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

[uwila]

Oh this will be popular round here.

here

Well, London prices are a reality for many of us.

O.K. Can we work out what to do about the NHS now, please?

Yes, I'd heard about that. Do you know anything about it? Does it work?

Because it costs a fortune and provides a mediocre service to the masses (a good service in emergency - but mediocre if it isn't an emergency).

I think people are fed up with the escalating costs and not seeing and value added in return.

I wouldn't mind paying to go to the GP, if they were a tad more service oriented. Like provided appointments when I can reasonably be expected to show up for them. And if I could ring up and say, can I have an apointment the week after next, preferably on WEdnesday? But, I can't. I have to ring up at 8:30 and pretend it's life or death if I want an appointment.

Oh, and if when I call for an appointment to see the GP, they wouldn't try and fob me off to the nurse? Did I say nurse? No, okay then let's try GP again.

Incidentally, I very much like my GP, it's just the system that puts more effort into complying with beaurocracy than it does treating patients that irritates me.

I agree. It would be a difficult one for a politician to 'sell', though, wouldn't it?

(I think about this every time I go to my local GPs and see the monthly figure for how many people haven't bothered to cancel their appointment. Maybe having it 'free at the point of delivery' makes for a certain complacency).

A lot of people don't get chiodcare vouchers. I never have. I have got child benefit and over the last 22 years sometimes it's been very useful but it's the only thing I get. When I was a child taxpayers got child tax allowances to set against income, per child and unlimited setting of mortgage interest and pension contributions against income however high the income and people's whose other half didn't work got their person's allowance too in effect. In France I think directing those advantages to those in work helps to encourage people to have more children (which they want) and it encourages the "right" people to have the babies - the middle class, not the underclass so arguably is directing benefit where it best serves the country.

If we imposed workfare with free nursery places for those on benefits they might appreciate the money more. It has worked quite well in some US states.

Yes and it has had some atrocious outcomes for the children of the mothers who have been forced to do workfare.

Where does the interest of the child come in with the workfare argument?

It just puts them in the same position as most mothers who are married (who in the uK have to work). If we think it's fine for women of under 5s to work then why not fine for those on benefits to work?

Why do they constantly pick on the single-parents when there are so many couples living on benefits, neither of them inclined to work and neither of them really looking after the children? In this one street there are 7 families, both parents stay at home, in fact it takes them all their effort to get their kids to school every morning. I would like to see the government tackle them and people without children who have never worked before hounding after the single mums and dads again.

So yesterday it was reported it costs more for child care than to send your child to Eton. Next day they decide that families with only one parent supporting the family emotionally are the ones to be picked on.

And did I hear right that at 16 some parents then transfer to incapacity benefit? Why?

Having said that though, if I was a single mum I would feel the need to work rather than rely on the ex or benefits for money. For my own sake though, for my own self-esteem and to show my dts that you have to work for a living rather than expect handouts. When I was growing up one of our neighbours was a lone parent who worked and I looked up to her, she was very glamourous!

Hang on, the 'right' people? I didn't know that there should be a process of class selection when it comes to procreation.

Hmm I guess we all have difficult decisions. If it wasn't for my family and my desire to be part time I would have kicked this job with no or below inflation pay rises for the last 5 years (funny that, how old is DS?) into touch a long time back. I think that a lot of things that would benefit single mothers such as flexible working, affordable/quality childcare would also (maybe less so) benefit lots of families with both parents in paid work.

evening everyone- i have just spent the last hour (ish) reading the whole of this thread and would like to blow a big fat f**ing raspberry to those people who think that single parents are the dregs of the dregs of society - not all single parents 'choose' to have children alone and live on benefits - come back and post when you have experienced single parenthood and can empathise and not criticise - also say to your high and mighty selves 'there but for the grace of god'

and to all those ladies who have put forward such articulate discussion points as to why the proposals are pants - i salute you , and should we now get back in line and await our handouts before they are taken away?

isol, it's well documented. We don't want more poor babies of families who have never worked in generations and have an IQ of 80 and a host of problems. We want lots of hard working clever middle class babies like those many mumnetters produce. We want teachers and nurses and women city professionals to have large families (given the problem over low birth rate) rather than the family of 5 being 5 who will never work and always be on state benefits. Surely no one could disagree with that argument?

mummy, I don't think they're the low of the low. I am a single parent of 5 and I've always worked full time. Many single parents do and always have done over the ages particularly in those times in the UK (most, thousands of years) when if you didn't work you died.

