To think the current benefits system sets single parents up to commit fraud?

[Littlefluffyclouds81]

I am a single parent, I'm currently a student and earn a small amount from self employment, so receive some housing benefit, CTC, WTC and CB.

Let's say, hypothetically, my bf moved in with me (there is no real danger of that happening for a very long time, but let's pretend). He earns £50k a year. If he moved in, as far as the system would see it, my children are his children, and therefore he would be jointly financially responsible for them. I would instantly lose all of my benefits, leaving me around £1100 a month worse off. This would leave me in a position of being no longer financially independent, and feeling like I had to go to him, cap in hand, to ask for money. Money, which often would be spent buying things for my kids.

My bf is a very nice chap and all that, but I doubt he'd cough up a grand a month to provide for me and my children. I doubt there's many blokes that would. His dd would also lose out, as through suddenly having gained two extra children, the maintenance she is entitled to would go right down.

Bearing all this in mind, I can see why many single parents are tempted to move their partner in 'on the sly'. Of course this is very risky, but only for the single parent (usually the female). As the benefits claimant it is the single parent who will be prosecuted, the partner they'd moved in would have no repercussions, even though no doubt they'd done quite well in terms of their own living costs, probably chipping in a token amount towards food and bills.

I think this makes it very hard for single parents to ever have a serous relationship, unless they happened to be a high earner themselves, so benefits weren't an issue. Or I suppose if both adults were on benefits, as they wouldn't lose out there. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than a citizens wage (which will never happen).

Bearing in mind that I know teachers and nurses who are reliant on tax credits to make ends meet, I don't think it's that straightforward to assume everyone is capable of being a high flier and have a career which will pay them enough to be able to totally independent of the state.

I'd be happy to pay both groups more, but pay isn't the problem. It's the cost of housing, which this and the previous government happily inflated.

It's no use paying nurses and teachers more. You'd have to pay everybody more. You'd have to pay every worker an actual, real, living wage. And then the cost of living would go up again because everyone would have more money, and so the cycle would repeat again.

Friends of mine that are claiming WTC for self employment have received a letter saying that they may be asked to prove their income from their self employment and also have a business plan to improve the earning capabilities of the business. This is after the monitoring that they have endured via Concentrix last year. So I think that "pretend" work in order to claim WTC will soon be a thing of the past.

It's no use paying nurses and teachers more. You'd have to pay everybody more. You'd have to pay every worker an actual, real, living wage. And then the cost of living would go up again because everyone would have more money, and so the cycle would repeat again.

The money is already being pumped into the system by way of TCs. I'd rather it come from the employer's pocket than the taxpayer's.

... And then the cycle would begin again. If the minimum wage becomes £30k a year, the cost of living will go up and then £30k won't be enough.
And the government is hardly going to make the minimum wage £14.50 an hour. How many businesses would collapse if that became law. Businesses are already cutting overtime and bonuses to cover the cost of the most recent wage increase, leaving people no better off.

It's fine to have ideals and preferences but if they're not realistic, they're not realistic.

So I think that "pretend" work in order to claim WTC will soon be a thing of the past.

--

You mean those who were encouraged by the jobcentre to go 'self-employed' with no real chance of success just so they are of the unemployment list will now be punished for following the jobcentres advice? :D

Apple is right though no one wants to hear it.

The reality is that relationships break down so never have more children than you are willing to raise alone. Someone on the thread has five children. Who can EVER possibly support 5 children alone?

As for illnesses etc, how many people talking about how they did everything right- how many of you had savings? I bet none. People think that if their monthly expenses are 1 pound less than their income that they did everything right. What about savings? Keeping one foot in the workplace? Retraining options? Volunteering?

Rebecca2014 I'm sorry but how can you say you did everything right? This is the issue. The truth is that you didn't get a degree or a job which enabled you to support yourself without benefits. Instead you got married and had a baby at 22. Which means your marriage was likely to end in divorce. Statistically, you ended up exactly where you were expected to - a single mum on benefits.

The point isn't that people are evil, just that their outcomes are rarely unpredictable.

The average marriage in this country is 29 and the average first mum is 30. That gives you 8 years in the workplace - 12 with no university. People don't want to wait or be financially solvent and that's fine, but don't bother saying that "you did everything right".

Accept that you took a riskier path instead of pretending you were super prudent and risk averse and that the govt somehow massively fucked you over.

You'd have to pay everybody more. You'd have to pay every worker an actual, real, living wage. And then the cost of living would go up again because everyone would have more money, and so the cycle would repeat again.

no it wouldn't. that's why I said pay isn't the problem. it's housing.

This is one of the more expensive countries to buy houses, and London is probably top 5 in the world. That's where we should be putting our efforts, not inflating everyone's wages.

Fourmore inflation is caused by more pounds chasing the same goods, as in the case of printing money. This is merely a redirection of pounds (assuming TCs were magically returned to taxpayer's pocket and spent in the form of higher costs of goods).

You're right that some non-viable businesses would be put out of business, as well they should. If you can't afford to pay your workers a wage that's doesn't require taxpayer subsidy, then you should go under.

no it wouldn't. that's why I said pay isn't the problem. it's housing.

It's both, really. I have no earthly idea why anyone on a low wage would choose to live in London, though. It's setting yourself up for a difficult life.

A11TheSmallTh1ngs I never said I did anything right, I know I am a typical statistic but I am making the effort to improve my quality of life by getting a degree which will lead to a career. I know I did it the wrong way around...

