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?

I haven't read all the thread because it was getting a bit repetitive in places last night.

From a personal pov, I started work at 16 and was in continuous paid employment until I was 43. I had my first child at 34 as a LP. I was back at work ft when he was 17 weeks old. I was lucky enough that my parents took care of him and continued to do so for almost 8 years.
After I had my Dd, I took a years maternity leave, some paid and some not which I then claimed benefits for. I felt embarrassed, ashamed and a bit scummy to tell the truth, but having paid 27+ years worth of taxes, gave myself a talking to. I then decided to take a years career break which continued my eligibility for benefits. I don't live well on it really and have had to change my way of life to a certain extent. I enquired about retraining with the benefits people, but I'm not allowed to because I'm still 'employed' technically.
I am supposed to be returning to work at the end of January, but I can't afford to. I earn 'too much' to get much help with child care costs which are horrendous and my job does a lot of unsocial hours which is of course time and a half for child minders(but not for me). I can usually give my nights away, but it doesn't solve much really.
I'd get £40 every four weeks in tax credits, plus child benefit of course. I would not be better off at work and I'd never see my children, one of whom is 10(could I even get a minder for him? is the cut off at 8 years?)so would he then have to be home alone? would he get into bad company? would he go off the rails? Do I put my children first or money/work/paying taxes etc.
This is hell on Earth. Where is the compassion for lone parents?
No wonder so many women become prostitutes to keep on top of things in order to live and bring up their kids.

"Do I put my children first or money/work/paying taxes etc"

It isn't only single mums who worry about this, but all working mums.

It might help a bit to try to see the point of view of the working married mum, for example. She works full time and her children are in childcare, as well. She is better off financially (assuming husband works) but doesn't have a council home, so pays mortgage/rent.

Why should she work for a living if it's OK for single mums to live off the state for a full 12 years? (Again, I am all for benefits as safety net - i.e. until she adjusts, youngest child is nursery age, she finds a job, etc)

Cloudhopper, I agree with your points about working but then I find this a bit jarring,

'On a personal level, I am sure I wouldn't work if it made little economic difference. Of course I wouldn't - I would much rather be with my gorgeous little children.'

Because for me it's not just about the amount of money it's about where the money is coming from so even if I could get the same amount in benefits or even from my husband I would rather work to earn it. For ME that's a matter of self-respect. I appreciate it's different when your children are pre-school and the additional cost of childcare might make it absurd to work plus you might have other reasons for not wanting to put your children in daycare which I totally sympathise with but I'm talking about when your children are at school. You can't then say I'm not working to be with my children because your children will not be at home they will be at school.

'"If people are working, they are contributing"

If you are bringing up children, you are working.'

This argument does not work because it ignores the fact that WOHMs are ALSO bringing up children. There is the implication that because you work you are less effective as a parent and actually I would argue strongly that in my own circumstances this is the opposite. As I work part-time around school hours and term time there is really nothing that I could do for my kids that I don't already do but there is quite a lot that I couldn't do.

'It makes me larf to see all these women with husbands telling us how many job and training opportunities there are for lone parents out there. Tell you waht, you lot go out and bring up children on your own on one income and grab those opportunities and "progress" in your work, then come back and tell the rest of us who are doing it, but obviously know sweet FA about it, how it's done, eh?'

But the thing is although I'm not currently a single parent I have already taken advantage of the many opportunities of training and work avialble BEFORE I became a parent and since.

At the moment at 16 if you are from a low income family you get paid to go to college (EMA) which I certainly didn't.

It really makes me quite angry that people talk about the lack of opportunities available for education and trining when there have never been more.

Nobody is saying that it's easy. Yes you might have to get on a bus or a train to travel to a colelge which has the right course. Yes, you might have to wait until your children are eligible for free nursery places or in school but to say the opportunities aren't there is simply untrue. I know many 100s of people and have taught 1000s who have taken advantage of opportunities and made something of their lives.

fivecandles - "so even if I could get the same amount .....or even from my husband I would rather work to earn it. For ME that's a matter of self-respect."
I'm a sahm, my husband works and the money he earns is for the family. Are you saying that by accepting that, I have no self respect?

