Lone parents expected to seek work when kids are 5?

[champagnesupernova]

Just catching up on yesterday's news and saw this and was surprised there wasn't anything about this on here already

What do you think?

Also are you saying it's fair to penalise everyone with small children just because some don't put much effort into their care?

That's silly.

"We are talking about Mums having to work part time while their children are at school. It's not like they are about to have their benefits cut all together if they don't! For most, they will recieve exactly the same amount of money, they will just have to show that they have tried to get school hours work in order to recieve it. If they can't, they can't. How can you possibly argue with that?"

Actually - if they fail to find this magical work within school hours within 12 months they'll have their housing benefit cut by 10%.

It makes no difference to them if they are at school anyway.

Also are you saying it's fair to penalise everyone with small children just because some don't put much effort into their care?

Err, no. That's not what I'm saying at all.

Curly I understand that. However when you have been dragged through the benefits system yourself, had to fill in ridiculous, unfillinable forms (literally) which require backup documents you are literally unable to obtain, every single week, and then some muppet works out what you are owed wrong ANYWAY, you will understand the fear that comes with this kind of lifestyle. most of us don't even understand what we're allowed or entitled to, can't make head or tail of the sums on the letters that come out, and somehow manage to break one or other unwritten rule during our time meaning we go without.

It isn't a system that is workable for many, many people - they either don't get the money they should or they give up before they're even half way to applying, because it's too bloody complicated.

I have a feeling this is what the government wants to happen though.

and why shouldn't we take it to the worst case scenario?

Even before these announcements I knew that DS1 will be a latch key kids at 11yr old, including during the school holidays. I HATE that idea. Recent cuts have confirmed this will definitely happen.

I know people (in RL) who lost their jobs in the last couple of years who were applying for jobs for all hours of the day and night and after sending off 100's of applications still took 6 months+ to find work. They weren't even restricted with their hours. They were willing to take any work, they just kept getting turned down.

Why should people be paid to look after their own children freight, its the responsibility of any parent. You are also responsible for providing for your children , if not totally through your own endeavours then through a contribution from your earnings and state support. The Government should not allow single parents to be on benefits sat at home in idleness whilst their children are at school.

curly - they're only at school 38 weeks of the year.......

No, being sat at home in idleness for - erm -5 or 6 hours a day is probably not great. It's hard though to actually put this into practise.

There are very few jobs that fit into those hours and putting a 5yo into wrap around childcare is not good either.

"sat in idleness"

wow - how's that for a dig at any SAHP whether a LP or not!!!

What is wrong with putting a child in wrap round care if you need to in order to earn the money to support the child instead of relying on the State.

Good point Mamo.

Popelle - as I said earlier, it's not good for the child.

I think, personally, that that ought to come first.

My children hate going to childcare, when I have been forced to use it their behavior deteriorates, they go into their shells and are visibly stressed out.
We've tried after school clubs, a extremely expensive nanny and nurseries they hated them all.
However It does strike me that it'll be the children that suffer in some cases, but for some children it could be the first time they see a smiling face after school giving them a nutritious snack and help with their homework.
My mum was a SAHM and used to forget to be home time for us, I remember being sat on the doorstep at 4pm having already walked home and having an accident because my mum wasn't home from town yet.
I'd have loved an after school club.

Have come to this thread late, so sorry if I'm repeating earlier posters.

I just don't get why someone who's child is at school wouldn't want to work, earn money etc. What sort of example is it to a child that if the mum sits at home for 6 or 7 hours a day when they could be working, but instead gets money from people who are dumb enough to earn their own money?

What am I missing here?

Is it also not good for children to see that their parents go out and work. This sets it out as the normality and what is expected of the children when they grow up. Add to this that the longer you are out of work then the harder you will find it to get back into work.

I'm not sure how DS2 and 3 would cope with being in wrap around care for too many days of the week, I've barely got them settled after a turbulent couple of years.

Certainly hope I don't get a job that involves putting them in for 5 days a week, as I have to think of DS1 who will be at home alone. I can't see how being home alone for every day is going to be good for him

"dd to this that the longer you are out of work then the harder you will find it to get back into work."

this also applies to those "idle" SAHM's who have working partners.

MaMoTTat it does apply to SAHM with working partners as well. The only difference is that these people are not solely dependent on the State, although I would look at reducing the amount of welfare given to them as well. Welfare should never allow people to stay out of work.
Career gaps are not good and are one of the reasons for the lack of women in senior positions in companys.

Theres a huge difference between paid childcare and a SAHM, the childcare provider will be qualified, will rarely use tv, will not be doing housework/shopping/chatting to friends/surfing the net etc.

People should not be paid to be a parent. Being a parent means being responsible, for care and financial provision.

I also dont get the hatred of childcare (possibly because it can no longer be used as a get out clause from working) as people are quite happy to leave their children at school and regulated childcare is just the same without the formal education.

The government are tackling all benefit claimants not just one group. Being a parent should never make a person immune to working and entitled to a life at home at tax payers expense.

"Welfare should never allow people to stay out of work"

What no-one??? Carers, those living with disabilities that prevent them from working - should they be denied a basic standard of living?

And the sad thing is that even if there were enough jobs for all the unemployed people to take - the vast majority of them will STILL be on benefits.

Mind you know what - 5yrs ago I thought like many on this thread, we'd survived on £15 a week to feed 4 of us for months, were about to lose our house, and on the verge of being declared bankrupt. We proudly didn't claim a single penny in benefits (apart from the CTC at a much lower rate than we would have entitled to - we just didn't bother telling them about our drop in earnings).

Oh we were so proud of ourselves that we managed to pull ourselves out of that hole and pretty much thought that everyone else should be able to as well..........

But then I ended up here with no other options.

Lets just say i rapidly changed my tune

I meant that it should never allow people who are fit to work to not work.

As a single parent of 2 young boys (4 and 2) I completely agree with this proposal.

I work 16 hours a week, spread over 3 days. My eldest does wraparound care, the youngest in nursery. Its enough to top up my income, until I can be full time when they are both older - which will be a lot easier to transition to having worked all this time.

I dont think there is anything wrong with working when the child is 5. Lone parents will get 70% of their child care still paid for, most part time salaries will mean they will still recieve some housing benefit and tax credits, yet be better off.

"The government are tackling all benefit claimants not just one group."

actually that's not strictly true - the spending review the other day quite clearly stated that the benefits cap they're introducing WON'T affect those that are getting WTC........ (for now I guess).

Mama, I can see your point, and understand that for some children, wraparound care would not be ideal. But what would you do if those same children were from a family where Dad goes out to work, gets subsidised childcare from his private employer, and you simply had to work to be able to pay your mortgage?

You say that your children simply wouldn't cope with being in childcare, what happens when they are at school? Or would you just not send them because they didn't like it?

If parents have a genuine, good reason for not working, then why shouldn't they have to prove that to the people that are enabling them to eat and have a roof over their heads?

How is the system supposed to deter people that are just bone idle?

Fright, I know what you mean about the forms being a nightmare to fill in, it's what's put me of claiming WTC so far. I think I'd be entitled though. But let's face it, people do manage. No child has starved in this country for a very long time just because their parents have problems filling in forms.

Those in a couple getting WTC have had the min hours upped from 16 to 24 so whilst the cap may not apply to them yet they were not immune. I suspect the WTC aspect will be looked at - 24 hours between a couple is nothing and should be upped considerably.