Re- Benefits..please read..!!

[bichonbuzz]

Have just watched Benefits Busters prog where women on benefits are supported to try to return to work.One of the women gets £240 pw- has 4 chldren - which coincidentally is my wage - and she stated that she wanted to return to work but felt that benefits are too high and actually discorage some people to work.She was offered a job during her course but calculated that to take this job it would mean that she would be £50 pw WORSE OFF- i just feel that the gov should have let her work and contribute something for the benefits she would continue to get - it would be a win win situation as she felt it wd help her self esteem to work (appriciate some people could nt do this due to circumstances )- She seemed upset and motivated to work and it would have been one less person on benefits - AIBU to wish that she could have been supported to do this whilst keeping her benefits ....

i am better off working, as ineligible for housing bens (mortgage holder) and married..problem is the benefit system is a set of systems that weren't designed to work together - it isn't a hold-all system designed to ensure everyone has enough to live off, it just contains various initiaives to help various groups of people and there are some who fall through the cracks.

I doubt the value in getting single mums back to work when 1) the work available rarely pays better than the childminders costs 2) there is a value in looking after your own children.

There are people on benefts who deserve them a whole bunch less than single mums, but somehow that is always the targeted group.

The people who were single teenage mums on benefit when i left school will now most likely be at work and paying taxes to fund my WTC, after all.

Totally agree oneopinionated, that the welfare system is too fragmented which leads to inefficiency.

The issue about single mums, I believe, is not about people wanting to slag off single mums, but rather that people get angry with the assumption that a single mum means father not contributing financially.

The vast majority of single mums are not actually bereaved - the father hasn't died - they've split up, and there seems to be the assumption that this means the state picks up the tab instead of the two parents continuing to have joint responsibility.

Parents who remain together often cannot afford to have one parent at home - they have to both work and fork out for childcare, sometimes helped by credits and top ups if their wages are low. The fact that two parents decide they don't want to be together, doesn't mean they are divorcing their children does it? It shouldn't be as it easy as it is to walk away from that responsibility.

Yes ExP you're right the yhousing is already a massive issue, but it would only get worse which would mean increased competition, higher supplements for ythose who do manage to find a landlord,more people in terrible housing unable to find an alternative dwelling...... bloody nightmare.

I agree about second homes; I think that they should be taxed to the hilt- so those who do have them are at elast forced to give something back into the community. I know people say 'but we worked ahrd...' well people work hard in all sorts of jobs, cleaners / nurses / childcare- and still struggle to find a single first home they can cover the costs of. It's not dismissing the hard work, just making sure everyone has the basics before seconds are given out.

And absolutely pursue the men who will not pay, with an iron rod. Those who are not supporting other children should definitely beforced into work if they will not take a parenting role of any note. It does need to be recognised that cash is not the be all and eend all- I know well of single mums who value their XP's contribution towards childcare far more and that does need to be taken into acocunt, but for most they seem to get off scot free. Which is doubly awful as whilst its not a trendy view ion here, at least a SAHM supported by benefits is* doing something of value, raising children, whilst a lazy contribute nothing XP is a drain and no more.

*The note there is that there seem to be a few famillies I have encountered on here where the second wife / children are suffering at the hands of the CRB. I know men make decisions / don't have a second family if you cant afford your first etc etc etc- but ultimately a poor child is a poor child regardless of what stage in a fathers life they appeared at.

It's just me then that thinks the press (even the local press, not just the DM) demonises single mothers and totally forgets about the fathers of those children?

though i suspect many men don't pay maintenance because it is hard to afford (if i split with DH he wouldn't be able to pay anything however much he wanted to)

Second homes....well i think that is over egged to a great extent. a second home that provides affordable rental accomodation to someone who wouldn't get a mortgage - what's wrong with that? or the 'second home' that provides holiday accomodation on a weekly basis - bringing tourist income into an area - what's wrong with that? Second homes that just lie empty outside the owners holiday times are few and far between - and are taxed by CT, CGT and both IT and IHT where applicable. I do believe that more housing should be built, and wrote about this here

I certainly believe the current planning system favours wealthy landowners interests over the interests of people who just want a place to live.

Perhaps the empty ones are few and far between, but how much on an impact depends where you live- after all I am from Somerset so a few areas hae been badly hit by this.

It always seems to bre just those areas that people are generally low paid in as well, the exact same palces that have massive rural poverty. So it's compounded by so many factors.