I'm sorry but some of you just haven't got a clue. Do you really think that single parents are just raking in the cash and that it is the easy option? I live in the SE and my income is less than £12k per year, I am raising 4 children. I find it amazing that some of you are so put out at my huuuggeee income, that you are as taxpayers are providing. Is it just income support you have a problem with paying? I don't actually receive that but I do get FTC and a few quid maintenance. If anyone can find me a job which will pay for childcare for my 4 kids and not leave me worse off, and let's face it, I couldn't be much worse off, then I'll take it.

Can I just say that TIFB that maintenance is not a handout, it is an absent parent supporting their child.

Xenia, so are you prey to some sort of relgious delusions, or just looking for some handy class of "them" to blame for whatever's bothering you. While there are a small minority of skivers and crooks in the world (many of whom are busy fiddling their taxes and working out new ways to pay their staff less money for longer hours) there's no guarantee that a child born into an impoverished family won't work hard, study hard and become a brain surgeon. Any more than there's any guarantee that that a child born into a nice middle-class family won't become a wanky city waster who gets the boot for embezzling...

Whilst I don't think "right" was a very good way to put it, I do think Xenia has a point. If the people who can afford to have children are those on benefits or those who end up on benefits as a result of having children then we will have more and more people to support on benefits and less and less people supporting them. So, it is in the interest of the country to encourage the people who can afford to have children to have them. The problem is that it is becoming harder and harder to make enough money to pay for children. So, if the state has to actually spend more moeny to say keep parents in work (married or single) or see that kids on welfare have an equal opporunity to education and jobs in the future, then I'm okay with that. But, don't pay people of teenagers to stay out of the workforce. That serves no one. BTW, Madamez, while "there's no guarantee that a child born into an impoverished family won't work hard, study hard and become a brain surgeon", a child born into poverty is certainly less likely to become a brain surgeon. Children born to poverty are certainly disadvantaged.

Oh, and don't build state run nurseries. Give people vouchers or tax breaks to use the ones that already exist. If we have a state system and a private system, it is bound to look like the two tier medical system (i.e. NHS and private) that we have now.

To answer uwila's question earlier about a couple on 70k and whether at some stage they must question whether it is worth working.

Yes, we are on less than 70k in London - not Central London, an unfashionable middle of the road suburb of London, less expensive than either London proper or Surrey.

We both have professional jobs. We saved hard, worked hard to get promoted, and only then could we afford to take our first tiny step on the housing "ladder" - a 2 bed flat.

The mortgage is about the same as rent in the area would be, and we have one car, modest camping holidays, shop at Lidl etc etc.

Back to the question - do we get tempted to give it all up and go onto benefits? Yes. I am not blue sky thinking about some hypothetical situation. My friend managed to get a 2 bed flat from the council and is periodically in receipt of all kinds of benefits, including incapacity benefit.

She has had the privelege of looking after her children at home, something we could never afford to do. Their family go on better holidays than us, and seem to have more disposable income. The rent is less than half what we pay, and they do not seem poor.

I don't resent her choices at all - I believe that she has carved out a life for herself in a very difficult era for young families. But what are we doing - are we crazy to hold down stressful jobs for virtually no improvement in living standards?

The systemic problem is that it is too expensive to afford housing and childcare, which forces people into invidious choices. Can anyone argue to me why single parents should be exclusively able to look after their children at home?

They never force anyone into a job that would make them worse off. The tax credits available to single parents are designed with that in mind. In fact as I remember from one of my other friends, they pay 70% of her childcare costs, and she is on well over 30k per annum.