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?

Every other weekend from Fri-Sun and every Tuesday night. I think driving lessons are £20+ an hour so I imagine she can make quite a bit in those times.

Nobody's answering my question. Why (as seems to be suggested here) are so many LPs unqualified in the first place?

But there's no guarantee how "short" the short term is going to be.

I would never compromise my children's health by living on an extremely poor diet, in un-suitable living conditions, or risk making us homeless in the hope that I would get a better paid job. Because as many on MN will testify (and I'm talking about all groups, not just LP's) finding a new job can be hard enough in itself, finding a job that pays more money is even harder, and finding a job that wiill take you out of the earnings bracket which mean you no-longer qualify for any benefits even more difficult.

You can have all the qualificaitons under the sun, but it still doesn't mean that

a) a "better" job in that field is going to take you beyond benefit claiming threshold - as mentioned on this thead, not just by me, but by others too in some fields you can rise almost to the top of your "field" and still not earn enough to not be able to claim.

b) you're actually going to find a better job because of your qualifications.

Of course for some people it does happen - but for an even larger number is doesn't.

Hence over 10% of the workforce earning £262 a week - which is still quite a bit below benefits stopping.

many lone parents might be unqualified as they can't afford to study/can't find decent childcare/haven't the motivation to study when they might not get a job at the end of studying

there's probably a million other reasons, but in my case (not a lone parent) money worries are always the thing that stops me studying, can imagine its the same for most people

"unless you were abstaining from sex then there was always a risk you would fall pg"

Sure. But then it is a decision to continue that pregnancy and have a baby. Not a particularly wise one, imo, until you have your qualifications and are in a stable relationship (which can also fail, of course, but much more unlikely than a one night stand, for example).

"Well, LJB, again you're reverting to worst case scenario.

Are you trying to tell me that all or the majority of LPs are unqualified before they have children?"

Sigh. No. I have already said, three hundred years ago, that LP's are women like you and like me. Some will be qualified, some not. But we are talking about the ones who aren't.

Why exactly are we only talking about LPs who have no support from their Exs, who have no possibility of free childcare, and who have no qualifications?

Just what percentage of total LPs is this group?

"it is a decision to continue that pregnancy and have a baby. Not a particularly wise one, imo, until you have your qualifications and are in a stable relationship"

Really words fail me. Everyone who ever gets pregnant without qualifications should simply go and have an abortion. There are no moral or emotional dilemmas. It's just a question of whether you are wise or unwise.

Not really sure where to go with that, tbh.

If you really think a tiny cluster of cells is a human being, I guess you could have moral dilemmas about terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

Since there is overwhelming support for abortion in the UK, I suppose yours is a minority view.

Are we now narrowing the topic to single mums who have no support from their Exs, no possibility of free childcare, no qualifications... AND who are against abortion in principle?

Just what percentage of total LPs is that?

ssd - not quite true about studying. I did a course at a CFE whilst on benefits, there was a creche for which I had to pay 10 pounds a week, and the fees were paid by the govt. so I would say there are plenty of opportunities for studying if you are on benefits.

As for where you "go with that":

• council estate, pushing a pram at 17, struggling uphill to juggle childcare and education, possibly never getting any and remaining on minimum wage forever

or

• get school degree, go to university, grow up a bit, find a man who is also out of his teens, and start making babies when you are financially and emotionally secure

Yes, it is unwise to choose the first option, imho.

I realize that there are exceptions, single mums who have worked extremely hard, obtained degrees while supporting their babies, and managed to be self-sufficient. And I have a huge respect for them. But if DD were ever in that situation, I certainly hope she will have the foresight to choose the second option.

gosh cote, I would look after dd's baby while she studied, I have to say. Hope she wont get into that situation though!

The thing about life is that it's never black and white, there are grey bits, contrary to some peoples belief. It's the grey bits that get in the way of(for instance)LP studying and/or going back to work. It bugs the hell out of me when everything seems so clear to other people who are not living the life of another person that actually is not living in plain old black and white land. My life is surrounded by grey right now and I for one am fed up with preachy people that seem to live in or on a cloud ~ a black and white cloud at that!
I can't go back to work because atm; I'm feeding and clothing my kids on a maximum of £30 pw. If I go back to work I'll lose all my benefits because I just go a few quid over the cut off point, I'd then not have any money at all with which to feed them, it'd go on travel to work. Even if I could find a willing CM I couldn't afford to pay her. There are travel to work costs, packed lunches and snacks because of my long working days... God help me if we had a security lock down. The last one I was involved in, I was at work(working)for 23 hours! I don't want to give up my job which is why I'm taking a 'break' from it ~ well, the one where they put money into my bank anyway.
I agree, there are some workshy parents out there, both single and married, but there are an awful lot of us that do have pride and a lot of us have been working mothers on our own, but we do need support and support seems to stop when the page ends...the story continues over the page, but no one wants to look.
Sorry, just a bit low today.

I thought we were talking about LPs who have no support from anyone

I'm sure they want to encourage people to contribute to the economy, and its a very important move which may well begin to tackle deprived areas where children are growing up with the expectation that they'll live on benefit, as their grandparents and parents have done.

I hope the government is encouraging proper training schemes, there are a lot of people out there who could benefit from re taking their GCSEs now they're a bit more mature, and then going into a vocational style degree/course which naturally leads into work.

I'm doing a PGCE part time so that I can stay at home with DS and am not allowed any benefits altho can get rent help, even tho I tried to work as much as possible, because PGCE students get funding, its not much for me to buy work clothes, books, pay for broadband, all my study expenses and general living.

I believe the idea is to encourage people to work by making it more attractive to do so, while at the same time making benefits less attractive for first time claimants to discourage teenage pregnancies.

while at the same time making benefits less attractive for first time claimants to discourage teenage pregnancies.

WHAT? So all first time claimants are teenage mum's?? err right, ok, whatever.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell people LP's are women just like them and one day they may be one, FAQ, they still persist in promoting this image of LPs as teenage mums. I can't remember the percentage of LP's who are teenage mums, but I seem to remember that it was quite small. Most LPs had their children in long term stable relationships. So even if no teenage schoolgirl ever got pregnant again, we'd still have plenty of LP's, because most of them don't become LP's as teenagers.

I still think btw that it is completely invalid to dismiss the ethical dimensions of abortion. Some people see it as killing babies. I may not agree with them, but I certainly wouldn't tell them they are stupid not to if that's their belief.

Can you try to be intellectually honest for a minute?

Of course what I said was not that all benefit claimants are teenage mums. However, you may have noticed that there are quite a few teenage mums around. So much so that UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe.

3% of all pregnancies in the UK are by teenage girls. And UK has the highest birth rate to teenage mothers in the Western World after the US - 1,700 per year.

Making a life on benefits less attractive to these teenage girls is not a bad thing, imho.

For info, have a look at these research papers:

but then you are assuming that all these teenagers are single parents claimimng benefits!

"Can you try to be intellectually honest for a minute?"

What, like you you mean?

and those under 16 can't get the benefits anyhow, so we can't even include them in the discussion. General age you have to be is 18, but in certain circumstances you may get them at 16 or 17

how about making life without a baby more attractive? The average teenaged girl on the average teenaged girl's wage cannot afford to keep herself if she moves out of the family home - yet staying in the family home may not be an option once her parents/guardians cannot be prosecuted for throwing her out.

What's the easiest way to get any form of housing if you are facing sleeping rough and you are capable of getting pregnant?

That's right. This is why the majority of rough sleepers are male.

education is NOT always an option, some people are practically ineducable past a basic level.