Schools and post offices closing is one of the impacts, I used to live in devon and I can see alot of empty homes when I go to my dads, my step mum says they are empty most of the year. They have a second home they rent out so are not against second homes to rent out as a holiday home or to let to people who need a home. neither am I. But not in a rural village where that comunity needs residence not holiday makers

if everything around you is closing, there are less and less jobs. (important for young people) if you can't get a job you can't learn to drive, so you can't get a job out of the area, the buses are crap so forget that. Which leaves benifits and living at mum and dads, these kids are looking for work so before anyone misunderstands I feel for them. They are not the can't be botherds or I'm to good for minimum wage types. (I don't even get minimum wage after business expensis but I love my job)

rural poverty - well, most jobs in rural/remote areas are in tourism/ retail/ healthcare and agriculture, heavily affected by seasonal changes and low paid for most people (apart from the healthcare. Granny farming is a round-year occupation.)

it isn't just in these areas that house prices have rocketed. Though it is in these picturesque areas where planning is most restricted, and it is nigh-on impossible to build new housing.

nb: as people live fewer people to one house, more houses need to built to maintain the same population. see this article

'though i suspect many men don't pay maintenance because it is hard to afford (if i split with DH he wouldn't be able to pay anything however much he wanted to)'

therein lies the problem, oneopinionated.

Of course it's hard to afford it. If you have set up home with someone, taken out a tenancy or mortgage on the basis of two adults earning, and the economies of two adults living under one roof, then of course it's going to cost more if you subsequently decide to split and run two households. If DH and I were to split, the consequence would be that both of us would have to drop our standard of living - no way could one of us afford to remain in our current house, or have the disposable income we have now. But it would hardly be reasonable to expect to would it? We rent our house on the basis of two incomes. If that changes, then we'd have to cut our cloth accordingly. What seems highly unreasonable to me is if we did expect to carry on exactly as we are now, and expect other tax payers to foot the bill. We took on the responsbility of setting up home together and having kids. Hardly fair to offload that a few years down the line.

But back to the claiming side of things, it really is like peachy said yesterday, its alot to do with a long life with having nothing expected of you, growing up in house where the only asperation is to win the lotto, going to school and teachers expecting nothing from you either (doesn't happen as much now). Why would people like that think they would be any good at anything. My parents always worked and I always had to aswell, we had shops and I was stacking shelves and serving people at 9 years old. I had a mini baby sitting business at 13. When I told my mum I wanted to get a degree and be a teacher I was laughed at and told I shouldn't set my sights to high. (It was 4 teachers that gave me the idea) I wanted to teach childcare lol. So I guess my point is that even working housholds can put a downer on asperations which in turn means you still end up claiming even though you work all the hours you can (like me, I still get the 30hr elament and some CTC and CB which with 3 kids I wouldn't be stupid enough to turn down)

shaninemb - residents don't spend as much as holiday makers. think: how many times do you go out for food on holiday? at home?

also: the area i live in has also depopulated. no-one owns second homes here (not very picturespue) - but definitely fewer people living to each house. the three smallest post offices have also closed, as well as many of the smaller shops. This is probably because 1) they were badly run (closed at unexpected times etc) 2) they are more expensive/less convenient than Tescos/Asda/sainsburys.

where DH lived in Cornwall, his childhood home is lived in by two old people, his mum lives alone in a house previously occupied by a family of three - IYSWIM you don't need empty houses to make for a much lower population.

I guess people head for the jobs then ( the city, where it is over populated. I can drive so maybe we will move, rural comunities are changing from comunities to holiday destinations. It's probably not as wonderful as I imagine, but its not as though people are to close with their neighbours anymore so a variaty of people staying in the city would make things more interesting (for me anyway lol)

I live next door to 2 elderly brothers, their coucil house is so much bigger than mine, they have lived their forever (really). I am crammed into my house (am glad to have it) and feel a bit miffed sometimes that they have a room each down stairs, a bedroom each and a "junkroom" (I wish I had one of those).
Mind you I think my house feel smaller because I childmind, not just the extra children but the extra toys and masses of paper work too. That home could go to a family that needs it... me and another family can have my house.

Here's a radical suggestion for helping those people who want to work but can't afford to: RAISE the minimum wage to a LIVING wage and stop zero-hours contracts for all jobs paid below a certain level. Why does no one ever have a pop at the CEOs of all these contract unskilled-work companies who literally make their money by ripping off and exploiting their staff?

sgb - whilst I agree with that in principal, for a lot of SME's it's not pratical and they would n't be able to afford enough staff on higher wages - unless of course the government stepped in and helped out more - perhaps with tax reliefs in some way?