"'"If people are working, they are contributing"

If you are bringing up children, you are working.'

This argument does not work because it ignores the fact that WOHMs are ALSO bringing up children.""

It does nothing of the sort. WOH may also be bringing up children but they are not working taking physical care of their children when they are out at their paid work. Someone else is.

Can I just make the point again which was ignored earlier that there are advantages of nursery education for itself especially to children from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is interesting,

'?It is absolutely clear that there are positive cognitive outcomes for children who attend early years education, which increase depending on the length of time in months and years spent in these settings. As disadvantaged children already lag behind their middle-class contemporaries in terms of cognitive development at the age of three, the provision of high quality early years education is one very important way to counter this.?

The Durham research is a snapshot of children at a particular point in their development, and the author cautions that it may be too soon to see the benefits of recent investment and changes in policy.

However, a report published in 2005 by the Institute of Fiscal Studies looked at the impact of early years education over the long term, in children born in 1958. It showed that 7-year-olds who had had early years education scored better in tests than their peers who had not, and that these advantages were still present at 11 and 16.

More recently, 2007 evidence from the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) study showed that cognitive benefits of high quality pre-school were still evident at age 10.

And evidence from Scandinavian countries shows that early years education is vital in breaking the cycle of inequality between children:

?The combination of good parental leave and early childhood education and care are key factors in explaining why countries like Sweden and Denmark have broken the link between parental income and a child?s future outcomes,? says Maxine Hill. '

www.daycaretrust.org.uk/article.php?sid=323

And there's loads of other research on this. Nurseries and childminders are able to identify problems e.g. with language early on and intervene when it most counts and as there is already a marked difference between the performance of children from different backgrounds at aged 3 this is precisely when it needs to be addressed.

So as I've been saying getting parents back to work has long-term advantages for parents and their children. It is cost effective for the Govt even though they have to supplement parents' incomes (in the short-term).

juule, I did say quite clearly that I was talking about my own circumstances. Personally it is a matter of my self-respect and self-esteem that I earn my own money and contribute to the raising of my children financially. It is a matter of my dp's self-respect and self-esteem that he contributes to the raising of our children in ways other than financially. In my own family we share childcare and paid work and that's important to US.

What other families to is up to them but I personally do find it hard to relate to people who say 'Oh well I wouldn't get any more in paid work than I would get on benefits' because for ME it's not just about the amount of money it's where it comes from that matters.

As for the argument that WOHM contribute just as much to raising their children as SAHMs. I have thoughout been talking about school-aged children. So I personally do just as much as in terms of raising my children as a SAHM would but I ALSO contribute to raising other people's children and pay taxes and NI and into my pension AND I together with my DP pay for our children's expenses - from food, to music lessons, to university education where a SAHM on benefits is actually paying for these things (if at all) with taxpayers money.

Most single parents do not have council homes, but are instead allowed to rent housing association homes (as is anyone else on a low income, married or not) or fight their corner in the free market of private rentals.

Both these have to be PAID for, as do council houses. Council rent is generally LOW, but they are not FREE, and I don't know why on earth this myth has flourished. If you are entitled to housing benefit, married or not. you can claim that against ANY rent, therefore your home will be subsidised or sometimes even 'free', if, by working, you are NOT entitled to housing benefit, married or not, you pay your rent like everyone else.

And fivecandles, that "(if at all)" was quite possibly the snidest thing I have ever read.

But You are making my point quite nicely. Single mothers who DO work are ALSO paying for all the things you mentioned with Taxpayer's Money and they are receiving a good deal more of it.

Not being snide Coldits. The reality is that SAHMs on benefits are not going to be able to afford things for their children that I can. It's a fact.

I can't afford what Victoria Beckham can for her kids (not that I'd necessarily want those things!). Didn't realize it was taboo to say that the children whose parents are on benefits are likely to struggle financially.

'Single mothers who DO work are ALSO paying for all the things you mentioned with Taxpayer's Money '

But that's not true. Some may be heavily subsidised by taxpayers' money but they are still earning their own money.

And there are many, many single mums who work who don't take a penny in benefits. I know several.

And there couldn't be a more obvious example than XEnia!!

