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?

As an isolated factor it is not an excuse: but in conunction with other factors (such as lack of chldcare, available jobs) it is a contributory factor.

well you know what connie -for the first 5/6yrs of my marriage it appeared I'd made a good choice - but you know what - none of us can readh the future (or other people) so there's no guarantee that someone that seems like a good choice now is still going to appear that way 1,5,10,15yrs down the line.

"tough shit" is it if it doesn't mae financial sense? Oh right - so you'd rather see More children living in poverty in the UK??? right - because if working leave the parents below the poverty line -- that also means the children are too.

And people on lower incomes (and those below the poverty line) have increased health problems - so another drain on soceity as they use up NHS resources. Especially so in the winter when the poor can't afford to heat their homes.

That's so true FAQ- FIL ran away with someone else (and the savings!) after 35 years.

That's a lot of years when she thought she'd made a fab choice!

and actually now I can look back more objectively I don't think I made a bad choice at all actually. He's not a bad man, he's a good dad, it just didn't work out with me and him. Perhaps the only mistake was actually marrying him - as we do actually get on well now!! (but not that well LOL)

The initial figures are misleading because child benefit is paid to ALL parents and is not dependent on your income or your status (single or not single parent) but also the working tax and child tax credit are reduced as your children get older (and often your income gets higher simultaneously). So the Govt gives you a boost to keep you or get you back into working while you are paying childcare which is badly needed but when kids are in school if parents have kept working they should be earnign more and have less childare costs. So it's looking at the long-term. It's very hard to get back into work after a gap and especially a long gap.

In the short-term it may cost more but as it lessens the likelihood of long-term dependency on the state it is cost effective.

Plus there's plenty of research which suggests that the children of some low income families benefit from the experience of childcare settings.

The thing is, if you work and pay for childcare (even if the government pays for 80% of it), that means that both you and a childminder/nursery nurse have a job.

If you don't work, and so don't need childcare, that is two less jobs (not quite, but you see what I mean) to keep the economy moving.

They would prefer you to pay someone else to mind your kids than you did it yourself.

I would be interested to know how many government ministers grew up in homes where both parents/ single parent worked. I'm not saying it's wrong (we do it) but I think it is such a personal choice and quite an intrusive thing for them to legislate on.

But I don't think they are 'legislating' on parents who do or don't work. They are financially supporting both parents who do and parents who don't work. It's then up to the parents to make their choices.

Legislating was the wrong word

I just think the original argument is flawed. A single parent who works (for 16 hours on minimum wage) would be given more financial support than one who doesn't but that doesn't take into account the fact that that money might have to fund 16 hours childcare which would mean that the working parent might still be less well off than the none working one and would probably not think it (financially) worthwhile at least in the short-term.

As I've said even if a parent was only just breaking even financially if this keeps them in the workforce it's still cost effective for the govt because their childcare costs will decrease and salary is likely to increase.

Because if you spend too long on benefits it becomes VERY hard to get off them when your children are older as your CV will have suffered and skills got out of date and you may have confidence issues when it comes to working.

If you work part time when you have kids you're more likely to find it easier to find full time work when the kids are older.

It's a rare (very rare) case of the government taking the longterm view.

but surely there should be the optoin of training or part-time work for single parents? I spent 5yrs at home (and hadn't really worked since leaving school- my only "job" was the one I had on my Gap Year) - I didn't find it difficult to find a job. However I think I would have struggled to find anything that had any decent long term prospects.

Do we really want to force them back to work in poorly paid part-time jobs just so they can end up in a life time of minimum wage full time ones???

I know even if I only get the first 60 points of my degree it will increase my long term job propsects - it's a recognised certificate, and the field that it's in simply having it would be the difference between my application forms for many jobs being binned or actually read.

so yes I could probably quite easily find a part time job, be worse of, and not actually get any skills from it, and have a CV that reads

"cleaning shitty toilets"
"cleaning MacDonalds"
"standing in the playground at lunchtime supervising children"

YAWN

Or you could choose to stay at home with your children for those few years, do training courses, do voluntary work, build on your skills and expertise.... so that when you and your DC are ready, you can get a good job and earn a living wage.

Connie - you are talking out of your rear end.

"Being a single parent is not an excuse not to work - whether it makes financial sense is tough shit tbh. Maybe then less bad choices will be made?"

Get Real.

Honestly! FFS! whether it makes financial sense is tough shit? What about when they run out of food for the children then? Tough - live in a cardboard box and eat from a trash bin because you made a mistake when you were young? (going from your all sp's are due to bad choices pov)

Get a grip for fucks sake.

OR - try it.

Try living as a single parent and getting the level of vitriol poured on you daily from society.

Then see what you think.

oooo evening Lewis

I don't understand this bad choices lark?

Most kids are born into relationships; nobody thinks their relationship (well few) will fail

bad luck far more often

Precisely Peachy - it's simple STEREOTYPYING that all SPs are teenage whores who get pregnant to get a house and sponge off society to get a flat screen TV free (society POV - not mine)

MOST SPs are so from bereavement, abuse escape or just relationship breakdown; shame society, the newspapers and the government are too stupid frankly, to see the truth behind the situation

evenin' FAQ

Dunno who it was but some MNer once made the point that most of those criticising single parents should remember they themselves are only an affair or car accident away from becoming one.

Think about it. I didn't choose to be a single parent.

oh yes of course I got married and had children to get my free house and flat screen TV !!

'but surely there should be the optoin of training or part-time work for single parents?'

Erm, there is. Parents can choose to sit at home and do nothing but bring up their kids, to go to work full-time or part-time, not to work but to train or do volutary work. All of these choices ARE avalaible and there is state financial support for all of them.

The whole argument is silly.

oh right - there's support for training is there? That's why a good friend of mine is unable to do the course that she wants to do because of childcare issues

I think that going to work improves people's help and self esteem. Yes, I think people should be prepared to take the shitty jobs. The shitty jobs in life need to be done and there should be no shame in doing them. These are honest jobs.

"cleaning shitty toilets"
"cleaning MacDonalds"

Both these jobs can show that someone can turn up on time and do a concienous job. I think people who look down on cleaners deserve to have their benefits cut. Why is that many British people see these sort of jobs as beneath them?

"standing in the playground at lunchtime supervising children"

An important job. It can lead to better things like being an LSA, or a more senior job in a school.

It creates a job - someone else has to look after your dc and also it looks good the goverment making single parents go out to work.

Plus the goverment knows that no one would ever believe that you would be better of working rather than staying home on the dole

cynical mood today

Well exactly FAQ.

I spent three years trying to make my relationship with XP work. Ignoring the fact he was shagging around. Living in abject poverty because he gave me £50 out of his wages then pissed the rest up against the wall (or on buying drinks for teenage girls ). Putting up with being left alone with BabyAnarchy for days on end when he didn't come home from work or answer his phone. And more besides...

And why? Well because I wanted to make it work, I thought I could make it right.

I'm very bloody sorry I accidentally got pregnant by a wanker. I'm even sorrier I couldn't keep him despite turning a blind eye to his many wankerish behaviours [sarcastic]