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?

"so children of Lp's will not grow up to be tax payers then" - If the lone parents is working then yes the children are likely to go on to be tax payers. Studies do show that children who grow up on benefits mainly go on to claim themselves.

Any yes Lego, they do get lots of benefits. If you add up the housing benefit, free council tax, IS, CTC, CB, FSM, free prescriptions/dental, not paying for school trips - they can get all of this for years even if they have never worked and paid taxes. If you add it all up it comes to more than lots of people earn working 40 hour weeks, not to mention its all tax free.

Headless, exactly!

And imo, that would be fair enough as long as they make sure that you really can't find suitable work.

That's why I don't understand why everyone is freaking out quite so much.

People are freaking out because JSA is less than the benefit that LP are currently on and that HB is cut by 10% after 12 months on JSA.

no - JSA is exactly the same rate as IS.

But yes - after 12 months of struggling to find work to fit round school hours and childcare the haven't found something they'll have their HB cut by 10%

But if there aren't the jobs out there, how are you supposed to find them? That's just stupid. Given that we're predicted to lose thousands of jobs in both the public and private sectors, how on earth is everyone supposed to find a job? That's the bit that's stupid, regardless of whether you're a lone parent or a bright young thing with no responsibilities.

The cut is designed to motivate people, some are far to choosy with regards to jobs so facing a cut in their HB will be an incentive to take any job rather than hold out for their perfect position.

that's the PROBLEM though HappyMummyofOne - because of lack of a childcare for weekends and evenings (and often in general) LP's can't just take "any job"

NO-ONE can realistically take a job under 16hrs a week as it'll end them up horrendously worse off.

whatwouldmadonnado, great, you did what I am too tired to do-cut and paste.

so glad someone here has read it and got their facts straight! you too mamottat.

so, happymumofone, going on your theory that those who live on benefits produce offspring who do the same. do you think that is because of benefits themselves or a 'wider social problem'? How does that fit with working parents who produce offspring who may have to rely on benefits?

do you really think just cutting their means of support will do the trick then??

Happymumofone - Since when do lone parents not pay for school trips ??

I have never ever not paid the full amount for trips that my dc have gone on.

I've always paid for my DS's school trips as well, skipped meals myself to do it - but I've always paid.

I am worried about single parents who home educate their kids. What are they supposed to do?

Lego, in response to your question, they are hardly cutting their means of support, JSA is the same as IS but with stricter terms. As for why the cycle repeats in the next generation - I would imagine that the lack of work ethic, seeing that you can stay home and still have a house, food, presents etc without working for them shows children that they dont have to work to get money so why should they? I would imagine the social aspect plays a part too, children are heavily influenced by their peers.

As for school trips, lots of threads on here alone re not paying or asking for legistlation to back up why they dont have to pay.

Home ed is something I ruled out completely when the tories were looking to get in.

It would have been difficult anyway but they will make it damn near impossible...it just isn't an option for many LPs unless they have a very supportive family or ex partner etc. to bail them out.

Happymum, I have only ever seen threads from LP saying that they struggle to pay, not that they didn't pay them.

There have been threads about news stories where local councils have paid for trips for children on free school meals yes, but I don't recall any lone parents actually getting a say in that, and also seem to remeber that most lp's on here agreed that it wasn't a good idea as it singled children out too much.

HappyMum - you need to link to one of these threads or I will think you are talking out of your arse.

I have NEVER seen a thread on here asking about legislation to prove LP do NOT have to pay. I am a LP (I also work) but even if I did not I would find a way of paying. My friend who is also a LP (not working) also manages to find the money even though it's hard for her.

Our school is positively encouraging people eligible to claim free meals for their children, as the government wants to give more money to schools with a lot of eligible children.

I've heard that schools will pay for trips if children are on free school meals. Obviously this will include some children of LP but being a LP is not a reason that children will have their school trips paid for.

cuts to child tax credits, cuts to housing benefit and furher 10% rduction after a year = cutting means of support doesn't it? no, not all of it, but quite a chunk.

regarding the question i asked before, you have not answered it. why do youngsters of working parents rely on benefits? are you really saying that is because of their friends?

Most people are reliant on benefits to at least supplement their income lego because house prices rose at a much quicker rate than wages in the last 10-12 years.

Frrright - our schools also ask that anyone entitled to free school meals ticks the box - even if they're not actually going to claim them, as you're right it does mean extra funding for the school.

However, I've never heard of those on free school meals getting trips paid for

i have not heard of schools paying for children on FSM to have trips either. what i do know is that a lot of school trips are funded by the school for all children. for example, the school may only pass on the money charged for coaches [but not the £100 fee to the museum]. i also know that some schools will help if you cannot afford to pay-and in this instance parents may or may not be working. it is down to the head. most good schools will do what they can to support their pupils.

besides which, if schools did have a blanket policy of paying for those on FSM...so what! it shows the school cares about all their pupils education and that is what they are all about. it is not about 'affording education' is it, these are state schools.

This all sounds quite interesting thinking about it from a foreign (Swedish perspective). In Sweden mums are expected to go back to work after the first year of maternity leave and the vast majority do. Residential areas are deserted in daytime, apart from the pensioners. Single parents are no different from couples. But then:

there is ample provision of well run nurseries with highly trained staff and they are heavily subsidised so everyone can afford them

parents- and that includes fathers- have fairly generous rights of time off to mind sick children

nobody would imagine that an 11yo would need any kind of adult supervision in the daytime: Swedes simply wouldn't understand why they can't go to the beach with their friends or take themselves to sports activities or do the family cooking before mum gets home

So it's all a bit different.

I think the paying for trips for those on FSMs varys from school to school. I'm not against it and think it should be left to the headteacher to decide whether or not to do it. I don't see it as a equivalent of a "benefit" iyswim

byrel Thu 28-Oct-10 09:05:48
Most people are reliant on benefits to at least supplement their income lego

Forgive me for reading that as 'lego income'

I have had a lego requirement for some years now. I will admit to a portion of my benefit going on lego.