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?

'You really are so determined to tell lone parents how to live, aren't you, '

No, really not. But as I say, if people choose to become parents before they are in a position to support themselves and their children financially, I don't understand how they can then be surprised and horrified to find that their lives are hard.

As has been pointed out countless times a life on benefits is not an easy one and can have long-term consequences for children. But equally it is not easy to get a good job (whatever that means for you) even when you are qualified and childless.

"But as I say, if people choose to become parents before they are in a position to support themselves and their children financially..."

Sigh. You really haven't read the posts about this have you?

a) contraception sometimes fails

b) Many people believe they are in a position to support themselves and their children financially and then when they become lone parents, they find they cannot after all, support themselves. They either underestimated the percentage of their ex's income in family support, or the job they do is incompatible with being an effective parent once you no longer have another adult in the house.

Your posts don't acknowledge that even people who plan carefully, can be scuppered by events.

I actually agree with much of what you say LBJ about the Government's motivation in fact that is what I have been arguing.

'My only gripe with the policy, is the assumption that it is the right one for every LP out there in the country.'

But there's no evidence for this.

Again as is blindingly obvious on this thread the Govt provides support (financial and otherwise) for parents whether they choose to stay at home or work).

In fact, TBH, I think it's a bit rich for parents or people in general to be supporting themselves and their children potentially for years almost entirely off Government (i.e. taxpayers) money and complain about what a rough deal they're getting!

But they don't.

As has been said twelfty million posts ago. Several times.

I HAVE read the posts but there's nothing that they say that changes my opinion.

Contraception is really very reliable if used properly - e.g. the pill is 99% effective and if in any doubt there is the morning after pill and terminations. I'm not saying that anyone HAS to use these options but if you don't and get pregnant and don't opt for a termination then you do have to be prepared for the consequences.

But depending on what career you want to do you can be fully or at least partially qualified by the age or 21 yet lots of the LPs we're talking about have not got qualifications or their career sorted out or even decided what they want to do by their late 20s or 30s.

'They either underestimated the percentage of their ex's income in family support'

I think it's YOU who haven't read my posts. Basing your decision on your husband's income is not being financially independent is it? If YOU are not in a position to support your own children then perhaps it's not very wise to have them.

Who doesn't what?? This whole thread is full of LPs complaining about the rough deal they and apparently every other LP is getting.

Are you actually Xenia? Are you really saying that no-one should be a SAHM?

And also, what are you talking about, not basing family decisions on your husband's income? Do you take that view of mortgages as well? Did you negotiate a mortgage based only on your income, or did you do it with both incomes being taken into account?

As I understand it, couples base big decisions on family income, not just one partner's income. Otherwise, how do they function as a family?

Who doesn't what?

"parents or people in general ... supporting themselves and their children potentially for years almost entirely off Government (i.e. taxpayers) money"

The number of people who do that, lone or not, is quite miniscule. There is a hard core of unemployed people whether LP or otherwise, who live for years on government money, but most unemployed people only claim for a few months at most.

It's not for me to make decisions about whether people are SAHM or not but what I am saying is that if you are unqualified and unemployed then you are almost certainly going to have a very hard life as may your children potentially for a long time and possibly for ever. If you are unqualified and unemployed (and even if you're not) and financially entirely dependent on your husband than you are taking an enormous risk in all sorts of ways. It sort of amazes me that people could willingly be so vulnerable.

Fivecandles

Why do YOU think the government are spending more on the money they give to working lone parents than non-working lone parents? What do you think their motivation for that is?

I notice you have a great deal to proclaim upon and no real answers. I made my bed, and I will lie in it - but just because I am poor doesn't mean I don't have the right to question the government on everything they do - for better or for worse.

"'It doesn't matter how many times you tell people LP's are women just like them and one day they may be one'

Well, yes and no. I would not have been a LP before being qualified and in employment. I planned my family."

I got raped at 19 and fell pregnant.

Good job your plans didn't get screwed up, isn't it?

Bully for you, fivecandles - clearly you have it all sorted and we don't.

Whoop de fucking do.

I hope you aren't this narrowminded and blinkered when speaking to people in real life, truly - for their sakes, I hope that.

Fivecandles - will nothing get you to accept that there are many many routes that lead to single parenthood? And many many ways of dealing with it, and many many different situations, and many many brave strong inspirational women (yes, it is usually women) out there doing the very best they can for their children...

Lewis, I'm sorry about your experience. As I've said I'm not making judgements about other people's lives. What I am saying is that where women who CHOOSE to have children without being able to provide for them they cannot be surprised when they struggle financially.

Coldits, I have answered the question many times. When children are entirely or mostly dependent on one parent and that parent is not working for a significant amount of time that family's outlook is not good. A life in poverty has huge consequences for parents and their children years later. It is cost effective for the Govt to supplement the income of working parents with young children because their outlook and that of their children is better if they ARE working. Their long-term prospects are better. But also, if you look at the link I posted earlier, children benefit from pre-school programmes and children from low income background benefit most.

So actually although it may cost as much or more in the short-term there are long-term savings and benefits for the parent who is being supported to work and her family.

This is interesting from Gingerbread but actually there's loads of research out there which suggests all sorts of things are better when mothers work in both one and two parent families from maternal health to children's academic success to the likelihood that the children will not be as restricted to percpetions of gender roles etc etc.

