to think its not that benefits are too HIGH, its that the minimum / average wage is too LOW.

[MistyMountainHop]

inspired by a load of recent threads about benefits (which may or may not be bullshit a bit of a stretching of the truth) and lots of mnetters (and a lot of the general public) up in arms about people choosing to be on benefits rather than work and that benefits are too high

well i think that the average wage is too LOW and vastly disproportionate to the cost of living. when people can "earn" more for NOT going to work than they can working then something is badly wrong. and i have been on benefits (single parent) abou 5 years ago and its SHIT. me and dc were POOR. i certainly didnt have this fictitious daily-mail benefits lifestyle with lots of spare cash, luxuries etc. hell no. i had enough to cover my rent and bills with a bit of change to feed me and dc. but if i had have worked at that time i would have probably only managed to get a minimum wage job which would have been pretty much the same as what i was receiving anyway. so shoot me, i decided i didn't want to work because it just wasnt worth it. (disclaimer for any dm readers: i do work now and have done for a while and now married and dh works too so no benefits apart from a little bit of tcs)

i know people on min or very low wage get "topped up" with tax credits and all that shit etc but IMO there is something really wrong with the world when people can work full time and still need financial help from the government to pay their rent and bills.

so surely in the final analysis its not that benefits pay too much, its that employment pays too little?

i am not very good at getting my point across so i hope this makes sense! but this was just something me and my friends were having a drunken conversation about at the weekend. and thought i would put it to the aibu jury :o

70% of childcare costs is a great help, but if you're on minimum wage that remaining 30% may as well be 100%. A full-time nursery placement in the UK costs approximately £200 a week or £800 pcm. 30% of that is £240pcm. That's a lot of money if you're on minimum wage and your take-home is only 975 and out of that you have to pay everything (because you don't get help with council tax or housing benefit once you're working full-time).

If you work less hours, your costs come down of course but so do you earnings.

As soon as you start earning even fractionally more than minimum wage, the 70% rate is reduced.

There is a reason that 4 out of 5 working mothers in the UK rely on a network of unpaid family and friends to provide childcare. It's because professional childcare is very expensive. It should actually be paid more IMO because you want the calibre of child carers to be extremely high, but far more should be done to subsidise the cost to the parent. After all, more than 80% of us become parents and therefore childcare is a majority issue, not a minority one. Britain has the highest childcare costs in the world.

Even finding a CM/nursery is a problem, because many are oversubscribed and lots won't work outside the hours of 8-6 mon-fri. Most minimum wage jobs involve shift-work, including weekends.

I earn far more than minimum wage, but because my childcare element has been cut accordingly, and because I have no family and my friends work, I have to rely 100% on professional childcare. There have been months in the past where I have gone hungry as a result, I went 2 years without an eye exam and spent 12 months putting off badly needed dental treatment because I couldn't afford it.

That's the reality of life for most single parents, most of whom work anyway and most of whom are single due to relationship breakdown (1 in 3 involving abuse), not sleeping with every tom dick and harry and deliberately getting up the duff to claim as many benefits as possible, as some people clearly believe. . And here's an idea, get more fathers to pay reliable, decent levels of maintenance and perhaps so many mothers wouldn't require so much state help in the first place. 60% of separated fathers pay nothing.

Things are much better for me now, thank goodness, but the idea that all single parents are laughing all the way to the bank is just ignorant DM-fuelled nonsense. Singe parents (and their DC) are twice as likely as any other sector of society to be living in poverty.

Well said sunshine

And I always worked, by the way, even when the children's father just got up and walked away. But my career and earnings were never the same again.

Don't know droves - it's already been cut from 80% to 70% last year so I'd say another cut in the childcare element of tax credits is likely, no idea how much by though!

As a single parent working part time at the moment, I am very comfortable money wise.

There's a possibility of promotion for me this year which would mean going full time which would mean I wouldn't be much better off, but still have the same amount of disposable income roughly.

Yes, thank you sunshine.

itspeanutbutterjellytime not sure why your swearing theres no need for that.

I don't thing they are saving the taxpayer

They don't work their children are more likey not to work we now have in the uk whole generations that don't work thats not saving any money I think

I sure that's a argument that's used by some who want to avoid work but I simply think the only people who can afford not two work are three types
1- thoses who are rich
2-those who husbands don't mind working a bit longer
3-those who live of the land and don't need money

Other wise every one elese needs to work and staying at home is a luxury that one should have but shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer

Liner Runer

I feel you you never easy ex just upping and leaving with out so much as a seconed glance for the welafre of their children

One solution might be tracking these jokers down and forcing them to pay

Molly I think what LineRunner is saying though, is that you can plan all you like but you have no idea how life is going to turn out. It's not necessarily bad planning that lead people to be in the situations that they're in.

