To ask if you have had any contact with benefit 'scroungers'

[JumpRope]

I utterly believe that we need to protect the poor, vulnerable and those unable to work and they should have help to live.

I grew up in a very rural area, fairly poor, very hard work for non land owners - workers werefarm labourers mainly. And there were many people leaving school in the 80s and 90s and then abusing the system - picking up the dole, laughing about it, straight to the pub until it ran out; I remember a dog called Giro. People just sold a bit of marijuana for extra work. After moving to a bigger town, I came across families like this, where the dad would start it off, and the children would just grow up and do the same.

There were jobs around. As students homes for holidays, we picked up work without trouble, and could have stayed on, got promotions etc.

How do you deal with these situations? How can we make sure we are not making cuts to those who desperately need it, whilst absolutely changing the mind sets of able bodied men (and women) who have grown up believing they are entitled to money for nothing.

'Free money' was not in reference to benefits.

The argument you put forward appeared to be that single mothers were being 'driven' to prostitution. Giving them money to prevent this would be the 'free money' I referred to.

Since I don't know which threads you have 'seen me on' I can't answer to specifics. I have said that I feel some of the cuts have been draconian and over the top, but that the system needs a rehaul.

It was pretty much endemic when I grew up (deprived area of a major city). less so now the rules are tightening, but there were many ways of maximising benefits. Often benefits were not the sole income. Many had cash in hand jobs, dabbled in petty theft, there are lots of ways of topping up your benefits if you are prepared to take a risk.

There's a single mother's benefit? Why has no-one told me of this before? Can all single mothers claim it or just single mothers on JSA or IS?

I can't find anything about it on the DWP site. I might be missing out on free money Help!

Doin there used to be an extra fiver or so on child benefit if you were a lone parent. (going back about 25 years) it was the sole reason my SIL never put her childs father on the birth cert. Not even sure if it still exists though

Think it might have went during the last Tory Government when Single parents were the pariahs as opposed to benefit scroungers this time round

Don't be facetious. It's benefits that you only qualify for as a single mother who doesn't work. Mainly income support until recently, some others too, but I'm not going to sit down and name every one just to satisfy a pedant. It was quite clear what I meant.

Perhaps if you'd been able to explain why your children need you at home more than mine need me I might have thought you'd said something worth listening to.

It'll be income support. Of course, you can claim it if you are not a lone parent and meet the criteria in another way but most claimants are single parents.

Aermingers, my children rarely see me at home. I work.

There is no special benefit I can claim if I decide I want to stay at home with them instead. They are both school aged now, so I'd get JSA, with CTC, both benefits are available to people in couples.

CB also stays the same, even if you are single.

Single parents rate CHB ended in '97, give or take. The New Labour gov't came under a lot of pressure to reverse the decision very very early in their tenure.

HelenaDove being as I'm the only poster you have singled out as an "example" Would you care to elaborate on what you meant?

Or perchance my "belief" is the same as you mention a few posts ago-

I also believe that there will be more women entering the sex industry. There was a young MNer posting on here last year or year before who had exited the industry. She said she had seen an increase in women entering the industry since 2010. A lot of them were single parents according to what she posted.

Hearsay no? It's not a conversation you had directly I'm guessing? Words on a screen? But that's fine because as I stressed in my posts that one does not need first hand evidence to form a valid opinion.

Five acres not so - a fair few carers are on IS as weirdly £62 isn't enough to live on.

We have a price to pay for daring to need that top up, though. We've had the freezes for the next few years and then the work focused interviews we are compelled to attend - they always get irritated that we can't find care for 3 disabled kids at short notice.

I also got a lecture from he advisor last time, and told that her disability was no barrier to her working. I pointed out that mine hadn't been either, but that the care needs for three other people had been for the time being. Weirdly she didn't have a platitude for that.

Of course Bishop :)

I did say 'of course, you can claim it if you are not a lone parent and meet the criteria in another way'. Carers are one of the people who meet the criteria in another way.

Shakey this is what you posted so this is what i meant.

