Change in benefits for Lone Parents

[MsPontipine]

I went to my annual LP advisor meeting at the JobCentre today - was rather stunned by the proposed but very likely changes.

It was a bit much to take in but basically by 2010 I think lone parents with youngest child 12 or older will no longer be able to claim Income Support on LP grounds and will be required to sign on and claim Jobseekers Allowance and look for work.

Another couple of years and that age will be reduced to 7.

There are various incentives, grants etc but that appears to be the long and short of it.

I was pretty stunned - mostly I think because this is the first I've heard of this. I am not an avid news watcher but I'm not a complete ostrich.

Food for thought. . . . . .

I agree with stripeymama, because it reinforces something I said earlier!! They could not do this to married sahm's, they should not be able to do it to lone parents. The onus of care falls entirely on the custodial parent's shoulders here. You can imagine all the absent parents dropping the maintenance money once the custodial parent starts working, too. It is all biased in favour of the government and the absent parent. Basically, if a couple are thinking of splitting up, it will be the first parent out the door who benefits, so who's going to want to be the mug left behind with the kids, responsibility, work etc? This is not familially or societally beneficial.
[head exploding emoticon]

AntiFlounce - you work hard to find a solution, as do all couples who work.
Tinkerbel6 that's a ludicrous statement. Of course people can have a point of view. Are you saying that someone who hasn't been married but has lived with a partner and then separated, isnt allowed to have a view on marriage? No, you can't know exactly what it's like to walk in some one else's shoes. Read some of the posts on the relationships thread - there are loads of marriages which suddenly collapse and one partner had NO IDEA, so it's stupid to assume that all marriages are rosy and all lone parents are having an awful time. Statements like yours just accentuate the whole couple/lone parent divide.

i think age 7 is very reasonable.

Why should single parents still be able to claim benefits when their kids are this age?
Waiting til the children are 12 seems ludicrous to me.

Couples have a choice, for a start. Nobody's threatening to make SAHM's become jobseekers, and they are contributing nothing financially to society either. There's two of you. You can alternate your shifts.

A common misapprehension is made about single parents - that they have always been single, and they have never worked. Whereas in fact, many were working and in a partnership, and know what it's like. It's a lot harder to be single. You do not have the choices you had before. And employers know this.

"Find a solution"?

Ok - tell me. Tell me the answer.

It's 12 that is the sticking point, AGBU. There is no child for a child that age. It all stops at 12.... yet you could be prosecuted for neglect for leaving a 12 year old home alone.

Anti Flounce - as I described on another thread once, when our kids reached school age, and we no longer had the luxury of nursery care (which incidentally cost a HUGE chunk of income) we were faced with exactly this problem. We couldnt found a CM who was willing to do the 7.45 am to start of school shift but couldnt find anyone for after school. DH and I set up an after school club. I would only recommend doing that as a last resort. It was a HUGE amount of work - applying for govt grants, lottery funding, studying employment legislation, advertising. appointing staff, forming a manangement committee....oh and all alongside both of us working full time and bringing up 3 kids! No way did I want to take on this responsibility, but as I say, there were no other alternatives. Once they started secondary school, they walked home and let themselves in. At age 11. Occsionally they have done an after school activity, but there arent things on offer every day. Oh and they have to get themselves out in the morning too, as DH and I leave for work earlier than they leave for school. That;s the reality for most working couple I would imagine. Not because we don't care about our kids, but because we can't afford to give up work just to be here at the beginning and end of the day.

Nutcracker - nobody really chooses to be a single parent. But, shit happens, as i have found out the hard way myself.

'Couples have a choice, for a start.'
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Anti-flounce - so there are people on here objecting to working when their children are 12 ??

Couples have more choice than a single parent.

Do you think you would have more choice as a single parent, alfiesbabe?

See, I thought that too ... the reality is somewhat different.

No, I don't think so allgonebellyup, I haven't seen any, anyway. But what is objectionable is that the children of single parents are treated by the government as a liability, a problem to be solved so the adult can hurry up back into something more lucrative. The children of SAHMs with partners are not.

Anti Flounce - to answer your question:I didnt have a choice about going back to work when my dc1 was 3 months old. Well, the choice would have been losing our home, as at the time my DH's take home pay of around £800 per month wasnt enough to live on. (Mortgage on tiny box £550 a month - interest rates used to be very high). If we had separated, then yes, I would have had the choice to not work because the govt (sorry, tax payer) would have paid housing and income support for me.

i agree that obviously couples DO have more choice than single parents. One can choose to stay at home, as i did when i was still with dh. He only earned 18k a year but we managed. i was lucky that i didnt HAVE to work.
Now i am on my own, i DO have to, or else i would be on benefits.

