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?

ahh so you had a DP - what would you have done if you didn't have a DP (or savings?) and had been on your own with your DC??

Wouldn't have been quite so simple then would it?

(btw sorry for my very long, very waffly, totally OT post, didn't realise how long it was )

But Ivy, as I've siad the figures and OP are misleading because the benefits given to a WOHP (and only ones working for 16 hrs on minimum wage which many won't be) would be temporary and cost effective in the long-term.

I actually think the Government and the Daily Mail reading public is missing the point on this. Even if it is theoretically possible for a lone parent to go out to work and afford the childcare (and actually I do think there is adequate assistance with that), it's not all about money is it? The fact is that:

a) childcare is really hard to find
b) childcare near your work is even harder to find
c) childcare near your work, both of which are accessible by public transport at the right times, plus an employer that will put up with you having to leave early/stay off when your child is ill/upset at nursery, is likely to be well nigh impossible to find

Why put a family through all that hassle and heartache? Imagine being forced into work when you just know your child isn't settling with the only nursery/childminder that's available. I couldn't deal with that.

The arguments about role models, self-esteem are all very well, but they are really none of the Government's business - that is social engineering and it just doesn't work.

fivecandles - how can you guarantee it would only be temporary?

Do you not realise that not everyone ends up on well paid salaries? In some fields (caring for example) the high salaries just don't exist, so those people (and I'm not just talking about the ones at the bottom of the ladder, Senior Carers too) would STILL QUALIFY FOR MANY OF THEIR BENEFITS.

Absolutely right FAQ.

Well, I don't honestly know. I may have felt like I had to give up work but then dp would have contributed money and support. I wouldn't have wanted to stop working and I am quite sure I would have found it hard to get a job I liked as much if i'd given up.

But that's not the point really.

I've never said that it was easy to be a WOHM esp. as a lone parent with young children. In fact, I said that while children are pre school for many it wouldn't be worth it (at least financially and in the shortterm)

My point about talking about my own circumstances is saying that for the GOVT it is worth paying benefits to WOHM because it is cost effective to keep parents (and everyone) in work.

The OP's argument was what is the point of encouraging parents to go to work when they have to pay out more in benefits.

But this argument is flawed because the benefits are only more where the parent is on the minimum wage and working only 16 hours and they're temporary and the benefits need to offset childcare.

five candles I can assure you the figures are not blardy misleading - I have lived with thoses figures - the OP is not misleading you.

Your tax bill will increase to pay for single mother to stack shelves in asda - so just think about what asda takes from you. It would be cheaper in the long term for your tax to keep the single parent at home and care for their own child, long term for the childs well being.

Why society wants single parents to do three jobs i do not know, it is blardy hard work and there is noone to share the work load with.

It is not temporary

Temporary because once your kids are in school you don't have nearly the same childcare costs and the amount of tax credits decreases. No, there's no guarantee that your salary will increase but most people's does over time!!

Fivecandles - it works for a full time minimum wage job as well. And a fair way up the scale. I am in a profession, but earn below the average wage - much above the minimum wage though. DH and I are hardly any better off than we would be if I was on the minimum wage. That illustrates the sheer amount of topping up from tax credits that is available.

In fact I'm going to find my post on the recent other thread...

no the benefits aren't only more if they're working 16hrs a week minimum wage, people working a lot more hours than that qualify too.

Ivy, you're missing my points. Misleading because they are only 2 sets of figures.

One set of benefits for WOHM single parents who work only 16 hours for only the minimum wage when this is a minortiy of people. There are plenty of WOHM who go back fulltime or for 20+ hours on a higher salary who would get much less in benefits.

And also because of the costs saved by the Gvt by keping people in work and also because this amount of benefit would be temporary because as the children go to school you would get less child tax credit and would be in a position to work more hours etc etc

These parents are on the minimum wage and it is long term, that is what you dont seem to get the minimum wage is £5.74 per hour and that is what a lot of large companies pay their staff - long term, they dont put the wages up each year with inflation they put the wages up when the minimum wage gets put up.

large hugh numbers of part time jobs are held by woman - majority woman, 90% of single parents are woman thoses same woman who are earning the minimum wage, long term.

It's still cost effective. It's cost effective to keep people in work.

work more hours once the children are at school????
Childcare is much more difficult to juggle with school age children.

Your benefits are still reduced as your children go to school. You still receive much less benefits over your lfie time if you are in work rather than if you are at home. It's silly to argue otherwise.

"but most people's does over time!! "

Not that much. And certainly not enough for most to take them above the threshold where they no longer qualify for help with housing costs/Council Tax WTC (it's only the childcare element that will decrease when they start school)

My "manager" at work (she was the Nigh Carer Manager, very experienced lady, been there over 10yrs) earned approx £7hr - she (like the rest of us) got a 20p pay rise once a year (or every 2 years apparently if the owner of the home could be arsed).

This is true for a lot of companies in the private sector.

I worked this out using entitledto.com. These figures assume one child, and housing costs of £100 a week.

Single parent on benefits

Total entitlements £12307.79
Net cost to tax payer £12307.79 per annum

Single parent earning £210 a week (approx minimum wage for 35 hours), assuming average childcare costs of £160 a week

Total gross earnings £10920
Total entitlements £14167.12
Total tax paid £1580.80

Net income £23506.32
Net cost to tax payer £12586.32 per annum

I take the point about childcare costs reducing when a child goes to school. But then the whole question of before/after school care comes into play - presuming nobody wants a generation of latch key kids. And you're still talking about nigh on £7k a year in tax credits - that's not a big enough difference to justify the harshness of the rhetoric IMHO.

But really, the Government should just be clear on this and state that the policy will definitely only kick in once a child goes to primary school - the point at which the taxpayer would actually see some financial benefit. It would remove a lot of worry and uncertainty.

five candles my child tax credit or any of my tax credits had no change when my dd started school

Where did you get this gem from?

the only benefits that are likely to be reduced for most people is the childcare element of the WTC. Housing benefits, and council tax benefit they many would almost certainly still qualify for.

You receive less money from the Govt in benefits if you work than if you don't AND you contribute to NI and tax and you are more likely to pay into a pension scheme and your children are less likely to be brought up in poverty.

"you are more likely to pay into a pension scheme "

oh dear - you're really not living on the same planet as a lot of us are you??? Pay into a pension scheme - for the majority of people on a minimum wage that would be a dream come true to have the opportunity to pay into a pension scheme!

No they will still be brought up in poverty

They'll just see less of you and you'll be more stressed.

You are simply ignoring the fact that the average income in this country is something like £19K. As IvyK has pointed out, lots of that is women, many LP's.

But why the assumption that all single parents are only ever going to earn the minimum wage. Don't you think that's incredibly patronising and depressing?

Why is this entirely about benefits recieved by single mums and benefits received by single mums on the minimum wage (and working part time)????

No you do not - that is the whole point of this thread, you cost more money to the goverment if you go to work than if you stay on the dole.

If you earn the minimum wage you dont pay Income Tax - you dont actually earn enough money to pay it

Fivecandles - this is slightly off topic. But as a matter of fact, if both DH and I worked instead of just me, we could actually receive more in benefits not less. And I'm not just talking about the childcare element. It is not black and white at all.