Frankly, if a company can only survive by underpaying all staff and compromising on their legal rights then it deserves to be forced out of business. Better-run companies will then take up the slack.

I think tax credits should be there to make sure your better off working. I really think free childcare would solve a lot of problems

Shanie where do you think those people would go, though?

My aprents have a council house which is the one we were raised in. They would happily accept soemthing suitable- bugalow etc- elsewhere but if they accept a different home iw will be in the middle of nowhere (or as the HA like to callit 'a brand new exciting development' ), miles from anywhere and they don't drive, both have mobility issues (though do not claim DLA becuase they don't think they should. dad has no feeling below the knee in one leg due to a botched op, Mum's pelvis clicks sometimes and leaves her unable towalk (can cycle) for months).

I know Shanie is new to this so won't know but the reason they are in council accom is that their pensions collapsed, they ahd planned to buy the bugalow from one lump sum, and live off the other payment.

Absolutely there needs to be a provision for people to move on (but it hs to be in the contract from the start, not evicyting people after 50 years when they have spent half their life savings on the house as my aprents have done- you need to know where you are) but it hs to be suitable accom; moving people out of their communities to areas where they will know nobody, be unable to access shops or family (Mum cares for Grandad, if she can't get a bus then he is stuffed).

We could beneift massively from a council / HA home, we're cramped and the three younger ones are together (PAed has banned ds1 from sharing, sensibly) but not at the cost of someone as vulnerable as us. The building programmes shuld be addressing different nees, but all they do is build exactly the same 2 beds which leaves nobody any room for manoevre

Agree with you peachy. No one has mentioned the pensions issue yet, which is affecting pensioners now and will be an even bigger problem for many future pensioners.

What makes me angry is that so many people have been the victims of mis-selling: work hard, pay into a pension scheme and you'll be comfortable in your retirement. Then the goal posts are moved. That's what's so unreasonable - changing the rules as you go along.

A more imaginative approach to building is needed - you're right, it's all two bed boxes, one size fits all, when clearly there are different needs. In principle it is right that there should be flexibility, eg elderly couple being moved to a smaller bungalow, young family moving up to a bigger house - our needs change at various stages in life, and there is nothing wrong with change per se, but it needs to be agreed from the ouset, and there should be the means for an elderly couple to remain in their locality, particularly if there are mobility issues. I am not averse to younger generations moving around, because there's a need to be where the work is, but a retired couple don't have that need - what's important to them is being part of the community they know.

I agree with SolidGold about wages.

As a self employed single mother I appriciate that the tax credit system allows me to work for a low profit while I establish a business and build up experience/reputation etc.

But in principle I think that if you are working you should be working for a wage that can support you and your dependents without the government using tax money to top up the wages that profit making businesses pay you. Because the money they aren't paying you is only going into their pockets.

I think that the tax credit system should be changed to apply to businesses and not employees. Everyone employee should have a decent wage - but if you are self employed or run a business employing others then you should be able to apply for employee tax credit when you first start up in business (for all businesses for maybe 3 years or so, or until you make a certain amount of profit the way student loans kick in after a certain amount?) and be considered on individual claim if you run into financial difficulty for another time limited period. I object to tax payers money being used to top up wages for people employed by huge companies like McDonalds, Tesco's etc as a long term solution to low pay while they make a fortune for the people higher up in the chains.

I think the benefits argument is a clever way to divide opinion. People, particuarly people with dependents, should not be struggling to survive on their income regardless of whether they are a couple or single, working or claiming some kind of state assistance. Splitting groups into the deserving and undeserving allows the powers that be to get away with making ridiculous decisions that do more harm than good.

I don't think anyone should be kicked out of homes weather they work for them or not. My dad and step mum live in quite a big house, he has worked hard since leaving school and deserves it. I wouldn't want the naighbours kicked out either, they are the only people I talk to on this street I would be really upset if anything happened to them I've known them for 10 years. Some times I just dream that they want to swap houses lol. They need to build more houses as well as the ridiculous amount of flats they have built and definatly more social housing.
Minimum wage should also be increased to bring it inline with the cost of a morgage in a respectable (make that any) area. I'm sure you will have heard of moss side, well I live about ten mins from there and house are selling for 150,000 for a 3 bed semi. It would have been 30,000 ten years ago. Food has gone up, Gas and Electric is outrageous. All of these things make it near impossible to get a mortgage unless you want to live in an empty shell and live on beens on toast.
I don't think you should have to claim for help, GP's should refer you, that might take away the claiming stigma if its 'prescribed'