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?

Oops, sorry. Anyway it's time for bed. You'd think I could spend my evening more fun than this when I've just broken up for the Xmas holidays!! Night all.

Ivy, I think single parents as other parents are capable of making sensible choices. I really don't think there are many single parents who think one day, 'Ooh, I must go and get a job that I don't really want and which isn't going to pay very much just so that somebody else will have a proportion of their wage paid'. I think you have to credit single with the intelligence to make sensible choices.

As a single parent that has gone out to work and wondered why the goverment is prepared to pay more to my child minder than I actually earn - I do wonder why the goverment thinks I am crap as a mother and should not stay at home and look after my own child? I wonder why if my dc goes of the rails society blams me as a single mum - not my childminder?

I do pay tax and whn the 10p tax band was scrapped I wrote to my MP and complained - he told me dont worry will will be putting your benifit up. I dont want my benifit put up, I dont want to rely on benifit - put the 10p tax back instead and let me work for my money.

Of course I know single parents can make sensible choices and can credit single parents with making sensible choices - did you really mean to come across as patronising? Hopefully it is just the way it reads. It just seems that Mp's and yourself are very belittling to single parents, the attitude there there we will help you - you shouldn't look after your own child you go to work and we will fiddle with the wages so that it all looks good.

Its not good, its a shear and utter f*cking farce.

When it is cheaper for the tax payer to pay me to stay home and look after my dc - more expensive for the tax payer to send me out to work.

"so where the hell is Mr Right" - I think he's at home with Mrs Right and the kids...

But there isn't equality in being a lone parent.

It is v. differernt from being a parent in a couple. Just logistically, as well as emotionally. The annual leave thing for a start - a couple has 40 days annual leave they can divvy up if both work or no need to worry about annual leave if one is a SAHP, versus a LP's 20 days, but their kids have the same amount of holidays and sickness needing cover. Something as simple and basic as that can (and frequently does) simply scupper a LP in work, where a couple will be able to ride it by good juggling. The incidence of LP's having to give up work in July (IE the start of summer holidays) has gone down in recent years due to summer holiday clubs etc., there's no doubt that in many areas childcare provision is better, but it's still the single biggest obstacle to LP's working. And it stops them working in a way it doesn't stop couples working. You simply cannot claim equality there.

Along with the back to work schemes, they desperately need to have good quality childcare. But pigs will fly before that happens.

Um kewcumbers he's obviously not Mr Right then, is he?

gold - yes I am currently on benefits (and I changed my name first so NERRRR )

Ivy, I think you're assuming that the Govt takes a personal interest in judging parents in a way that they just don't.

As we've been saying at length parents are still given benefits to stay at home with children up to the age of 12.

And the benefits for parents who go back to work with young children have to cover the added cost of childcare but reduce over time. As we've said it's cost effective to keep parents in work because it's hard to get them back into work (at the same level) once they've taken a break

My situation is a perfect example. When I returned to work part-time after maternity leave and had to pay for childcare for 2 my salary barely covered the childcare BUT during that time I was paying into my pension (a saving for the future for me and the Govt) and I maintained my job and now my kids are in school I'm no longer receiving any benefits at all except child benefit so it was absolutely cost effective for me and the Govt in my case.

If I wasn't thinking of the long-term (and without Govt cushion of child tax credits and discounts for 3 year olds) financially it would have made sense for me to give up my job and stay at home for a while but as it is it's good for me, my family and the Govt that I didn't (even though it cost us all financially in the short-term).

No Littlejingle I meant it shouldn't make any difference whether you are a lone parent, a parent or not a parent if you are unemployed once your children are school-aged. So neither group should be targeted more for work or supported less than the other.

'Mr Hain added: "Because we are serious about tackling child poverty, we intend that this age will be reduced to seven from October 2010, backed up by the local availability of high-quality wrap-around childcare." '

From same BBC article.

"Once their kids are in school only working tax credits which would redeuce as their salary increased."

assuming their salary increases that is.

And when did before and after school child care become free???

If they're still ona low wage (as the majority will be for life) - they'll still qualify for some housing benefits, and council tax benefits, and as the OP points out more CTC than when they were at home.

Oh don't remind me of childcare issues, I'm trying to put that issue out of my mind for now for when I return to work. There is one regular after school/holiday scheme that caters for 8yrs over and in our town. Needless to say it's very difficult to get your child a place there. There are a couple of childminders that will take that age too - but they're few and far between and the chances of finding one that could take all 3 of my DS's is going to be tough >

"My situation is a perfect example. When I returned to work part-time after maternity leave and had to pay for childcare for 2 my salary barely covered the childcare BUT during that time I was paying into my pension (a saving for the future for me and the Govt) and I maintained my job and now my kids are in school I'm no longer receiving any benefits at all"

So what did you pay your bills with if your salary barely covered the childcare >>>>

And you no longer receieve benefits because you earn above the threshold (obviously) for which you would qualify. BUT a MASSIVE number of jobs in the workplace are jobs where people will still get government benefits. Even if I had stayed as a carer, and assuming I'd managed to get myself a senior position, even working full time I would still have been able to claim HB and CTB.

