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?

Most mothers could not afford to maintain the standard of living that they have with their DP's income coming into the house, if he upped and took that income with him.

Bully for you if you can.

"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)'"

Where does it say that the majority of LP's are unemployed and unqualified?

Fivecandles - re your GPs example. Of course their success is to do with luck! All our lives are ruled by the luck of the draw. For everyone in your example who worked really hard, got A grades, got through university with no money and made it as a GP, there could equally be someone who worked really hard, got A grades, fell ill at university, couldn't complete the course. Or had no money, then had a major life event that completely interfered with them being able to afford to continue.

Now of course, you could say that me falling ill with glandular fever and then chronic fatigue syndrome at uni, and consequently being completely unable to contemplate a high flying, well paid career was just my bad planning. You could say that - but it wouldn't be true. We all have free choice for sure - but the nature of those choices depends largely on luck.

Also, you are setting up an Aunt Sally - where on this thread has anyone said people only become GP's because of luck? Has anyone said anything of the sort? No one doubts they work hard, studied etc. but as TM says, they also had the luck to have the conditions to do so.

If you read my post above you will see I've said (as it so blindingly obvious I didn't see the need to say it earlier) that despite all manner of good planning there will be people who don't follow the path they had imagined for themselves (or take a while to recover it) because bad stuff happens but to suggest that people succeed and make something of their lives because they are 'lucky' is fatuous as even LJB admits above. Yes, I agree, I personally wasn't struck down by an illness or a particularly traumatic experience but not one thing that I've achieved for myself or my family or anyone else I know has just happened because of 'luck'. It has happened because I and they have planned, worked and made sacrifices and often like the GPs that means YEARS of living in relative poverty whilst getting qualified or experience. And actually because I have taught 1000s of young people I have seen many kids struggle against what you an I might consider ovewhelming odds. A girl for example currently who had to leave her parents' home at age 16 because of horrific circumstances which I won't go into and is now living with her boyfriend and achieving A grades.

One thing is that a lot of people find it very difficult to look long-term like the huge numbers of students I teach who get EMA and therefore in many cases have more disposable income personally that their peers from more comfortable backgrounds and don't save a penny for example. I teach one particular boy who breaks my heart because he's very bright but never does any work. He gets EMA and does a paid job on top (earning nearly £500 a month which is actually more DISPOSABLE income than I have) and prides himself on telling me how he spends every penny on drink, going out, ipod etc. When he doesn't get good grades at A level and in to a top universtiy (which he certainly could) it will be nothing to do with bad luck.

twinklemegan's post earlier

"We all have free choice for sure - but the nature of those choices depends largely on luck."

is so true

chioces also depend on the circumstances you're living with at the time

there's no "one size fits all" in life, it largly depends on health, the support you have, money, as well as your ability

you're lucky when it all falls into place, but sometimes thru no fault of your own it doesn't

"to suggest that people succeed and make something of their lives because they are 'lucky' is fatuous as even LJB admits above."

And I asked where on the thread anyone has said this?

TwinkleMegan did twice above (amongst others) and this is what others have implied too - that whether people succeed or not or end up on benefits or not is just some giant fluke!!

'Guess what people - perhaps you were just lucky?! '

"Perhaps you were just lucky" isn't actually saying that you were just lucky though is it?

It's asking you to consider the role of luck in how your life turned out, vs the role of luck in how other people's lives turned out.

And tbh considering the tiresome smugness of your tone Fivecandles, I'm not surprised that people may phrase themselves slightly unreasonably at times. It's a little tiring to keep reading how well planned and well ordered your life is, when you know nothing about what other people may have gone through which led to them becoming single parents. It's as least as irritating to have it implied that one has been careless, stupid, unthinking, disorganised, etc. etc., as to have it implied that the only reason one is "successful" in life (whatever that means) is because of good luck. Neither attitude is representative of the whole story.

good post LJB

Well, there you go, people who have succeeded and planned their families in such a way that they can support them financially are being presented as either lucky or smug and lone parents are presented as helpless and hopeless victims in the debate on this thread. Sort of odd how the lone parents here then complain about being stereotyped ...

I actually don't think that 'luck' is a very helpful concept to this or really any debate. Because it means you can skip over talking about what really helps and hinders people into work or parenthood or lone parenthood or whataver and stop looking into PATTERNS and cycles.

Nobody has ever denied that there are real obstacles to many lone parents becoming financially independent and able to support their kids not least the fact that many of them have got pregnant before they are qualified and employed for whatever reason.

Yes, people have debilitating illnesses and traumatic experiences which can prevent them from getting qualified or a career.

Yes, people on principle don't agree with contraception or have accidents with their contraception and are unable to contemplate termination for whatever reason.

There are also people who live in poveryty which can be an obstacle to achievement.

Although having said that in this country (since there is free education and support for those on low incomes) it's rarely the poverty of itself that's the real obstacle so much as the attitudes it does or doesn't lead to.

Where I teach (a very deprived area) we have a large proportion of students from immigrant families who, despite often living in poverty, tend to have a more long-term attitude to planning (family and otherwise) and value education than their white peers. So they may well completely accept that they will earn very little for the 7+ years that it takes to qualify as doctors, lawyers, whatever.

It's also the case that parental role models and aspirations are hugely influential so my kids (4 & 6) already assume that they will go to university and not have children until they have jobs as I probably did at their age (with MY parents both working as role models). Again, I think that is one of the reasons why the Govt wants to break the cycle wehreby low achieving parents and young parents and lone parents tend to raise low achieving children who become young parents and lone parents.

Anyway, ho, hum. Think I've said everything that I can say in this debate really and now I'm off to enjoy Christmas with my beautiful children.

In your first paragraph you are being... disingenous. (tan tan tara, word of the week, so glad I've had the chance to use it twice in two minutes on two different threads

oh and not everyone who plans their family is smug fc, just you.

I planned mine, btw.

OK, read the rest. Can't be arsed anymore either, happy christmas.

fivecandles, you're probably quite young, early 30's

one of these days something you've planned will go tits up and there won't be much you can do about it

maybe an elderly mum or dad will need your care more than you can imagine

redundancy

illness

who knows (and I certainly don't wish any of this for you)

but life has a habit of throwing a spanner in the works and messing all of your carefully prepared plans up and through no fault of your own you'll have to leave aside your well planned life and deal with it and maybe life will never be the same again

luck/fate/circumstances, call it what you like, we all deal with the hand we've been given as best we can, maybe one day you'll remember this and lose some of your self righteous tone

I think it's aposite to quote the old Jewish joke for Christmas: "How do you make God larf?"

"Tell him your plans"

Merry Christmas everyone!

true!

merry Christmas!