Why are the government BOTHERING to push single parents back into paid work?

[Coldtits]

If you have two children, pay for £35 a week childcare and work 16 hours at the minimum wage you get

£70 a week working tax credit
£117 a week child tax credit
£30 a week child benefit
any maintenance your ex partner/s give you
And some of your rent paid if you are renting

That's a total of £217 of government money PLUS whatever they pay towards your rent.

Without working you get
£60 income support - with whatever maintenance your ex gives you being knocked (less £20) off this sum
£90 child tax credit
£30 child benefit.

SO, this is £180.

It costs the government LESS for me to stay at home and not work, they way the current set up is.

Why, when they are screaming from the rooftops about single parents going back to work, would they make it financially advantagious to THE GOVERNMENT for them not to? Why have they done this?

sorry should say at 16 hours a week you will not earn enough to pay income tax at min wage rates

You do realize that you can be a lone parent and earn more than the minimum wage don't you? Or even, that you could start off on the minimum wage and progress?

But obviously if you don't work there is not chance of progression or getting off benefits?

'that is the whole point of this thread, you cost more money to the goverment if you go to work than if you stay on the dole.'

No. You if you are a single parent who works part time on the minimum wage while paying for child care.

But as someone has pointed out you're not likely to be a single parent forever or paying childcare for ever and you are unlikely to be on the minimum wage part time for ever.

see that is your view - progress to what? All that seems to matter to you is the progression outside the home.

What about the progression inside the home> not being knackered and actualy progressing to be a good parents and making a good home for your children.

It is fact that a high % of woman who are single parents only earn the min wage - it is not an assumtion.

you could be on the minimum part time wage for along time though.
I work part time, my children are 2 and 6. I fully expect to be part time - although I might increase that slightly - until my youngest is at least 14.
And by that time I won't want to do more hours.

because a scan of the local job section, and the job centre plus reveals that the majority of jobs which are socialable hours are paid at minimum wage (or thereabouts). There are over 1 million people earning the minimum wage, I can't find any figures, but I'd say that's probably quite a chunk of the working population.

Not to mention those people that have already been mentioned on the thread who aren't on the minimum wage but STILL qualify for benefits.

Gold while I completely understnad what you are saying, the good relationships you and you children have with your ex is very important, isn't the taxpayer subsidising him, more than you and your children? Best wishes for 2009, it sounds like you've had a rough ride with the business.

Have you read my figures for full time work fivecandles? It's not just about part time work at all.

Incidentally, I have just re-run my test assuming an income of £16k pa. The total entitlement is £10,908.13. That represents around a £1,400 saving per year to the taxpayer. Is it really worth it?

And another point that I made on the other thread. It is clear from my calculations that a lone parent would be significantly better off if they worked full time than if they stayed on benefits. So why are they not all doing so do you think? They're not all stupid, lazy beggars. Does it not suggest that there are very valid reasons why it simply isn't possible?

fivecandles - EVEN IF YOU PRGORESS YOU COULD VERY EASILY STILL END UP QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS

Well there are 30 million in work according to this news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641309944.

Ivy, progress in their careers meaning specifically in this context financially.

I resent your implication that I and other WOHM are somehow not 'making a good home' for my children. As I've said there is nothing I don't do for my kids that a WOHM and quite a lot that I do do that I certainly couldn't as a SAHM on benefits.

What does that article prove? Some lone parents will obviously be fortunate to have family support to call on that enables them to work. Some don't - they're the ones that can't work.

You still haven't answered many of my points btw fivecandles.

Look, argue as much as you want but over your lifetime you will be recieving less on benefits if you are in work than if you aren't.

And it is not a straightforward comparison between lone parents who don't work and lone parents who are on the minimum wage.

how is the tax payer subsidisng him? >>> he doesnt' qualify for any benefits, has never claimed any. Yes I suppose for a few months he's paying me less, so I'm stil getting the full IS.

HOWEVER, he paid the full mortgage for 8 months, and I'm currently living here for "free" as I'm no longer contributing to the mortgage, and he has no intentions of asking me to leave until the banks demans the keys back (although I hope to be out before then). and I don't currently qualify for housing benefits. If he hadn't paid the mortgage I would have been claiming HB from March this year and by the time I move and do actually get it it will be nearly 12 months.

