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?

not read whole thread but by enouraging them back to work they get income tax off them aswell. wouldn't that make it financially advantageous?

Oh yes my return to work interview was with a very nice young girl who couldn't spell.

How does it benefit the country to waste public money getting her to interview me? (We had a lovely chat and a nice cup of tea, but I'm not entirely sure that that's a good use of public money.)

oh yes I agree that some people do.

HOwever a lot of us don't

disclaimer some of my comments may come back to bite me on the arse when I start my degree and find myself going "oh shit" [frgin]

LittleJingle, vigilance and scepticism I agree with. Paranoia I don't. I see no problem with the Govt's proposals as they are. It's right and proper to offer support parents and anyone unemployed and not just write a blank cheque and forget about them. No Govt could go round cutting benefits willy nilly because there'd be an outcry

OK, let's come back to this discussion in 10 years and see what's happened. Being able to see a long term agenda is not paranoia - this has already happened in the USA, do you really think it hasn't occurred to anyone in the UK political class to do it here?

I disagree about it being a waste of money. Otherwise you are saying that we (because it's taxpayers paying for it obviously) should just write blank cheques for anyone who doesn't fancy working and then leave them to it potentially for their lifetimes (with the knock on effect of their children growing up in poverty with limited opportunities)?

oh and as an aside - as things stand at the momment I would need to work 25hrs a week (minimum) at mminimum wage to bring in what I get on benefits and not be any worse off.

And from all jobs with day hours 16-30 hours on the Job Centre Website I've found just 2 jobs which I could potentially apply for. One of those is a home carers job which says "own transport required" but I applied for those in the past as some of them will try and give you clients that live close together so you can either walk or cycle between them (not very dignified cycling with a care assistants "dress" on - but doable )

But you could equally see a positive agenda in the long-term strategy couldn't you? That of getting parents and in some ways more importantly their children out of poverty. Personally I think this is hugely important.

but it is worth persuing the long term strategy if in the short terms it plunges more parents (and their children) into poverty?

I don't disagree that something has to be done, for the working poor as well, but it's a question of how - and I'm not sure that (potentially) targetting lone parents with young children is the way forward.

Mm but the incentive is not that you would get more money than you would on benefits but that it's money that you've earned and don't have to ask for or justify no?

Personally, I have every sympathy with parents whose children are pre-school wanting to stay at home (and it not being financially worth their going to work) but I would rather do any job (and have) minimum wage or more even now than take benefits after that point. That's just part of what makes me tick.

Well it's hardly a blank cheque.

May I remind you that 2/3 of lone parents already work in the cash economy. A higher percentage than the average mother. Many of the ones who don't, don't do so for very valid reasons such as the childcare issue, the trauma of the break up needing to be worked through etc., but will be working when the children are older and/ or they are able to do so. The average LP is a LP for 5 years, not years on end.

There will always be a minority of hopeless people who will be too scared/ incompetent/ unqualified to engage with the workplace without extreme persuasion. Why lone parents should particularly be thought to be over-represented in that group and therefore targeted for repressive measures, is really incomprehensible if you look at the figures. There just aren't that many of htem who are sitting on their arses doing nowt for years, certainly no more than any other social group. That's just one of those old myths.

I agree that putting pressure on parents with young parents isn't a good thing but I think it's important to maintain contact with them so they don't disappear. I think support (genuine support)in preparing for work is a good thing even if you're not in a position to start looking for a job for a few years.

The fundamental problem which all these government policies ignore is that so far, all human societies have functioned because they have designated a class of people to be the ones who do all the shitwork, and for these people to be the property of the ones who don't. The current Western model of 'everyone' being in paid employment is flawed, because the shitwork: the wiping of bums and feeding of babies and cleaning of floors and minding the elderly, still has to be done, yet it's either done for no money because it's a woman's duty, or if it is done for a wage, that wage is the minimum, the job is insecure and regarded as low status.
Really, the Government should look at paying a specific 'caring' benefit, for people who are looking after their young children, their elderly relatives, their family members who are sick/disabled and need constant care... and this benefit should be at least equivalent to the minimum wage for a full-time job. Because right now so much of this sort of work is still regarded as 'women's work' ie to be done for no money (apart from one's keep, provided by A Man), because it's what women are for, and not important till it isn't actually being done at all.

Well the proposals aren't just aimed at lone parents but

'He identified the groups who "remain furthest from the labour market" with "untapped potential".