'Increasingly, childhood poverty has become associated with being in a lone parent family. In 1968, 19% of children living in poverty were in lone parent families. Now that figure is 43%. 34% of children living in poverty in 1995-6 were in workless lone parent families compared with 15% in 1968. Lone parent families have not participated in the improvement in living standards experienced by the majority of the families over the last 20 or 30 years. (iii)

Most lone parents have net incomes that range between £90 a week on Income Support (IS) to twice that figure for those in work. Two thirds live on IS and of those a third experience severe hardship. (iv)They have overtaken pensioners as the group with the lowest average income. (v) They have good financial reasons to work as soon as they consider it practical or desirable.

Lone parents give many non-financial reasons for wanting to work including: getting to meet people, using past experience, following a career, status, self respect/self fulfilment, planning for the future, having something to offer, learning new skills, breaking the cycle of disadvantage and providing a positive role model for children.'

www.gingerbread.org.uk/information-and-advice/LoneParentsEmployment.htm

"Most lone parents have net incomes that range between £90 a week on Income Support (IS) to twice that figure for those in work."

Twice £90 is still shit money TBH. Hardly a living wage and waaaay below average

You know, the attitudes on display on this thread are prevalent all over Mumsnet and it is really beginning to pee me off.

"My life/breastfeeding/labour worked it out how it as because I worked so hard/planned so well/was so bloody minded (delete as appropriate)."

Guess what people - perhaps you were just lucky?!

You know, the attitudes on display on this thread are prevalent all over Mumsnet and it is really beginning to pee me off.

"My life/breastfeeding/labour worked out how it did because I worked so hard/planned so well/was so bloody minded (delete as appropriate)."

Guess what people - perhaps you were just lucky?!

Oh God sorry. Read the second one - it makes more sense.

" I think that it's probably unwise to have children before you're in a position to support them financially"

What about if someone is long-term sick? I've not been in work for about 10 years and my doctors are in no rush to let me back - one disablity should start to get better in about ten years, the other means I'm 10 times more likely to die in my 40s (around the time I'm likely to get better from the other) - should I not have children because I don't know when I'm going to be in a position to work?

As it happens I don't get any benefits for being a parent, just the standard ones (CTC/CB) and my disability money.

Of course there are exceptional circumstances and instances where despite forward planning things come along to scupper your path and sheer bad luck.

However, it pees ME off when some people assume that others who are successful or at least comfortable and satisfied are just lucky. The way my life has turned out had nothing to do with 'luck'. I had the same opportunities as most people have. Likewise, my points about GPs have been ignored. Yes, they may be very successful now but they've had to get A grades at A Level and 7 years + after college with bugger all money, stupid hours and massive debts. Their success is nothing whatsoever to do with luck. And certainly I've taught students from the most appalling circumstances who've gone on to university to train to be doctors and I've taught students and teach a lot of them who piss their EMA up the wall each week, don't hand their work in on time and get poor results or drop out when they realize they're going to have to work hard etc, etc.

There are some people who don't work hard at school, who don't have aspirations or a career plan, who leave school as soon as they can, who CHOOSE to have children before they are qualified or have a career. Nothing wrong with any of those things at all but then it amazes me when they talk about how other people have more 'luck' than they do and whinge on about what a rough deal they've had.

Often aspirations and motivation is to do with parental role models and home support. And that's part of why the GOvt offers financial support to working parents - to break the cycle whereby children from low achieving parents are likely to be low achieving themselves.

This also makes interesting if depressing reading but helps explain why the Govt may be particularly interested in targetting LPs for support:

www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

"if you are unqualified and unemployed then you are almost certainly going to have a very hard life as may your children potentially for a long time and possibly for ever. If you are unqualified and unemployed (and even if you're not) and financially entirely dependent on your husband than you are taking an enormous risk in all sorts of ways."

Yes I agree but as we keep saying, that is not the case for the majority of Lone Parents.

You can keep banging on about the minority as much as you like, I'll keep banging on that they're a minority.

Oh and you haven't said whether you take your husband's income into consideration when planning big moves, like a new house or a new baby, or just rely on your own.

Oh please

Civitas is a right wing organisation with extremely conservative opinions on women, the family, education, immigration, etc. To the extent that they've been accused of racism in the past. (I don't know whether they are or not, not interested enough in them to find out, but it'll give you a flavour of what kind of views they have.)

Don't quote them at us as some kind of font of wisdom. They don't like us on principle.

'Yes I agree but as we keep saying, that is not the case for the majority of Lone Parents.'

Well, sadly not according to Gingerbread if you look above,

''Increasingly, childhood poverty has become associated with being in a lone parent family. In 1968, 19% of children living in poverty were in lone parent families. Now that figure is 43%. 34% of children living in poverty in 1995-6 were in workless lone parent families compared with 15% in 1968. Lone parent families have not participated in the improvement in living standards experienced by the majority of the families over the last 20 or 30 years. (iii)'

As for whether I take my dp's income into account when applying for a mortgage, that's irrelevant really to this discussion. The point is (which I absolutely did and do take into account when planning my family) is could I afford to support my kids on my own? And I could and can. That means house, school and feed them on my income without benefits (obviously child benefit is universal).