, as said, different perceptions for different people.
I agree that many employees are exploited by ruthless employers who don't pay fairly.
That's why there needs to be available top up financial assistance to ensure those people can pay their rent. Those people don't choose to work PT or not at all whilst knowing that they will be supported by the taxes of those who work full time.
I have had conversations with people who admit that they will never work or increase their hours because they consider it not to be worth it, irrespective of their children's ages. Why can't they work more and earn their money as opposed to living off the tax payer? And having more children.
I was never a high earner but my child is my responsibility.
I appreciate your perspective and hope you can see mine

Like hell, it is!

1. I strongly object to topping up wages of people in full-time employement. This is just welfare for big business, allowing them to get away with paying poor wages.
2. You are talking about the benefit trap. That is, if you take a part-time job you lose most of your benefits, so you are no better off and you have to source childcare etc if you are a parent. Thus it is more sensible not to work part-time. This is even worse with a full-time job because benefits are immediately lost and if it's is poorly paid work of the type I cited in 1) then it takes a while for the welfare benefit to the employer - sorry, wages top up - to kick in. Also you will have new expenses such as bus fares to get to work, and there is no provision for this. Because of that problem it is better to work the minimum hours, so benefits are less affected. The answer to this is to reform the benefits system so that actually finding a job is not penalised. This is known as the 'benefit trap'. Finally, people on benefits need them. The entitled lot are those who think it is ok for employers to pay low wages and for taxpayers (you and me) to fund that, whilst blaming the poor for being poor.

Many low paid jobs are part time because it benefits employers and reduces their wages bill overall. Zero hour contracts are another scourge. It's all very well expecting people to work three jobs because "moral" when it screws over logistics of caring responsibilities, income is not fixed and employment is precarious.

Even minimum wage is badly thought out as the young get less and older people cost more to employ, regardless of actual COL.

The economic shitshow has been engineered to maximise profit at the top end and keep the "lower orders" on a tight leash.

The mantra of "just work more / harder" is all well and good, but the opportunities to actually progress have diminished significantly in recent years. It doesn't take much to knock people off course despite their best laid plans because the COL is now so high and once you get into debt it's not easy to climb out - it takes years.

'An extra day a week doing her hobbies'

Ffs.

I don't understand this because the AET at which single parents are left alone is 18 x nmw. Maybe that is just the earnings that people aren't called into appointments with a job coach. My colleague has faced no repurcussions for dropping her working hours to 30.

As a single parent, I have to work 30+ hours or minimum wage equivalent until youngest dc turns 13 next year, when it goes up to 35.

If it were 18 hours, I might not be so ill, stressed and exhausted and struggling!

People are expected to work 18 hours x nmw per week on UC unless you have very young children. It's a ridiculously low amount, as was the number of hours you had to work to get tax credits which preceded UC. they also don't seem to mind people reducing their working hours as long as they meet that 18x nmw figure. My colleague who has one 16 year old son has just reduced her hours from full time to four days a week. She gains 55p more UC for each pound less she earns so doesn't feel too hard done by and gets to enjoy an extra day a week doing her hobbies.

Sums it up

Yes, this

Depends how much u earn

I don't know. People trot out the 16 hour thing on here. As far as I know, it is to do with what you earn, not the hours you do (on UC at least, tax credits might be different).
Does the age of your children have an affect too?

I agree with you, except that, as far as I'm aware, you have to work far more than 16 hours to be eligible for universal credit. For single parents, it's 30 hours, at least.

What are you on about?
If the rules that the DWP set say you can work 16 hours, and get the rest topped up... then can you blame anyone for doing that?
If you are in a shitty low paid job, with a knob as a boss, would you honestly say you would still do all the hours under the sun as a misdirected sense of pride?
If not... you must have a job you enjoy? Actually, not a job... a career.
Check your privilege.

Oh please. So people have zero personal responsibility at all, just puppets of the state? Is anyone responsible for anything they do in your eyes?

Then the fault is with the system that allows that, and not the people playing it.
I gather that is is people with children that this applies to anyway, not single childless folk.
Having children complicates things.

Spot on! There are people who do the bare minimum of hours to retain their benefits and won't work increased hours as their benefits will be deducted accordingly. All about entitlement

Also, we do not pay for our individual state pensions, though the number of NI payments we make counts towards it. NI pays for everyone, payments are not earmarked to the payee (like any insurance).

I do think removing the fuel allowance is a vote-loser and I was not expecting this to happen. Glad I didn't vote for any of them, but at least the Tories knew who goes out and votes and it isn't 18 year olds.
Regarding state pensions, I am confused. I always paid what used to be called 'your stamp' as I could see no good reason to rely on DH (ex-H)'s pension for myself. Late DH paid NI, but was a self-employed crofter (complicated situation as to benefits and taxation) as well as a Youth Worker etc - what is now called a portfolio career. He got a smaller state pension than I did, even though I reckon he had worked more years than I (despite his several training and education breaks) - but I had my NI paid whilst at home with DCs. Both had NI credited when we were students.
We made provision elsewhere, anyway. The benefits you mention are paid to those who have been unable to pay NI for parts of their lives, who are disabled, unemployed, carers, mothers who have never worked outside the home etc.
The system is arranged to make sure no-one starves or lives in abject poverty. I willingly support those who have less than me (though DH got slightly narky about people who had not made his efforts and got more pension than he did - but he was a Liberal and I am a Socialist).
I do not think I was a mug to work and pay for what I would need. I do wish I had spent more time with late DH, though, and we had not had to work so hard. But's that's life, and we enjoyed it.

Don't worry. I didn't get the impression they were gloating at all 😊 If they worked loads, they probably just get a top-up with pension credit to add to their state pension? I don't think anyone could object to that.
It's more the people who never worked or paid NI who get pension credit as their sole income that people have more of a problem with.
I've got to be honest and say I just don't understand how anyone can never have worked, except in the case of illness. Even if they were full-time SAH mums (and I 100% support that choice) there are still usually at least several years of working life left after their kids have left home, gone to uni or started working themselves. I don't know how anyone can justify never working or contributing to the system, only to take so much out of the system later! Though I imagine it's a tiny minority.
But, I didn't get that impression from your post about your parents at all. I totally agree with them that £218 a week, if not paying rent or council tax out of it, is a decent amount to live on if you're used to having a low income when you worked. My income is low, but I've learnt to manage well on it. I'd be fine on £218 a week after rent. Many people would.

They have all worked hard their whole lives, they are not gloating, they are incredulous that the government is giving them these extra benefits and col payments. They are amazed by it all as none of them claimed one benefit whilst working.

Well, of course it doesn't directly immediately affect person b. But, I guess for society to function, it requires the majority of people to do the right thing. If everyone lived lives of leisure because they don't feel work suits them or whatever, and then claimed benefits they haven't contributed to, for the last chapter of life, we'd be stuffed.

I realise most people who claim benefits are legitimately entitled, and have good reason, and don't see it as a lifestyle choice. I really don't think there are nearly as many people who work the system, as certain news publications would have us believe. But, there definitely are some. There are some people who don't have that sense of fairness that most do. It's hard not to feel upset by the piss takers, when so many working people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads etc.

I don't know how the system can be made fairer. I certainly wouldn't want any changes to make things even harder for genuine people in need who really do need help. So, it's a difficult circle to square.

But if person A sold her home, it would have no impact on person B. You can't really blame someone being just above the cut off for benefits on someone who is claiming them.
And some people do land on their feet with housing and inherit a large house or whatever. Again, that has nothing to do with people who have had to work for theirs.