Work for dole

[ReallyTired]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7514513.stm

I think that proposals like these are long over due. Although I think that if you make people work full time for their benefits they won't have time to look for job.

Prehaps they should work three days a week and look for a job two days a week.

There are people who for good reasons cannot work full time, but certainly could do something part time.

Loriycs - exactly. It's a crap system. There must be many couples who both work full time who, if taken individually, would be classed as low income. Just because they have stayed together, they are discriminated against.

Ditto findtheriver i agree

No, findtheriver, a single NRP does not have to be housed by the council. In my area he would be told to go the local hostel, as happened to my friend.
As a lone parent he will qualify for social housing. So on the basis that both parents need housing and qualify for it as they have shared custody, it is indeed two houses for one child - and where are these extra houses going to come from?

The PWC's I know, struggle to pay the bills even though they work there butts off. And you want to cut their benefits and give it to the NRP? And this is alongside stopping the CSA payments, how are they meant to survive? Will their rent or council tax be less because they share custody? They can't work more hours because 50% of the time they still have to have thier child so they still can't work in school holidays.
Or do you expect every PWC and NRP to come to a joint descion about contact times so it fits in with both their working schedules - that is niave.

And CTC are not designed to support people who can't work, they are used to top up the wages of low earners with children. Therefore the NRP wouldn't be entitled to them now, but would surely qualify under the theory you support. So that is intrinsically linked to being a parent.

As is income support. If you force someone to split income support then you would be making live below the poverty line.

the child care element is only one propotion of income support. But yes its hardly enough to split.

'They can't work more hours because 50% of the time they still have to have thier child so they still can't work in school holidays.'

I think this sums up why this kind of thread never leads anywhere. Why is there an assumption that a split couple 'shouldn't' have to work in school holidays!!

Many, many couples with young children both have to work from when their children are 6 months/ a year old, to be able to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. The idea of not working until their children are in school, and even then working term time only is laughable to many working couples - they should be so lucky!

If you are starting from the premise that a lone parent shouldnt have to work until their children are in school, and are then entitled to have every school holiday off, then I think you are very far removed from the reality facing most of us who have stayed together.

Well said Findtheriver. Everyone talks of equal rights but single parents STILL expect special tratment. As said before all parents face the prob of childcare especially in school hols, lone parents are far from unique there.

Where both parents work both time the default option should be children live every other week with each parent. Child benefit and tax credits should be split in two. Plenty of parents have the children week on week off. Some of us are forced to have our chidlren 365 days a year, work full time and in effect support the absent parent and our childern ourselves. Plenty of widows and widowers work full time. Just because you're a single parent doesn't mean you can't and don't work full time. It's just that it is very very expensive to fix child care and if the child's father was forced to pay the au pair, after school club, nanny or whatever option they use or procure throuh offering her money and sex a new woman to do those services for him, doesn't mean men shouldn;t be lumbered with what women who work and have children have to do.

Yes it woudl mean complicating the man's life and him having to looka t how you arrange after school care etc but tough - men are parents too. It woudl also mean as ex pat says above single mothers have an easier time as they have more time to retrain etc when the children are with the father.

It woudl also be a massive boon for those thousands and thousands of fathers who want their chilren 50% of the time, who are viscerally hurt by not seeing, being with, smelling and touching their children on a proper regular basis rather than some pathetic once a week weekend thing.

The issue of marriage break up and the cost of that on the state is a separate one. A lot of single parents cost the state nothing and support themlsevs and their children as I have always done and my sister. I don't even get any form of tax credit.

Findtheriver - I am in a relationship with the father of my child. Don't make assumptions.

The fact I am in a relationship makes it easier for me and my dp to work, when I return to work after Mat. leave (my dd will be 9 months) we will work different shifts as we cannot afford childcare.
A lone parent does not have the option of relying on her partner to have the children whilst she is at work.

But just because I am in this situation doesn't mean I cannot see things from other's POV.

For example how is a lone parent, who has to split her benefits with the NRP and recieves no CSA expected to pay for childcare during the school holidays.
That is the reality you are preposing findmeariver.

Xenia - this is not a man - woman issue.

A PWC can be both a man and a woman, as can an NRP.

You make some good point Xenia. The bottom line is - childcare doesnt cost more if you are a lone parent. Say a childcare place costs £150 per week for one child. It costs that much whether the parents are together or split. Why should one parent no longer be responsible just because they have split? They are still a parent! A split parent saying 'I can't afford childcare on one income' is no different from me, as part of a couple, saying 'I can't afford childcare on my one income'. The whole point is that it is a JOINT responsibility. Not just one parent. And certainly not the state's responsibility. In every situation apart where one parent has died, every child has two parents.Why shouldnt they be expected to take their responsibilities as parents?

here here

Look put simply if you force shared custody, you increase the number of people that have the right to claim benefit and the right to have social housing.

This will impact on the state and on the taxpayer.

And remember this isn't a man against woman issue - A PWC can be a man and an NRP can be a woman.

And it is not the PWC or the NRPS's that are worng, they simply use the system.

It is the system, the CSA, which is wrong.

Findmeariver - aaaaaarrrrrrrggggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!

YES the NRP should take responibilty. We established that 40 posts ago.

Can see both sides here, dont think you can move forward with this one chaps!! but im still interested

That is not ground breaking news.

Everyone, the PWC, the government, the neutral and the majority of NRP's agree with that.

The point is how you you achieve this.

You are right Loriycs. We are doing circles. I'm walking away

The whole system needs a radical overhaul. It's not a male/female issue or a coupled/lone parent issue. There is no logical reason why a lone parent should need benefits more than a couple, once you accept the premise that both parents continue to share responsibility. A couple who both need to work need childcare as much as a lone parent. (The cases where two parents are fortunate enough to be able to both work shifts and organise it so one parent is off work and able to provide the childcare while the other works must be pretty exceptional and incredibly lucky!)

I don't consider it lucky that I will hardly get to see dp but I take your point!

No i fail to see how that is lucky. What you are saying is that people should work to exist, not to live. I thought nowadays society had gone past that but apparently not. WTF is the point of having kids you do not see? What is the point of falling in love if you lead separate lives?

It's lucky compared to the many people who have to pay £150 upwards for childcare to enable them to keep a roof over their head. I definitely don't think people should work to exist - I much prefer living. The real world means that few couples can afford the luxury of one parent at home though. I think most people have children to love and cherish them. Just because most parents work, doesn't mean they aren't doing that.

I know (most) parents are doing the best they can, but some, for example are both working (seen this in RL and on tv) when one wage just barely covers childcare - what's that about?
And other's where they work 'to give their kids a better life' when that means only material things rather than a parent who has a happy and secure relationship with their spouse and their children.

I may be naive but i think at least some of the working parents don't actually have to work, they could just as easily say 'No DS, you are having £70 of Christmas presents only, so you can't have an Xbox'.

And yes i do realise that an Xbox doesn't equate to a years wages

parent pressure, we all succumb....

There are all sorts of reasons why people work. Very often financial. If you find that hard to understand in the current economic climate, then words fail me.

Yes true we do all have to work, unless we have a partner that is happy to pay for everything.Words fail me when people dont work and still EXPECT to have it all.