Well I think you're wrong, I think LP's should be targeted less for the simple and practical reason that the logistics of them participating in the cash economy are different from those of parents who live together or those of childless people. Although I think if they want to access support to get back to work, the support should not be any less.

Anyway we are going round in circles and I really need to go to bed so good night.

Yes, but there's still no comparison in terms of the amount of benefits. Really. Plus if you are doing a job then you are contributing to society throught the job and tax and NI etc. etc. And, in a job, there should be opportunties for training, developing skills (ICT etc), further qualifications which might lead to promotion or a better job. There are lots of jobs that are very hard to step out of for any length of time and then go back to (at the same level). My job would have been a nighmare - this year they're introducing new A Level Specs, in 2 years time new GCSE specs etc. It would be very, very hard to take 5 years out and then get another job anywehre decent.

Gold, hahaha, I'm a bit tired of mine already so might change back.

You are entitled to the amont the CSA states, take it, and let the IS people know that you are taking it. It's disregarded income for WTC I think, as will CB be in Jan.

Oh right and you believe the government will provide "high quality" wraparound childcare do you?

Don't be silly, of course it won't be high quality. It will be cheap and low quality, as my DS's after school club is now. Do you remember them saying that the after school clubs would have guitar and piano lessons and chess clubs? My kids are still waiting for those to materialise. I think they'll be waiting for a bloody long time.

If you are bringing up children, you are contributing to society.

Ooh yes it's gone 11PM, it must be time for a SAHM/ WOHM argument.

taking a break, why is it seen as taking a break when you bring up dc.

it is a really important thing to actually do and do properly. There are even people that make a caree out of looking after children, child minders and nursery nurses, they are not taking a break whilst they look after children.

why i'm not in bed

Well I had savings and I had dp. It was a difficult decision though and when I first went back I was furious to think that I was earning so little after paying the £700 a month childcare that I might as well just work 1 day in ASDA with dp looking after the children. I think if I'd been happier just being at home and hadn't wanted to keep that particular job I would have given up the work. But I worked really hard to get my job and that was the thought that made me stick at it even when it wasn't financially wroth it.

Coldtits - thank you. Now I know I'm not going mad. I was banging on about this on another thread last week and was basically accused of talking out of my arse!

Yes you are but you are ALSO bringing up children if you are doing a paid job.

Now my children are at school tehre's nothing I'm not doing in terms of being a mum than a SAHM could do and as a WOHM I'm doing quite a lot that a SAHM couldn't.

ivy I agree that it's important to bring up children and to work with children however if i had stayed at home while my children were small I WOULD have been taking a break from my career.

there are two of you candles - not on your own trying to do three jobs then

candles this isn't about you and your career.

it is about single parents, working outside the home/ on low wages - the OP did state the wages at the start, very clearly and exactly how low the wages where. So not talking about caree breaks

"there should be opportunties for training, "

yes there should be there frequently isn't.

Gold - yes I know, but I also know my exH's financial predicament at the moment, everything was taken out in his name and because of the marriage break-up he's in the deep doggy doo doo's (the letter from the bank demanding the full amount still outstanding on the mortgage - just over 6 figures - arrived just yesterday - to this adddress (he changed his details with the bank when he moved out - I saw what it was because DS3 very "kindly" opened it for m him".

He's an idiot in many ways, but I don't want to see him go under completely - he's already got certain repossesion to face. The fact is that depsite the income "on paper" he just doesn't have the money they've said he should pay at the moment. As things currently stand he's almost certainly going to end up still owing the mortgage lenders money even when they sell it - because of the dropping house prices.

Unlike many single mothers who are left lumbered with the family debts - he's taken them all with him. Miracously I've recently checked my credit reports and I'm not financially assosciated with him !(we never took out any joint loans/bank accounts etc) so I've come away from the deep financial shit we were in before we split very lucky. I do have my own credit card, and a littlewoods account, but they both have small very managable balances. Whereas he's left with a mortgage he's now unable to pay, and a large loan (which CSA won't take into consideration as it was taken out to set up a business not to "directly benefit the family"..........ermm yes it was - we should all have benefitted had the business taken off)

We've agreed a figure that he's paying for now - until the end of January, then he's going to up it.

I may no longer be married to him (well I am legally - but you know what I mean) but he's still the father of my DS's, and sees them regularly - that to me right now is more important than the money. He's giving me a token amount (which I'm not budgetting into my monthly incomings - so is a nice little bonus >).

I know he'll pay the proper amount when he's able to - but for now he can't and I'm not going to push it either.

Ironically last month he was forced to move (things turned very sour in the shared house he was in) and I lent him some money towards his deposit (as I've got some money I'm saving for my impending move).........he promised me it back at the start of December - and he did. He promised me the token amount for the maintenance before Christmas - and he has.

He's a tosser in many ways, but he's also true to his word when it comes to money.

So in short yes I know I'm entitled to it, but I don't dislike him enough to screw him over.