Maybe if you cut down your outgoings, eg downsized your house/mortgage, then you too could survive on 18k-ish (and no childcare costs) and it would be YOUR choice to stay at home, because you have the security of knowing partner is bringing home the bacon.

the govt wants us to go back to work regardless if you are a single parent or not

Anti Flounce - a SAHM isnt supported by the tax payer. Therefore if they choose to be at home , you can reasonably argue that they arent a drain on anyone (apart from their husband!). (I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to be a SAHM while kids are at school all day - I don't think it's in the interests of the kids, but that's an aside).

alfiesbabe there are lone parents that work and have to also go back to work after there babies are born, not all maried couples are hard done by, this is the lone parent section that is here to give support, if anyone has a grudge about the welfare system then taking it up with their mp might be a good starting place

Yes, but a choice not to work is not the only choice.

It is A LOT harder to go to work when you are single than it is when you are in a couple. It is harder to organise, employers have no faith in your ability to cope (and they do ask at interview, even though they shouldn't), and there is no back up. If something goes wrong, who are they tgoing to call?

You. There is no husband to field that call if you REALLY need to do that meeting. You can't take the option of evening work - nurseries and childminders don't work evenings.

"Maybe it is the minority, but it's a minority that is costing the tax payer an awful lot of money, and, what's worse IMO,promoting a culture of dependency. It's a cycle isnt it? - the kids of the woman that you describe across the road are more likely to grow up to live on benefits themselves, because that's their role model day to day. They will expect to be able to afford the latest mobile, trips to the off licence and maybe smokes as well (the woman I knew with 5 kids interestingly could afford a big smoking habit on benefits ). Whereas if the mother was expected to work, the children would grow up seeing this as the norm."

The mother...yet again...the mother.

Alfiesbabe, that woman will never get a job. She isnt deliberately taking the piss (if you knew her you would understand) she doesn't know any better...and as you say this is a minority.

Whatarewegoingtodoaboutthefather? Who can happily claim his dole money with no problem whatsoever?

How, alfiesbabe, do you find a solution when your tax credits are stopped, or not paid, for no good reason and you cannot afford your childcare? (£72 a week for me at that time). My wages then were (without tax credits) £104 a week plus £30 child benefit.

£134.00 a week.

minus £40 rent.
minus £72.00 childcare.

£22.00 a week. To pay all my bills, water, gas, electricity, phone, tv licence, contents ins, grocery shopping, clothing the kids.

Oh hang on, I forgot my bus fare.

Make that £17.00 a week.

Could you manage on that?

AGBU - yes, you can cut back, live as cheaply as possible etc but you can't cut back on certain bills and there comes a point when for many couples, living as a family on one income is NOT possible. Read the Going Back to Work thread - there are some stories there from mums who would love to stay at home but cant afford to.

'I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to be a SAHM while kids are at school all day - I don't think it's in the interests of the kids, '

eh?

so it's not good for the kids that a parent stays at home all day cooking them nice meals, doing their washing, shopping, making the house clean, organising school trips, finances and picking them up from school? What a bizarre point of view!

alfiesbabe, you didn't want to go to work when your baby was 3 months old - and many peole don't. But many single parents DO want to work, and find it almost prohibitivly diffgicult to do so.

So, because you see single parents staying at home, don't assume they are taking an opportunity you never had, any more than you are taking an opportunity they don't have.

I think being there to take their child to school and pick them up at the end of the day IS in the best interest of the child, what I dont think is in the best interest of a child is being stuck in childcare from 8am to 6pm each day.

LBA I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here!! Of course the father should take responsibility! As I've said all along EVERY CHILD HAS TWO PARENTS WHO SHOULD SUPPORT IT TILL ADULTHOOD.
And I don't agree that this woman isnt taking the piss - it sounds exactly like thats what she's doing. If she's borrowing money for the phone off you one minute and then back from the offie glued to her mobile the next, I'd say thats a definite piss take.

You still didnt answer me alfiesbabe.

Could you live on £17.00 a week?

That's real life for some because of government cock ups. Or would you have given up your job...because you had to? Its not a worse case imaginary scenario, it happened to me.

I lucky I have a credit card.

Tinkerbel6 - I said being at home all day when your kids are in school isnt necessarily in the best interests of the child. I know some people who believe as you do that they need to be there every day, and they have managed to negotiate reduced hours eg 9.30 till 2.30 - it hasnt been easy for them, they've had to work hard to find employment and in some cases have compromised a lot on quality of job and income, but they've managed it. they certainly don;t sit around between 9 and 3.30. But the reality for most of us is that we CAN'T find employment that fits around school hours so we just get on with it. You're very fortunate if you have the luxury of dropping off and collecting your children every day