Maypole One of the interesting premises of this thread is the taxpayer is funding people in work in this country.

Desperately
Yes, the companies are the ones that we should be railing at for taking advantage of the benefit system.

I don't understand this argument that people should wait till X day till they have children if they cannot afford childcare.

IMO, decent basic childcare should be provided by the state, or at least heavily subsidised. This would ensure that those who wished to work could do so.

If both partners are able to work then they shall both pay more taxes, spend more money and contribute to the economy.

A full time wage should be enough to cover the BASIC costs of raising a family. I worked it out one time, and it just plain did not do this. (Going by an average wage and a couple with two kids living in London area).

My career and earnings are, and probably always will be at the minimum wage level as that is the area I live in. Unfortunately as I live in this type of area most people think in the way of the op, and hardly anyone bothers to work. It does get you down sometimes when things are hard and tiring when you think you could be at home taking it slower and more relaxed, and you wonder what the point is, but when its good days then you know why you are doing it. By the way linerunner I wasnt having a go at you, and didntwant it to sound that way, as you say this is an emotive topic!

due to my husband and i splitting up (he cheated) i am now on benefits i get £67 a week income support thats it, so £268 per 4 weeks income

outgoings
rent £50 per month, gas at this time of year £80 per month (only put it on for four hours a day) electric £25 per month, water rates £26 per month, television licence £14 per month broadband and phone £22 per month (stuck in contract cant cancel)so £216 basic bills leaves me with £52 a month to feed,and clothe myself not exactly the high life is it

Yes but at least people are trying to help them sleves

And once people are in wrk it only gets better people meet partners making them no longer single parents, people get promotions, their children grow up which means less need from child care and hopefully more money in pocket

I guess you have to look at it with all the associated costs
And the fact I would rather pay £1 to help somone in work than £2 for somone to stay at home

to be better off working i would need to earn around £900 a month and there arent many full time jobs where i live,

issey6cats sorry but their are people who work and earn that so whilest I am deeply sorry your oh done a bunk

It's wether you should get that money under your own steam or should that taxpayer foot the bill

maypole
Where are these jobs that you are promoting? Even for people ACTIVELY seeking jobs, there are not enough.

How can you penalise someone (by cutting benefits) when they don't actually have any choice?

Sure there are some who don't want to work, but many many do.

Long term unemployed, ie those who have been unemployed for more than 5 years, is actually quite a low figure.

I think there are 2 basic problems.

1. Our housing costs in the uk are ridiculously high. Either the governemnt needs to build social housing that can be rented out a reasonable rate - unlikely I know. Or people will have to get used to living with extended families - very common even in parts of Europe. In much of the UK people in low paid work have never been able to afford the market rate for a decent family house. But until about 30 years ago, low paid families lived largely in council houses.

1. Our childcare is the most expensive in the world. This is because the standards and paperwork we demand is so high. There have been very tentative discussions in government about reducing the minimum standards of childcare providers to reduce the cost.

YANBU There have been some brilliant points on here too, especially about the cost of housing. Which is why it really does amaze me that the government talk about bringing council house rents up to the levels or private rents and what puzzles me even more is the amount of people that seem to agree with that! I personally have always thought that it needs to be the other way around.

I agree that childcare should be provided free by the state, but only for people who work.

It's not always about just being better off money wise it's about self asteam, and pride in your self a low paid job can often lead to skills and higher paid work.

issey6cats go on give it ago I know you kids are already proud of you but would be even prouder when you draw your first wage

And will say my mum never let this beat her she held her own when we were little

Indeed, Waxtart, some of us thought we had Plan A and it turned out to be Plan Z.

It only takes one person to let down a whole family, and the repercussions are dramatic.

And don't forget, many women like me cannot 'get on their bike' for a better job because they are tied to shit locales because of contact orders. Sigh.

subsidizing childcare for the low paid seems really sensible. also sorting out the CSA.

It would cost the state a fortune to provide free childcare for everyone though.

MmeLindor their is that argument, but their is also one that say pole and alike do the jobs Brits won't do

I read a arrival in the guardian I must be mad , about employers who ran compiles which needed low level skills cleaners ECt advertised but couldn't get any one well any one who was English yes people from the job centre who weren't dressed propley or didn't. Turn up on time who didn't really want
The jobs but just wanted to say they had tried

At my oh work they have to draft in domestics from phillipines because they can't get any one who is English

It would cost a fortune, but it would get some of the money back in taxes, and would have to pay less out in benefits.

It would be worth it.