Then you know much much richer single mothers than me. Maybe ones who predicted their singledom effectively nd made sure they would have good jobs to return to when the relationship went tits up.

I don't know any single mothers who work for more than £6 an hour. Not one. But then , I live in a very poor area, so I am maybe living with people you would never ever meet.

** The reality is that SAHMs on benefits are not going to be able to afford things for their children that I can. It's a fact.
'"If people are working, they are contributing"

Well said - if you go to work you will have more money than living on the dole - hurray well said at last someone that realises that living on the dole you do not have pots and pots of money.

If you are bringing up children, you are working.'

This argument does not work because it ignores the fact that WOHMs are ALSO bringing up children. There is the implication that because you work you are less effective as a parent and actually I would argue strongly that in my own circumstances this is the opposite. As I work part-time around school hours and term time there is really nothing that I could do for my kids that I don't already do but there is quite a lot that I couldn't do.

You are sharing the part as a parent - there are two parents and you do three jobs between you.

A single parent is being asked continually to do three jobs on thier own.

You are less effective when you have to juggle three jobs - something has to give and we may well do three jobs but whether we do three jobs well all of the time 365 days per year is another matter.

I am lucky now as juggling is getting easier - but the 14 weeks school holidays are a complete nightmare. Nearly one third of the year is taken up with trying to sort out child care arrangments to fit in with my work.

My dd has asked if I could give up work so that she doesn't have to go to childcare and can come home after school - instead of going to club at 7.45am and coming home at 6pm. I am certainly not going to stop working outside of the home - but that is my choice not to stay home.

I have told her that when she goes to secondary school she can become a latch key kid and come home alone to an empty house dd is now 10 and has done nursery, after school care for all of her life. 6 years of after school care and breakfast club every term, every week.

Five candles - what do your children think to after school club? Have they ever been? Do they get to go to school clubs on the holidays or do you take care of them? What do you do when they are sick? Do you always take time off or do you get to share that responsability?

This goverment have given single parents the choice to work and live with more money - but it is a farce.

The solution would be a living wage and stop proping up large companies wage bills.

The point is it cost more to send us out to work and it does create jobs.

Not everyone is going to "get on" in life and emprove their prospect. TBH if everyone got on in life who would do the jobs that aren't getting on jobs - ad someone does need to do them.

Not everyone is clever and wants to be academic, they dont have the "brains" to go to collegue and get on.

I work to live, and dont want to climb the caree ladder - that doesn't make me a bad person. I want to work and be paid a decent wage for the job I do because it is an import job. Everyones job is important it make the world. If you dont employ a kitchen porter you will soon see a hotle fall to its knees - no matter how good the manager is he can't let the waiters serve food on dirty plate. You have waitressed, you will know that everyone in the kitchen works as a team but gets paid different wages, but they are all needed.

You make quite a few assumptions and generalisations in your post Ivy. As it happens I live in a hugely deprived area. Slap bang in the middle. One thing that's interesting is that the Govt actually invests huge amounts of money into such areas so that we have good child care, holiday care etc. I work in a college in another deprived town where nearly half of the students come from families with a very low in any income but what this means is that nearly half of our students get EMA (money to come to college). Needless to say my kids won't get this money so there's a sort of irony that when they hit 16 they will be actually have less money than their peers whose parents earn more. Likewise a lot of their peers will get grants, tuition fees paid etc etc which mine will not. Now, I'm not saying that's wrong because my kids will have privileges that their less well off peers won't off (not least 2 workign parents) but it does show how many opportunities and incentives there are for people to get qualifications and training especially in deprived areas.

As for the stuff about single mums all earning the minimum wage again it's not true. I am good friends with a single mum who has worked hard after the break up of her marriage to retrain as a drivign instructor. She fits her lessons around school hours and doesn't take a penny from benefits. I also rectnyl taught a girl who got pregnant at 17 and then came back to college the follwoing year to finsihe her A Levels. But you cannot generalise from your expericence any more than I can.

I agree that the majority of single parents struggle financially but not all and many as we've said begin by struggling but end up being successul.