As well as lone parents, these include long-term claimants, ethnic minority groups, 16 and 17-year-olds not in education, employment or training and inner-city "pockets of poverty and worklessness". '

Not a blank cheque exactly but one lone parent could end up getting thousands and thousands of pounds (not just in beneifts but in admin) over their life time and then there's the economic and other consequences for their children.

I'm certainly not arguing that these should be cut willy nilly but I do think that with benefits come responsibilities and that they should be given responsibly which includes giving support.

you see we do sort of agree here (I think FC).

I would take a minimum wage job (doing anything) tomorrow even if it meant coming home with the same amount as I get now.

As it stands at the moment I would bring in quite a lot less that I get on benefits (which keep me just above the poverty line. I'm not prepared to send my children into poverty just so that I can say "well I'm not claiming from teh state).

I do hope to return to work once he starts school, but whether that's striaght after he starts school, or before he leaves infants will depend on whether I can find an employer that will sponsor me to complete my degree, it's one of those with a "time scale" on it (very generous one but a time scale non-the-less) and I would be totally an utterly devastated (presuming I actualy get that far and pass the courses up to when DS3 starts school ) if I got so close and then was unable to finish it, especially as it's going to be tough juggling the kids and my church commitments as it is.

But that's a few years away yet - and you never know I might meet a rich man who'll keep me so I can finish my degree in comfort and continue spending all day on MN LOL

with the lone parents it is about the long term effects fro them and their children

''Children of unemployed lone parents were five times more likely to be in poverty than children of lone parents in full-time jobs.'

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6904520.stm

See where you're coming from sticks but it doesn't have to be that way. If you look at Scandinavia there's much better maternity and paternity pay and then most women do return to work with better quality childcare. There nursery workers are better qualified and better paid.

I personally think that childcare is a highly skilled and valuable job which is massivley underpaid in this country.

"but one lone parent could end up getting thousands and thousands of pounds (not just in beneifts but in admin) over their life time and then there's the economic and other consequences for their children."

which takes us back to the OP

But you could equally say "Children of unemployed parents were five times more likely to be in poverty than children of parents in full-time jobs."

Of course you're more likely ot be poor if your parents haven't got wages coming in, whether they're lone parents or coupled parents.

TBH I think it's all quite idiotic to introduce these changes now. There is going to be an almight recession. The jobs are not going to exist, employers are not going to be hiring, and with the exception of enlightened employers like Marks and Spencer who run a brilliant LP back to work scheme, they are not going to be wanting to take chances on employees who might need extra support/ not work out because they've not come the traditional route for their industry.

I'm not against supporting vulnerable groups into the market place as and where it's appropriate. It's inappropriate "support" I would have a beef with. And pointless support if you raise expectations which simply are not going to be filled at the moment. It's going to take quite a while for the economy to recover and for these schemes to be appropriate.

LOL FAQ, I'm kind of thinking I've served my time already... so where the hell is Mr Right, he's about 2 years late so far.

No and no. A lone parent with a job is not going to be getting anything like the same sort of Benefits. Once their kids are in school only working tax credits which would redeuce as their salary increased.

But the interview was not a waste of time from the point of view of the state or the taxpayers in that you are not being left to languish without anyone knowing wehre you are or what you're doing.

And the person who had the interview after you may have got some really useful advice.

Just because you don't feel that you benefited directly doesn't mean having the interviews isn't valuable.

Same as GPs - for every 5 patients they see with a common cold that they can't treat they see 1 patient who they diagnose with a serious illness. Plus their job is to educate so the people they see with the cold may be less inclined to come back next time?

And although I was hugley more qualified than the interviewer that I saw when I claimed income support at 21 it did as I say have the effect of making me want to get a job and that's part of the function too. nobody wants to keep having to go to what they see as pointless interviews therefore an incentive to get to work. Job done.

What is 'LP'?

'But you could equally say "Children of unemployed parents were five times more likely to be in poverty than children of parents in full-time jobs."'

Well, yes, where they're both umemployed. But they already have to go to interivews etc. There's no difference. It's just that the OP was about lone parents. Equality works both ways.

LP = Lone Parent

Take your point about the recession. Same about the disabilities thing. I think all this was on the cards before it all started kicking off in the economy.

Gold, sorry we have a really similar name at the moment.

As I understand it, you are currently on benefits?