Single parenet benefits proposed to end when youngest child is 11 rahter than 16

[uwila]

Oh this will be popular round here.

here

NDp, if your going to put words into quotes and imply that I said them, please use the words I actualy did type.

i'll tell you what fecks me off

wftc

basically the taxpayer is subsidising poor wages

i dunno what the solution is, probably raise the minimum wage

(I don't mean that people shouldn't get it, i mean there shouldn't be a widespread need for it.

I am a fulltime WOHM and a single parent. I can't be arsed to read the damn article because it's probably a load of wank anyway. I think it's a shame that so many people do see benefits as a 'lifestyle' choice and I think that attitude causes a lot of problems. The government making it difficult for parents to get into the workplace will not help.

and with that (probably unconstructive) remark I will parp myself and leave.

I completely agree with efforts to retrain people so they can get to work. I also agree that the cost of childcare in this country is ludicrous. As is the cost of housing. We should have an economy where these things are obtainable for the vast majority. But they aren't and this should certainly be dealt with.

I would be happier with government paying childcare costs so that these perents can go to work rather than paying them to stqy home. That is a vicious cirle which is serving no one. What is it teaching those kids? Not to work. Not to try. Why should you when someone else when give you a place to live? GRanted it's not luxurious, but it's a roof nonetheless.

Agree filly.

And with custy. Incapacity needs overhauling.

I get DLA for my dd - couldn't get it when she was younger and much sicker. Go figure.....

i think having a parent at home can so a very positive thing and I object to the idea that those of us who are staying at home are teaching them " Not to work. Not to try."

Maybe they are teaching them that there is more to life than work, that family life is important also, I dunno.

No, we don't need both parents working ar all costs.

if people chose to live slightly below the poverty line so as to be there to collect their kids from school, good luck to them.

Agree though re training/childcare for those stuck in it not making a positive choice.

I think also raising the threshhold at which you're required to pay tax would help, too, Fillyj.

Right now, it's only at about £5,000.

Needs to be about £10k-£12K.

Sorry, Filly, I didn't mean it like that. I meant that if children grow up watching a parent not work because the state will pay the bills, then when they are say 18, they may think hmmmm why should I work. The state should just take care of me. That doesn't mean people who stay home have nothing to do. I certainly never called them lazy (as NDP so wrongly accused me of).

Agree with you there expat. It is also time the government acknowledge the real cost of childcare, which is some £2000 per month if you work full time and have 2 - 3 children.

But, I still think it is wrong to pay people to stay home, and then wonder why no one is going back to work. Ummmm.... because you are paying them not to.

yes agree totally expat

and tax people earning over above, oh i dunno, £80 k? to the absolute fecking hilt. cos no one needs that much, i'm sorry, unless you have 32 kids.

actually thinking on it am in favour of universal benefits and universal graduated taxation with a highish initaial tax threshold

these schemes are all sooo expensive to administer . this is why cb has never become means tested-it would cost more than it would save

Oh FGS Uwila give it a rest. If you want to work full-time, go ahead, just please stop implying that anyone who doesn't is wrong headed and/ or a skiver.

More single mothers would work if there was more part-time work, better quality, more affordable child-care, and if children never got ill or had summer holidays.

Many mothers want to work part time when their children are still largely dependent on them. Many employers still refuse to countenance part time work and the government does nothing to encourage employers (via the tax and NI system) to find offering proper work-life balance a more profitable arrangement than insisting everyone spends every waking hour in the office.

Sorry cross posted

Very true, Caligula.

It's a societal issue on the whole.

Where children aren't valued in a capitalist society unless they're producing wealth. In fact, nothing that's not producing wealth is valued.

Socialist states such as Sweden, however, have a different perspective on things.

It's just a case of the government going once again for the solution which is ideal in theory, without looking into any of the deeper issues involved.
I am at the system which makes it difficult for parents to work flexibly and without huge financial penalty, then penalises them when the benefits system is the only option for they have.

Having said that, if a child does not require special care (i.e can go to an after school club or childminder, or go home alone) after the age of 11, I can't think of any real reason for the parent not to work.

i thnk if they reduced childcare costs or allowed for the summer hols in the work place - i work on a night at the moment but even when dd starts school will have no cover for the hols - i think it's hard and i respect people who want to look after their own kids it's only when the are at an age where you don't need childcare that things get kinda grey about who should and shouldnn;t be working

i think people can be quite rude, when i stopped working (had about a year off) i had lots of comments of people mainly people dh works witha bout benefits etc and my friends dh would ask when i was going to get a job , but at the end of the day i wasn't claiming any benefits or even entitled to and wftc and it reaslly pissed me off that they were being like that with me

ok fair enough uwilia

but

why do you think that?

I totally agree that kids who grow up in a non-working culture often do think that but it is no much more complex than then not working cos their mums got CB for 7 extra years

you have

-usually, a paucity of local jobs and those there are, are shite and dead end
-not much, and often poor quaity, local childcare
-for whatever reason, poor exam results
-high rates of unemployment among fathers

I do think though that if you want to improve the lot of a family, educate and support the women.

Caligula, we are talking about people whose children are teenagers and not people who want to stay home with their toddlers.

And I never said anything about full time.

aaaargh

so much more complex, not no much

Actually - hadn't thought about school holidays and sickness. Can you tell mine aren't at school yet!

Oh and of course we all know teenagers don't need looking after. You don't need to be on the case re homework, hygiene, bullying, drugs, sex, truancy, shoplifting, drinking, smoking, developing values.

You can just go to work full time and have your head full of the stresses and challenges of your job. You don't need to have any energy or time left over for your kids. And god forbid that you might want some time to think about your own sex life, or leisure. Anyway, you can fit all that in at the weekends.

Good for those of you who have the energy to do that. But personally, I don't have the energy to manage my children and do a full time job now, when my kids are quite small (7 and almost 5) and the challenges of parenting are quite small. I'm expecting the challenges of parenting teenagers to be much harder and I'll be older and have even less energy. And yet paradoxically that's when everyone tells me I'll be able to work full time again.

Uwila I focus on full time because that's all that's on offer for most of us. I'm lucky - I work from home part time, in a job way below my skills level. But I know that that's not an option for most lone parents.

Oh and there's no bitter icon, but FFS I live in a country where I have to be grateful that I'm allowed to work in a job below my skills level, because it enables me to function as a mother as well as a worker.

And then everyone wonders why so many lone parents don't work in the cash economy.

Leisure Caligula? What is that? Oh yes I remember... but that was before I had kids. I am just looking forward to when my kids go to free school so I can reduce my childcare costs and can work a bit less so I can maybe have some free time again.

Now, I do manage mumsnet meet-ups but that's about it.

So, sorry, not a lot of sypathy from me on a right to leisure time.

Will the government be making provision for childcare for children with SN? Atm they can't even seem to make adequate provision for children with SN while they're in school, never mind after school.

An 11 or 12yr-old who needs 1:1 care during school hours isn't suddenly going to be able to cope without help in an after-school club. And if your child happens to need help with medical equipment then there's even less specialist help out there.

But never mind, eh?

caligula I agree with a lot of what you say but although looking after teenagers is challenging is it not physically exhausting in the same way as looking after babies/toddlers. I think there would be time for working in there. But I would say that having worked part time (3 full days) since mine were babies.

I do get asked quite often though whether I intend to go full time once my youngest is in school, but the answer to that is a firm no. I am considering changing my hours at that point so I am around more after school to help with the homework/playdates/after school activities. And it would have the added benefit of slightly reduced childcare costs, although that would be somewhat offset by additional commuting costs.