to expect to have more disposable income than single mums claiming benefits

[newnails]

i no longer know why me and dh bother, he works full time and i work part time so that i can juggle the child care.

i know of 3 single mums who stay near me who seem to have more money than i can dream of, out every weekend, always shopping and 2 of them manage to run cars.

i know the benefit system is needed by some people but it seems to be a complete joke these days, the wasters in this country are leading the life of reilly while the rest of us are left to slog our guts out to pay for there existence.

no doubt i will get flamed for this post but i have been out xmas shopping today trying to work to a budget then i stand next to these people at the school gates and hear about all the grants they are entitled to so they can buy xmas presents, one of them has even cut back the last 2 months and managed to save £800, it would take me bloody months to save that up.

ok rant over, deep down i am glad i am not one of these people and i do actually work for what i have but it still pisses me of.

Well if I could get 2/3 of my rent paid I'd certainly be working a damn sight fewer hours than I do right now lol

Inthegutter - you are much better of in the position you are in and not being a lone parent on benifit. It is an awful system and very frustrating with no logic - the woman at the housing benifit will not know the house that you are living in but will still deem it to expensive - frustrating isn't it?

Incredibly!!!!!! But anyway, off to work tomorrow so night all!

I am sure you are an intellegent person - inthegutter - but if you were not working where would you get the money to pay 1/3 of the rent?

nonametoday: you still dont get the whole income support, and unemployment beneift thing from what i can gleam from your posts. you keep saying its simple, if you are claiming unemployment benefit and not prepared to work ther should be consequences etc.. well, guess what? there ARE! If you claim unemployment benefit ( actually called job seekers allowance, then, you have to get a job, or prove you are looking. you have a fixed amount of time, and if you do not , in that time, YOUR BENEFIT STOPS.
Income support is a different benefit and not related to looking for work or otherwise. it is a benefit for people in a variety of situations...
40weeks: I was not in ANY WAY whatsoever, supporting the woman you talked of in your post! I was telling you to report her. noting more, nothing less. SHE IS COMMITING SERIOUS BENEFIT FRAUD FGS!!! How the hell you came up with the notion that I thought what she is doing is ok, I cannot fathom! you clearly mis-read all of my post as I am fortunately, not having to claim benefits currently, nor am I single. you couldn't have interpreted my post more inaccurately if you tried. Sorry if this all sounds nasty, this thread has got me SO incensed. I've never felt so angry before here... or anywhere actually!

PLEASE MUMSNET, can this thread be removed? It serves no purpose, other than to offend a large group of MN users. and to rile another set. oh, not to forget, allow posters such as DOG to make THE MOST offensive posts I have ever seen on this website.

IvyKaty is exaggerating somewhat which rather weakens her arguments, and makes me assume that everything she says should be taken with a very hefty pinch of salt. Much of what she writes may indeed be true, but by gilding the lily it all becomes rather tainted.

I'm thinking of the 25% of earnings paid to the CSA being transformed into £10 per week, the 0-1 bedroomed house you'll get. These things may well be true in some cases, but I think IvyKaty might be better saying "What might happen is..." rather than "What will happen is..."

The £10 CSA thing is as true as the writing on this screen - don't ask me why, but I have had it said to me from the bods at the DSS that if my ex were to pay money, I would get £10 a week - regardless of what he paid over and above that.

0-1 bedrooms is unlikely, I must admit; would most likely be 2 bedrooms until the kids reached a certain age (and then possibly moved if something else was available)

Please don't assume that just because it sounds unrealistic (the CSA thing) that it isn't true - the DSS / Government rarely make such issues logical and practical!

The £10 thing is true. Income support is around £59 per week. If an absent parent were assessed by the CSA and ordered to pay for example £90 per week then the DSS would take that £90 and pay the claimaint £59+£10 extra. What they do with the other £21 I'm not sure.

If no maintenance is paid then the Income Support stays at £59 per week.

If you don't believe it then you don't know much about how the system works and if that's the case then you're not in it and thank your lucky stars that's the case.

inthegutter, are you being deliberately obtuse? You wouldn't get any of your rent paid if you were working, that's the point. If you were on income support, which you seem determined to paint as some desirable lifestyle option, the rest of your rent (assuming housing benefit coughs up a proportion) would have to come from your income support and tax credits.

But the fact remains - there are those that could work, if they wanted to, but don't.

Stepping back from it - surely this is a really complex argument that politicians, economists and sociologists have been puzzling over for decades? Basically some people need support and yet too much state support decreases incentive to work and creates a benefit trap as well as resentment (see OP), too little and we are back to Dickensian workhouses, vulnerable people suffering etc. Then the question of why some people choose not to work and claim benefits - are the schools failing them, are they discriminated against etc.

Sure wish I knew the right answer but its far too complicated for me!

Is it right and fair that your hard earned taxes are going to subsidise greedy corporations? You're paying for WTC which tops up obscenely low wages, you're paying for the hospital treatment needed when low-paid, overworked, esxhausted staff maim themselves on faulty equipment because the corporations don't want to cut into their profits by making sure the workplace is safe...

Just curious, at what point should a single mother be told to get a job. Or at least work part time?

The governant wants to eventually force mothers whose youngest child is seven years old into either work or training in 2012. The problem is that not all schools have wrap around care.

Do you think this is reasonable for families with no disablities? If not, at what age would you allow a single mum to stay at home on benefits? Is being a sahm of a school aged child a right or a privilge?

I'm concerned at the idea of forcing people (particularly parents) into getting jobs without any kind of corresponding pressure on employers to treat employees fairly ie a living wage, civil treatment, no unreasonable expectations of huge amounts of unpaid overtime at short notice etc - oh, and no cutting coners on health and safety to boost profits. A lot of those people who piss and moan about others being 'workshy' are missing the point: why should anyone take on a job that's not just exploitative but actually dangerous? Never mind the tendency of employers to either not take on people with children, or to sack them for taking too much time off when a child is sick or a childcare arrangement falls through - 'reliable' is often used as a euphemism for 'can be made to work indefinite unpaid overtime without complaining'.

RT - does the 2012 plan cover all parents whether single or married and on benefits or not?

I can't be arsed to read through 42 pages of posts. I expect people have posted lots of exceptions to the rule and so forth.

But generally, yes, I agree with the OP. DW and I work our arses off for very little disposable income. And some people take the piss. It's good that we live in a country with a benefits system as a safety net, but not when it's treated as some long-term source of income.

Well put UD.

is it possible to still post on this???

For MALO

Link from here

From October 2008

Lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 or over will no longer be entitled to income support solely on the grounds of being a lone parent. They will instead have to transfer to jobseeker?s allowance.

From October 2010

Lone parents with a youngest child aged 7 or over will no longer be entitled to income support solely on the grounds of being a lone parent. They will instead have to transfer to jobseeker?s allowance.

Is JSA more or less than IS?

JSA and IS are paid at the same rate

Single people:

Aged 16-17: £35.65

or in specific circumstances: £46.85

Aged 18-24: £46.85

Aged 25 or over: £59.15

So why are the Government changing things then? Is it to encourage single mums to go back to work and is JSA paid on a long-term basis?

That is per week obviously. Claiming JSA means you have to be actively seeking work.

As I said Jobseekers Allowance means you have to be actively seeking work and there are conditions attached to claiming. If these conditions are broken then your benefit can be stopped.

Claiming Income Support means there is no requirement to be available for work. Although lone parents are required to attend mandatory interviews at the Jobcentre every few months to discuss work and training options. No pressure to take up work but if interview is not attended then benefit can be stopped.

Test