Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Lone parents expected to seek work when kids are 5?

382 replies

champagnesupernova · 26/10/2010 12:25

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?

OP posts:
curlymama · 27/10/2010 20:26

It's not oppressive to either!

It's not oppressive to have to provide for yourself and your offspring. It's about responsibility. A sahm who is being supported by her husband is not taking anything from the taxpayer. A sahm who is not being supported by her husband is taking something from the taxpayer. That's the only difference.

mamatomany · 27/10/2010 20:27

"A friend of mine is a SAHM with a very wealthy ex and she doesn't work. Her ex supports her. The law will not force her to work as she doesn;t rely on public money."

I have a friend with a wealthy ex who is self employed, he has bought her a £500k house, pays the school fees directly to the school and then gives her £5 a week maintenance for three children because he knows the state will pick up the rest of her expenses via tax credits.

Lots of loopholes need resolving and closing.

legostuckinmyhoover · 27/10/2010 20:29

so, a SAHM isn't using schools or hospitals then?

HappyMummyOfOne · 27/10/2010 20:29

I think the change should apply where there are two in a couple and only one works IF they claim benefits. I am sure it will be looked at at some point.

If one partner working means the whole household self supports then its up to them who works what as they are not a drain on the welfare system. Fine to be a SAHM if its at your own cost and not the states be it single or married.

Litchick · 27/10/2010 20:29

the issue is not about work or whether someone 'should' do it. Nor is it about the status of the person working or not.

It is about funding.

legostuckinmyhoover · 27/10/2010 20:30

'a drain' ?

PortoFangO · 27/10/2010 20:32

I love the Belgium system - school is open between 7.30 and 6pm - in fact 6.30 pm in some places - and free Kindergarten from 2.5 years old. And they cover the school holidays totally! They have the buildings, why cannot this be done in the UK?

dertitude · 27/10/2010 20:35

The big difference between hospitals and welfare is that the access to healthcare is universal whilst welfare is conditional (as it has to be).

legostuckinmyhoover · 27/10/2010 20:35

I have put on this link to Gingerbread as it outlines how this will work [or won't].

www.gingerbread.org.uk/news/81/Job-seeking-reforms-leave-single-parents-high-and-dry

hope it helps.

curlymama · 27/10/2010 20:36

Yes they are using schools, for the same children that will presumably grow up to pay tax. The same children whose Father pays tax.

Hospitals are for the benefit of everyone, and presumably the sahm has paid tax before she had children, and will again at some point when her children are older.

For parents to have one stay at home and be completely supported, they probably earn quite alot and will be paying a higher rate of income tax anyway. And council tax still applies even to supported sahms. It's not like they contribute nothing at all, unlike sahm's on lots of benefits.

legostuckinmyhoover · 27/10/2010 20:40

so children of Lp's will not grow up to be tax payers then?

legostuckinmyhoover · 27/10/2010 20:40

has the LP presumably not paid tax before she had children then?

legostuckinmyhoover · 27/10/2010 20:42

lots of benefits? Hmm

MaMoTTaT · 27/10/2010 20:42

most LP's won't be contributing anything - other than the actual "work" they do - most will still be taking substantially more from the state than they contribute.

I don't think most people's issue is with LP's having to seek work, but the age of their youngest child when it happens, and the additional factor of 12 months on JSA means a 10% cut in your housing benefit

MaMoTTaT · 27/10/2010 20:43

lego - I presume she's talking about housing benefit when the DH earns a low wage, WTC, CTC and Child benefit.......

legostuckinmyhoover · 27/10/2010 20:43

Lp's also pay council tax by the way. And many LP's childrens fathers pay council tax.

huddspur · 27/10/2010 20:43

For me its simple if you recieve non-universal benefits then you should be expected to look for work once your children are of school age. Whether you are a LP or a SAHM with a H. If their H earns so much that you do require any form of welfare then they can do what they like.

MaMoTTaT · 27/10/2010 20:45

what do you mean by "non universal" benefits??

Litchick · 27/10/2010 20:45

paying tax is not like an insurance policy that you can cash in. Otherwise lead me to the hole in the wall.

The welfare state is there to scoop people up who most need it regardless of whether they have ever paid tax or ever can. It is not quid pro quo.

The question is whether the state is right to consider it reasonable for a single parent to seek work once her children are in school. Most say yes.

legostuckinmyhoover · 27/10/2010 20:46

Also, figures actually also show that in comparison to SAHM's when their children are older, more LP's work than those supported by their hubbies.

So who did you say was/was not 'contributing'?

huddspur · 27/10/2010 20:47

A non universal is a benefit that not everyone recieves. CB at the moment is a non universal benefit although it is going to be scrapped for higher rate tax payers.

WhatWouldMadonnaDo · 27/10/2010 20:47

From the link that legostuck posted;

"During term times, parents of under 13 year olds are able to restrict the hours they are available for work to their child?s usual school hours, but this concession does not apply during the school holidays"

So what is magically happening to these children in the school holidays?

I totally and fully support the movement in principle, but the government have not done anywhere near enough to ensure that it is actually feasible.

The jobs often don't exist.
The childcare often doesn't exist or has long waiting lists.
They have just cut WTC by 10% making it more difficult to afford childcare.

Some massive changes need to be made to ensure that it is easier for women in general to go back to work, not just lone parents that are otherwise dependent on the state.

As far as the 12mth/10% LHA drop is concerned... if a LP has satisfied the criteria of looking for work how is this even remotely fair?

HeadlessLadyBiscuit · 27/10/2010 20:47

Can anyone explain to me how it is possible for feckless absent fathers to go in and sign on for JSA every two weeks with no hassle (which has been said by a couple of people on here) and not for them to do the same? If it's really easy just to do that and not find a job, then that's fine isn't it? You go in every couple of weeks and sign and bit of paper saying you couldn't find work that fits with school hours.

Sorted :)

curlymama · 27/10/2010 20:48

Presumably lego, but that's really not the point. The point is that the government wants to encourage people that are on benefits and fit to work, stop relying on state help.

What is so wrong about that?

They don't need to encourage the sahm that is being supported, because someone else is supporting them. Someone that probably expects their dinners cooked and their shirts ironed.

Why should people that are able to work rely on the state 100% when they don't need to?

huddspur · 27/10/2010 20:48

Sorry Child benefit is a universal benefit at the moment but is going to be scrapped