To agree with workfare in principal?

[IAmMiranda]

Donning my flame retardant underwear - though note I'm not for the current scheme, but the principal is sensible.

Working for unemployment benefits makes sense to me - provided that the "wage" is fair for the hours and skills. Eg. £90 a week job sellers could equal 15 hours of charity work?

Taking into account disabilities, childcare and other responsibilities I really don't think its unfair to provide people with jobs to earn the equivalent of benefits?

I do think its wrong to line the pockets of corporations, reduce jobs for other workers etc but surely charity work is an option?

I think I've probably missed some huge glaring point but AIBU?

(NOTE: I have previously been in reciept of JSA and would happily have done 15 hours a week and had plenty of time to job search)

It isn't even a comparison. It'd be more accurate for the one with the hut to say to the one without the hut if you don't help me build an extension I'll take your food off you...

I am a single parent who has also worked throughout my children's lives. I have no family. I used a professional childminder. At times I went without food in order to fund this. I am under no illusion that if I hadn't owned a significant portion of my own home (thus reducing my outgoings) and hadn't had such a fabulous boss (who never begrudged me time off when my childcare fell through, which it did frequently because of OFSTED rules about sick children, etc), I would be unemployed.

I have remained employed yes because of a fair amount of determination on my part and because I have saleable skills, but mostly because of sheer good luck. Punishing people who don't have that good luck is abhorrent. If you don't have a support network, it isn't always possible to work as a single parent even when DC are in schools. Shift patterns can be impossible to cover, for example. Even if you can find someone to provide care, the cost of doing so would be a massive barrier to someone who is maybe capable of earning only NMW.

i was a single parent who worked and it was horrible tbh - a succession of childminders and playschemes who were (with one notable fine exception) purely in it for the money and didn't give a shiny shit about my children, bosses who once they realised your situation would treat you like crap (the only one in the company without a contract anyone?)
all just to be some sort of fucking hero who is going to get slagged off anyway just for being a single parent, with ones own family joining in the happy chorus.
fuck i am having a bad day.

Dahlen, I agree with you that there could be better childcare available, but I know that there are those who simply don't try or aren't prepared to consider options because it all just seems too much like hard work.

I have no support network, hence having a live in aupair when the DCs were younger. It was the only option I could afford.

I'm not up for punishing anyone, but by the same token, I think all healthy adults should have to contribute in some way to the society they live in.

Burberry, I share your frustration - the only think I'd say is that I feel proud I've kept myself and the DC afloat financially and that I've kept up my work skills. My DC are older now and need less childcare and I can see that in a year or two my career can take off again and I won't just be trying to find work that doesn't involve anything outside of 9-5.

The trouble is, we have no way of distinguishing between those who try and fail and those who just don't want to bother. It's exactly the same debate the Victorian's had about the deserving and undeserving poor and look how that turned out. The only solution is one based on need, not worthiness.

I know what you mean Dahlen & I don't know the answer to that one.

I keep coming back to a universal allocation for everyone and then you work to top up if you want to have a better lifestyle. I'd love to know if it were at all viable.

A live in au pair doesn't come cheap. I imagine you were not working in a sandwich shop like my friend is post. To commit to that kind of regular childcare you need to at least have a stable and secure job even if it doesn't pay well and I doubt you could use an au pair if you were on NMW.

Universal provision is always cheaper and more effective at supporting the most vulnerable post because in a means tested system there is a huge cost in administrating the system. Lots of money goes to lawyers and administrators and not much to those who need it. This is how the NHS has been so effective.

And how child benefit previously worked.

And how child benefit previously worked.

reidfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Case-for-Universalism.pdf

Offred Wed 02-Oct-13 11:54:31
It isn't even a comparison. It'd be more accurate for the one with the hut to say to the one without the hut if you don't help me build an extension I'll take your food off you...

That's the nub of the matter. That's the viewpoint of the 'entitled'.
"I am entitled to this. the state must provide that."

The money's not coming from any magic source - 'the state'. The money is coming from other hardworking people. We have made a social pact to provide for each other in certain circumstances. Altering the terms of that pact is not taboo - it happens all the time.

There are no entitlements. There are simply hard-working people supporting each other.

Live in aupair was £80 a week plus her food for 35 hours worth of childcare. I was temping at the time earning £15 per hour, probably a bit more than you get in a sandwich shop, but not much. Got WTC and CTC and some kind of local authority subsidy for the DCs place at nursery.

I quite disagree.

As citizens of a state which we all contribute to through paid and unpaid work from which the state benefits we are all entitled to support from the state. It isn't as simple as paid employment=contributor unpaid=dependent.

Like I say, vast majority of people are not net contributors on purely monetary terms. That is a problem in itself but a slightly different argument.

Au pair adverts for my town are between £5-£15, friend earns considerably less than £15 per hour.

Not sure many people round here (oop norf) could hope for £15 per hour tbh.

"i'll offer my consent to any government who does not deny a man (or woman) a living wage." (- Between the Wars by Billy Bragg) And to think that was written whilst i was still at nursery,.probably.

Per hour that is for an au pair

Have to average above 6th decile across lifetime including old age to be a net contributor btw.

you have to earn about £26,000 per year to be tax neutral i.e. contribute the same in tax as your share of the costs of the UK.

Depends on family structure. For our family type average costs mean we need a single income of £66k to be 6th decile.

What decile you are in is adjusted for your circumstances. A single adult with no children earning £26k may be above 6th decile when adjusted.

Au pair adverts for my town are between £5-£15 a quick google shows au pairs cost much less than that.

from one website:
•£70 minimum for up to 25 hours per week
•£80 minimum for up to 30 hours per week
•£90 minimum for up to 35 hours per week

sorry that's per adult.

so 1 adult = £26k
2 adults = £52k

And it is only estimated, but still, not many people are net contributors across their lifetimes.

It is a real problem for the structure of the economy that. Also made worse when money is allowed to go out of the country and the location of the majority of wealth is in the hands of people for whom taxation is voluntary.

This govt has done some really shocking stuff to our economy such as removing the profit cap on the national lottery which now means worker's earnings are being eroded and the money is going to Canadian shareholders.

But post, I'm talking about my town, where there is known to be inadequate provision of childcare.

It doesn't help people in my town that people in another town can get cheaper au pairs.

about 50% of people are net contributors. Radio 4's More or Less stats program did a program all about it.