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?

Its set to go down to age 5 as per the new budget - the cut to age 7 was done by labour but the Tories are planning to change it to age 5 to tie in with starting school.

It can only be a good thing, people should work to support the children they choose to have whether male or female. Yes the NRP should pay maintainance but the PWC should also financially support the child by working too. It will hopefully stop the benefit cycle repeating over generations which benefits the child and country.

Being a SAHM is a luxury lifestyle choice, fine if you can afford it yourself but not something that tax payers should support. Why should some mums work and pay tax to allow others to stay home all day?

Yes working and juggling children can be hard at times but that parts of being a parent.

I'm sure plenty will get round it by having another child despite claiming to be single.

can we get away from this idea that they'll no longer be relying on the state when they go back to work?

Yes - they'll be paying some NI and Tax, but for most of them theyre still going to be relying just as heavily on the state , and those of you who are bemoaning that your taxes are paying for them to stay at home.

All they're going to do (unless they're very lucky with their job hunting) is switching the type of benefits they claim.

And in fact the higher tax payers money will then be paying for someone else to look after their child instead of them staying at home to look after their child(ren)

oh and another myth - that being a SAHM is a "luxury" lifestyle.

How many times have I seen threads on here from SAHM's who CAN'T AFFORD to go out to work. It's not a luxury for them, it's enforced as their wages won't cover the childcare, and their partners wages don't have enough lee-way to help with the childcare and continue to pay the bills

For lots of people, staying at home with the children is a luxury though. Some families can't afford not to have two people working!

The government is talking about Mums finding suitable work! That would mean it has to be during school hours for some people.

I understand that for Mums that work during school hours for a low wage are still going to get support from the state, but even if they are not financially better of at all, working still has benefits. Hopefully the next generation would see that working is something that has to be done, regardless of having children or not. It would become easier to get back into work when the children are grown up. It would stop this attitude of entitlement that people have, especially when they have children.

If the government has to pay people to look after the children sometimes, atleast it's paying someone to do work rather than stay at home!

"Hopefully the next generation would see that working is something that has to be done, regardless of having children or not". I can't believe that Labour's legacy has left us with having to even say this! People need to learn to live within their means, with ZERO handouts.

Couldn't agree more Hammy!

"People need to learn to live within their means, with ZERO handouts."

so you think that once they start working they shouldn't get their housing benefit, their child tax credit, childbenefit or get the additional working tax credits, or the child care element of CTC?

' but even if they are not financially better of at all, working still has benefits. Hopefully the next generation would see that working is something that has to be done, regardless of having children or not'

Oh yes and that worked so, so well on those of us who grew up in a single parent family in the Thatcher years...what are we all doing now?

I think those kids witnessed first hand how spectacularly crap it was to be a latchkey child with no money and no support, they witnessed their mothers crying and going without supper, and probably think the state supporting single mothers is a fucking BRILLIANT idea...

"I'm sure plenty will get round it by having another child despite claiming to be single"

Aren't you a charmer?

TheDeadlyLampshade Wed 27-Oct-10 10:07:27
'why dont they prioritse 'back to work'?
Child free men and women
Absent fathers (its not like they have any childcare duties and many arent paying for their kids)
One parent froma non-working couple
Then single parents'

I can't quite see what would be wrong with this approach.

However it's far easier to target the weakest in society and that's what usually happens.

but WhatWouldMadonnaDo - of course it's true - I'll have an immaculate conception and have another child

The Government should be targetting everyone who is on benefits to get back into work and I don't see what is wrong with this.

but there's lots of 2 parent households where no-one is working. Target them first.
And where are all these jobs?

Everyone should be targetted and got back into work. Single parents shouldn't be immune from this, being a single parent isn't an excuse to be on benefits.

It's hardly a luxury caring for young children all day. Why does it suddenly become a 'job' if it is someone else's kid you are looking after? Like someone pointed out, even if the lone parent returns to work, often benefits will be more than before because of childcare etc. I am a SAHM and think lone parents should be able to aswell until they are ready to work outside the home. I don't think i would feel different if I worked and left my kids in childcare, I did with DD1.

I also don't believe they will be able to decline jobs that are not in school hours. In the US lone parents often have to work long days and commute miles. i would worry about that sort of thing happening here.

'TheDeadlyLampshade Wed 27-Oct-10 10:07:27
'why dont they prioritse 'back to work'?
Child free men and women
Absent fathers (its not like they have any childcare duties and many arent paying for their kids)
One parent froma non-working couple
Then single parents'

This is an excellent post but as someone else said, they go after the most vunerable first.

Agreed reratio. Everyone, including single parents, on benefits should be targeted.

''I think those kids witnessed first hand how spectacularly crap it was to be a latchkey child with no money and no support, they witnessed their mothers crying and going without supper, and probably think the state supporting single mothers is a fucking BRILLIANT idea...''

FFS! 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?

Thanks for a really kind post, Jellybeans.

'It's hardly a luxury caring for young children all day. Why does it suddenly become a 'job' if it is someone else's kid you are looking after?'

Exactly - there's something wrong when you can get paid for looking after another person's child and yet the parent doing the same job is not recognised as 'working'.

They're not thinking long term. It's been shown that being at home with a parent (ie someone who loves you and knows you really well, has a massive investment in your wellbeing etc) is far better emotionally and psychologically for children than being under the care of someone who is not their parent/primary attachment figure.

It's worse for children, bloody hard to organise for the single parent (or married parent, even, who has to go out and work) so the only benefit is that it looks better on the jobless figures.

What about our kids? What about their wellbeing?

I think the Governemtn is right here. Jellybeans looking after other peoples children is a job because other people are paying you to do it.

Curlymama, I fear you are being a little naive about the reality of this measure. It's not going to be as straightforward as you make it sound.

i think that's clear Popelle, so why in that case should their own parent not be paid to do it?

Mingg - you mean non working single parents?

As they're still going to be "on benefits" when they're working unless they're very lucky.

It becomes a job to look after someone else's children because you have to get actuall qualifications to do it. You have to understand the EYFS, Every Child Matters and a whole host of other stuff, including first aid. You are required to educate the children, you can't just sit them in fromt of the telly. I'm not saying that that's what everyone does, but as a parent you are free to do that if you want to, as a childcare provider, you are not.

It still isn't better for the children though curly.

xposts.

Maybe frightattendant, but I feel like the majority of single parents are looking at the new policies an taking it to the most extreme worst case scenario.