So in effect he's saved them 12 months worth of housing benefits (approx £6500 - based on this months set amount for me LHA) that they would have had to pay to me. compare that to 6 months (estimate - the CSA figure was only worked out last month, and he's hoping to be able to pay me the full amount by the summer) of them giving me IS at the full amount, rather than the reduced one to take into account what he should be paying me - works out at about £720.

Well if that was the case that will be me included - I go to work and I am a mum?

Unless I have got WOHM all worng we do the same.

I dont think that I am not "making" a good home for my dd's and am not making that implication of myself

FIVECANDLES

It's not just those working full time on a minimum wage that will still receive their housing benefit and council tax benefits, even those in senior positions in many fields will also still qualify

No Twinkle, it's not black and white. As I've said, when I went back to work we got loads in child tax credits and now nothing. No benefits at all. So in a couple of years I've gone from a situation where the childcare was accounting for pretty much my entire salary and receiving various benefits to getting nothing from the state except child benefit and contributing quite a lot in terms of tax, NI, my job (which comes with a pension scheme).

when both exH and I were working we got more in WTC than when it was just him working. Didn't get the childcare element as we got round that with me working night shifts and just having a few hours sleep in the morning when I got home from work beofre he left for work at lunchtime, coming home at 9,30 for me to walk out of the door to start work at 9.45

Those were the days

FGS, lots of people receive benefits. We all receive child benefit regardless of whether we work or not. FINANCIALLY you and the GOVT are better off in the long term if you work. If you choose to remain on benefits then obviously you will never earn anything minimum wage or above. If you work even for the minimum wage even while recieveing benefits there's a good chance that you will eventually earn more and receive less benefits. If you work you take less money from the govt in the long term. I don't see the point of arguing about this.

The reason I am particularly focussing on the low end of the income scale is because I think there are enough incentives there that those who can, and want to work, will already be doing so. Because I believe those who are not working are in that position because of
a) significant practical difficulties, or
b) they are, in fact, lazy beggars (the minority I'm sure)
that leads me to think that they are unlikely to progress much beyond a minimum wage job, or shorter hours, or both.

I think you and I, fivecandles, are in the fortunate positions of being able to work and have the support of our partners. I don't know how I'd cope on my own, I really don't. And from a personal point of view, DH and I have taken the decision to sacrifice pretty much everything so that DS doesn't have to attend full time childcare (I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that it's not what we wanted). I therefore can't in all consciousness hold an opinion that means pushing other parents and children into something that I don't want for my own child.

can I explain this any clearer???

I'll use my manager at work as an example (again).

She was highly experienced, she was the 2nd highest paid person in the home (apart from the actualy manager of the home). Even on her Seniors salary (had her DH not also worked) she would still have qualified for

Housing Benefits
Council Tax Benefit
WTC

She had already progressed, there wasn't much further she could go apart from becoming a manager for a home, and for a single parent that would be impossible because of the hours involved.

Another example for you if that's not clear enough. An accquaintance of mine (I'm friends with her mother)

Single mum (but lives with her mum at the moment) to a 2yr old. She started cleaning at McDonalds, she's now the "floor manager".

Again if she were to move out of her mum's house she would get

WTC
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Benefits

these people have ALREADY progressed, their salaries STILL leave them below the threshold for which benefits are paid.

FAQ - I think fivecandles' point is that those benefits will be less than they would be if the people concerned were not working.

It's a fair point, but I still believe that finances are not the major factor here for all the reasons I've previously stated.

You are making it very very clear, the figure all show what people dont really want to believe. It goes against the grain that the goverment would save peoples taxes to keep them put of work. Higher minimum wage would aid this - but not likely to happen in the current climate taxes will be raised instead.

oh - I'm tired - do excuse me not sleeping much at the moment (as you can see if you do a search for posts of mine and see some of the times they've been written ).

I can't actually quite believe I've spent the Friday night of my childfree weekend sitting talking about benefits/working/LP's.................................

I could have been discussing, ermm, err, ermm,

It's cold up here.

If I were a person on full benefits, I'd stay that way till I could make sure my other job would pay my way out of it all, especially if there were kids involved.

I really would.

Judgers, you don't know what a fine line it is some of us walk.

hello expat - was wondering when you'd show up again

How is that gorgeous wee boy of yours doing?