"s. But to seemingly dismiss what a huge problem this is (not directed at any one) baffles me. And I'll still warrant (again, admittedly unfounded and no stats/links) that the figure is higher than 1/2%)"

And my mentioning posts i read from someone who exited the sex industry.......posts by an MNer called 22honey I dont know if shes still on MN

I "have contact" with people on benefits. Some of them might be scroungers for all I know. But as benefit fraud, from memory, runs at about £1.7b, I can't really get worked up about it when I consider the c. £34b in unpaid taxes that successive governments have been too cowardly to persue. And yes, I do "have contact" with plenty of people in that camp.

Late to the party and haven't read the whole thread (so may be wading in up to my neck...). However, I'll add my BIL to the pile. He is currently 40 and I can count the amount of weeks he has worked since leaving school at 16 on one hand.

I do have a grudging respect for the coalition in that for the first time in his life he was forced to do some workfare in a shop - and it actually showed him that (shock, horror) you can get out of bed before 3pm if you try, and turning up isn't the work of the devil and beneath him as the state owes him a living (he genuinely believes this, despite having paid nothing in, ever). However, one of my PIL became unwell, and now he has moved to become their carer - he still lives at home - so no more singing on and no more workfare, sadly.

And why do I support workfare? Because a lifetime of getting up at 3pm, smoking fags and living life like it's Groundhog Day isn't good for anyone, mentally. You have no purpose - and when you get older,the thought of going into the workforce at entry level really, really doesn't appeal. So you spend the rest of your life claiming. It doesn't do any of us any good. People like him need training and a bit of stick along with the carrot. Anything to get them back into work, basically. Why should we carry the can for them?

if there is a job do to then pay a bloody wage, Workfare damages the economy because ppl on workfare cant afford to spend in the lower budget shops like Peacocks which nearly went under a few years ago.

I didn't say all single mothers got it. But single mothers of children under 7 can stay at home with their children, not be compelled to work and will be financially supported by the state to stay at home because their children need them.

If you have a partner the state will only support you to go back to work and so many women are forced back into work as one income is often extremely inadequate to support a family.

I see nobody has answered my question so I'll ask again. What is so different about the children of single mothers that they need their mothers at home when other children apparently don't?

In 2000 I was on Labours New Deal After completing 3 months workfare which was a combination of a placement at a charity shop and one at the local council those "lovely people" at Pelcombe (the full ND was overseen by Reed) they wanted me to do yet ANOTHER 3 months workfare at a soup factory. I found an advert for a job in a sex chatline office and took it. Not everyone can cope with it and I did spend the first 3 days in a state of high anxiety but after that I settled into it and made some great friends in the other young women who were working there.

The soup factory should have been paying a bloody wage. And the conflict of interest there is with charities being involved is sinister in my view. You now have charities contributing to sanctions which cause homelessness....the very same thing that these same charities are supposed to be against

YY Helena. Workfare also robs the economy of the tax from real jobs when it's cheaper for Tesco companies to "employ" people on JSA.

Aermingers

There are no single mother benefits. Single mothers are obliged to look for work same as anyone else on JSA.

Couples can claim benefits if one of them stay at home, the Sahp is not obliged to look for work. To me that means couples are at an advantage because one can stay at home, single parents can't.

You wont list them because they don't exist.

Income support is £73 p/w for a single parent, how is that any more adequate for supporting a family than a full time wage, topped up with tax credits?

And it's actually children under 5, not 7.

A couple with one partner working full time on minimum wage will be significantly better off than a single parent on IS.

I saw somewhere that they are aiming to move the age down to three.

But that's not me "believing what I want to believe"

That's me admitting that I don't have the facts. I don't want to believe it at all! I'm guessing, and admitting I'm guessing. But it's not such an outlandish suggestion either.

Yes, when I was a student I knew a few guys (flat mates boyfriend and two of his mates) in their mid twenties, healthy but always stoned claiming job seekers and housing benefit as well as working cash in hand jobs. They made it look effortless .

Didn't the Spice Girls do something similar when they shared a house and had a small "wage" from their management team? Jobseekers and housing benefit on top.

Without always being stoned though. Probably.