My original post is about encouraging single women to go out there and get an education or a better job. I could live quite comfortably on my part time, low paid role with the tax credits top ups but I know its not going last forever and I feel a lot of women don't realize that.

Sorry - meant to say the SE. Not London.

A11TheSmallTh1ngs I never said I did anything right, I know I am a typical statistic but I am making the effort to improve my quality of life by getting a degree which will lead to a career. I know I did it the wrong way around...

I think A11 has you mixed up with cannotlogin.

Bear in mind there's a major upside to having children in your early 20s: you have the freedom to focus on your career without maternity/childcare interruptions in your 30s.

The major fly in the ointment is childbearing throughout your 20s and 30s, in which case you're pretty well fucked (financially) in the absence of a high-earning parter.

Apple I agree.

Getting back to the OP's original point, I'm absolutely flabbergasted that the government/society/mumsnet can't conceive a system which is better than the present arrangement - which as far as I can tell allows absent parents (usually fathers) to avoid meeting the costs associated with their children.

Those that believe that they are somehow independent (whilst relying on benefits to feed, house, and/or clothe their children) really need to disabuse themselves of the notion.

Apple I'm afraid the stats just don't support your theory.

You said;

Get to know someone before you have children with him - nothing short of several years. Find a career you love, or even just a job that you like. Don't have children without getting married, or before you're 30, and have only 2. Consider getting insurance.

In response to a PP saying

I hate, hate, hate this attitude. People are only an illness, an accident or a divorce away from not being able to afford the the children you could afford when you conceived, unless they are very fortunate

The fact is she's much closer to the truth shown in the statistics than you are.

The things you list are (mostly) not protective from poverty.

The biggest risk factors for family poverty are divorce/relationship breakdown, having an ill or disabled child, having an ill or disabled parent and -yes- being in a larger family.

You're implying that if women followed your 'steps', they'd avoid poverty, but most single parents did have children in marriage or LTRs, did have a career before children and weren't young parents.

You're just perpetuating an unfounded stereotype.

Oh and being BAME increases your poverty risk - I forgot that one - but that's not really within an individual's control.

A11TheSmallTh1ngs I never said I did anything right, I know I am a typical statistic but I am making the effort to improve my quality of life by getting a degree which will lead to a career. I know I did it the wrong way around...

You're really not a typical single mother statistic; you are younger and have a smaller family than the average lone mother - the most statistically typical thing about you is that you were previously married.

Which is good news for you, because you have time and energy and a plan.

What posters are trying to put on you is a stereotype not a statistical norm.

My original post is about encouraging single women to go out there and get an education or a better job. I could live quite comfortably on my part time, low paid role with the tax credits top ups but I know its not going last forever and I feel a lot of women don't realize that

Be nice if we could all focus on that bit?

Lots of wise advice above that people should pass on to their children; get qualified, pass your exams, go to university, put off chidlren (and even sex) until you are older if you want to improve your financial chances in life and a warning - don't depend on tax credits as they may disappear in future.

Also the state is trying to tackle this issue - currently we the tax payers subsidise the low wages of big business. The higher minimum wage I believe intends to bump up workers' wages so that tax credits are smaller which makes sense. There is no point in someone paying £2k in tax and then getting £1k back in tax credits. It's just pointless expensive money moving around.

You either have a free market system which i remember from before we had tax credits paid to so many people and there was no minimum wage but if employers wanted workers they had to pay them enough or they had no workers OR you need a minimum wage which is not so low it is propped up by tax credits.

Rents are high in London but not everywhere around the country. Housing is a very varied market. Where I was originally from you can buy a house in the NE for £125k and sometimes cheaper than that.

I wonder if a citizen's wage might prove a partial answer.

There could be different bands, so high if you are a single parent and low if say, a married couple with no children. People could move between the bands as life changes.

Or children could be assigned the wage. So every child is entitled to £15,000 a year: less if they have a parent who is working. It could be partially funded by a child tax on those over 40 who work and who don't have children...it takes a village to raise a child.

It is probably cloud cuckoo land and unworkable but it would be nice.

(and even sex)

Xenia please go back to your inspirational "you too can make £1k a day and give birth in your lunch break" posting style. It was fantastic. This less so.

louisa is the point of a citizen's wage not that it's the same across the board? (Otherwise how is it different from benefits?)

If you go to university and wait the requisite number of years to achieve career and relationship stability along with savings to give yourself financial protection, you'll find yourself in the 'decreasing fertility' age bracket.

Women, it seems, still can't have it all. I don't know a single man who worried about the parenthood v career debate.

I am, as Apple put it, an 'outlier'. Post 30, 2 degrees, professional career, stable relationship of 6 yrs before TTC, enough savings to cover childcare for 4 yrs. Still ended up a single parent who found herself going to bed cold and hungry on many occasions in the first few years. I kept my job but it actually made me worse off and damn near broke me. I'm now quite comfortable but those years will never be forgotten.

Of course, what would have made a difference is some maintenance. But I guess it's far easier to blame women for making bad choices in a society that still favours men. Far too difficult to obtain maintenance from fathers (tax codes generally work though...). And let's not even consider that it's the single parent who actually provides the child care, not the parent who runs. But again, let's blame the parent who stayed.

And yet, if you believe the fallacy that stupid women are just churning out babies and expecting the state to act as father, it makes absolute sense to chase the fathers for money through their tax code (which works in most cases). Not only will it reduce state subsidy, it will also encourage a lot more men to consider contraception as well as the silly women who clearly aren't!

Which makes you wonder why it doesn't happen...

I wonder if a citizen's wage might prove a partial answer.

Now there is an idea with a research basis.