There are also lots of single parents who do get support from the father of their children. My friend the driving instructor doesn't get much maintenance from her ex dp but he has her dc every other weekend and one evening a week during which time she works.

I do understand the stuff about being a signle parent making it harder to manage childcare but again there are many single parents where the father or a new partner does contribute. In fact, I'm now remembering that there is another of my dd's friends who is a single mother but actually gets considerably more support from her new partner and her mother than I ever have for my children.

Anyway, as I've said it's not easy. Nobody said it was easy. But it's not impossible and I think there are an awful lot of people who don't even try to get off benefits and come out with lines like ones we've seen on this thread like 'why should I bother when I can get as much on benefits as I can earn?' which is an attitude I personally find it hard to relate to.

I have though asked a few questions that you have not even answered - they were not difficult questions were they?

How do you know what the future holds for your dc? That is a hugh assumption on your part that you will still have a job and so will your dp - for all I know in the wyears that follow you and your dp could both lose your jobs and your dc will qualifie for EMA - that is indeed if it still exsists. I think kettle and black is most valid on this count - to strat a post with an assumption accussation and then make hugh assumptions yourself.

'Not everyone is going to "get on" in life and emprove their prospect. TBH if everyone got on in life who would do the jobs that aren't getting on jobs - ad someone does need to do them.

Not everyone is clever and wants to be academic, they dont have the "brains" to go to collegue and get on.'

No, no I accept that and I absolutely agree with what people are saying about the minimum wage. But having said that if you don't try to 'get on in life' and if you 'don't want to be academic' then you can't be too surprised when you are earning considerably less than those people who have tried and worked really hard academically or in their careers.

I think this attitude of 'Oh, well you're lucky. You're alright then' to anyone who is doing ok is completely wrong. I've got friends who are doctors for example and doing great NOW but this is only after working ridiculously hard and struggling through 7 years at university without a penny and leaving with massive debts. Now, I might be envious of some of their lives at times. I have GP friends who can work flexibly and have loads of money but then I remember that there's no way that I could have put in the sort of effort that they did. I couldn't have done 7 years+ after college, I couldn't have got A grades in physics, chemistry and biology, I couldn't have worked stupid hours as a junior doctor. So good on 'em. They've worked for their lifestyles in a way I chose not to and they deserve them.

Well Ivy I can't know exactly what my future holds but teaching has a huge amount of job securtiy.

And anyway I have good qualifications to fall back on. And I know that I would do any job - temping, waitressing rather than take benefits - as I have done before.

Which questions?

My dcs DO go to before school club a few times a week but don't have to go to after school club because I work part-time hours around school hours. When they are older I'll probably work full tiem again and they'll come home alone or go to after school club. As it happens my dcs love before school club and regularly ask if they can go and play with friends in after school club.

Some people are suggesting that childcare is some sort of evil neglect but actually my kids have always really liked the nureeris and clubs etc they've been to. In fact, they've thrived there and had the advantage of dp and I being there for them after school and in the 13 weeks holiday we have a year.

Now again you might say we're lucky to be teachers (not often you hear that view) but actually it's NOT about luck. We planned ahead and worked hard and made choices which allow us to have the lives we do (which still aren't easy by the way - we continue to work hard and struggle juggling work and family life etc etc as millions of others do).

In fact, it's interesting that while I was at university I didn't know a single person who didn't do some truly shitty jobs - chambermaiding since I went to university in a seaside town, but my best friend cleaned toilets and another worked ridiculous hours in Burger King., ,my boyfriend at the time worked in a factory putting tops on bottles etc. Now gradutes in their 30s they're mostly doing really well. But I can't stand this attitude that some people are too good for shitty jobs. If you think you're too good for them then you have to work hard to get something better.

" I think there are an awful lot of people who don't even try to get off benefits "

What, more among single mothers than other demographic groups?

Back it up with research?

We've all worked shitty jobs. But there's a hell of a difference knowing that this is for summer till I go back to uni, and this is my career. Nobody likes a tourist

Isn't government trying to push ALL long-term benefit claimants back into paid work, and not just single parents?

Yes
But this thread is about LPs
so unless fivecandles is being irrelevant, the implication of her remark is that it applies to LPs