Benefits...following on from unfit parents thread...

[anais]

Well, who wants to start?

ARE children a privilege? Obviously everyone is fortunate to have children, but doesn't every woman (or man?) have the right to have a child?

JimJams - I know, on accountant's advice no doubt (think we've had this conversation before ) Can't speak for IR (but think they have recruited or trained up 80 tax avoidance officers) but C&E have had to recruit from private sector (paying private sector salaries of course), probably coming acoss schemes they helped devise. It is certainly flavour of the month now but, as you say, the rich are usually immune anyway

Anais, I totally agree with you, I too am a single mum on benefit, for the same reason as you, that is, I wanted to be a SAHM, at least for the first few years of my dd's life. I also would like to come off benefits and work part-time but it's very difficult due to the lack of affordable childcare and the high rents in privately rented accommodation coupled with the lack of council accommodation (average 70 years wait for a council flat in my area).
www, as you're interested (and to enlighten others) here's what I get per weeK:
For me: £53.95
for a child under 16: £37.00
because I have a child: £14.75
minus child benefit lone parent rate: £15.75
Total: £88.95
On top of this, my housing benefit does not cover my rent fully, so out of that £88.95 I have to take out £20 a week to pay my rent.
TBH I don't find difficult to understand why some people cheat the system, although I don't agree with it and don't do it myself.

I also am a single mother on benefits, I chose to stay at home with my daughter because I wanted to be around for her while she is young, being a single parent was not my choice and happened through no fault of my own, but surely I should have the choice to stay at home with my daughter instead of being forced to go out to work so we are not a "drain on society" my daughter also has a disability which would also make it near impossible to find suitable childcare if I were to go back to work.
I am given a total of £132 a week to live on, my daughters disability means she is completely incontenent and I spend nearly £50 a week on nappies for her, I also have to pay a portion of my rent, I am left with very little money at the end of each week. The very idea that I have some kind of luxurious life living on benefits is laughable, I can only just live on the money I receive. If I went out to work I would be marginally better off financially but by the time I had paid out for childcare I would have even less money than I do now and less time with my daughter. I would love to have more children, but I just couldn't afford to whether I was working or not.This is a horrid situation to be in, I am denied the choice to have children because I don't receive enough help financially. Those of you who seem to be of the opinion that the government is paying us too much in benefits need to have a look at how much we are expected to live on, I very much doubt many of you could survive for long on what us in receipt of benefits do. Those who commit benefit fraud are very much in the minority, the rest of us scrape by on what we get and like myself most of us are denied the chances and choices in life everyone else takes for granted. I have worked since the day I left school until the month before my daughter was born, I have always paid taxes, why am i suffering in this way now??

oh no Anais- I don't believe people have a right to have children. Anyone see India Knight's column in the Sunday Times- different kind of issue but I thought her point about the "right" (or not) to have children was spot on. leading on from that though I don't think anyone has the "right" to decide who should and shouldn't have children either. You can either have them or you can't.

Article is here :

www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-735883,00.html

vicimelly- you should be getting free nappies!!!! Talk to your health visitor now!

And vicimelly's post makes another point. The benefits that are available for disability are so complicated that the many people aren't getting what they should be. For example we should have been receieving free nappies for the last year. We haven't been because my health visitor is a bit clueless about that sort of thing (but very nice) and I haven't wanted to push it, (also keep thinking that ds1 will be toilet trained soon...... but that's another story- as I wiped another poo out of the bath and shower yesterday...). If anyone has tried to fill a DLA form in you will know. It's incredibly complicated- often you have to appeal to get the right amount. The amount of DLA you get can then affect other benefits you can recieve. DLA comes from the same people who provide child benefit, CA (carers allowance) comes from the DSS. Different offices, no one tells you about the other. I only knew about CA becuase a friend told me to apply. When I picked up a form I misread it (there was a page missing) and thought I wasn't eligible. I only found out I was eligible as I happened to have my one and only meeting with a social worker who confirmed that I was eligible. The idea tha people are on the scrounge is laughable.

vicimelly are you receiving DLA? If you arent ring social services NOW and get someone to help you fill in the forms. As jimjams says you can also get free nappies although I only get 90 a month(is that normal jimjams?) Once you qualify for DLA you can apply for Carers like jimjams as said. Sorry I have repeated you a bit jimjams just want vici to get what shes entitled to, no-one told me I could claim until about 2/3 months ago and I only found out by accident.

Jimjams you are so right about how hard it is is to claim for your entitlement. My father had invalidety benefit(? not sure what it's propper name was) when he was dying of cancer. It took an appeal for us to get it for him and much letter writing.

The daft thing is there is a very small, hard core, of benfit cheats who ruin the system for everyone else. I sometimes think that these are the only people who understand how the system works. The real claimants get lost in the reams of paperwork.

I really can't believe some of the things I am reading here. So many people are saying they "want" to stay at home, "choose" to do so, or have a right to have children.

What the hell happened to responsibility?

What happened to my choices - I can't choose to be a SAHM (I wouldn't but that's not the point). I know that my choices are limited by what I can provide, and accept the consequences of them without expecting anybody else to provide for me.

Mammya lists what she gets from the state - and I agree it's not much to live on. But it's a hell of a lot more than I get from the state, and that's before you take into account the huge amount I pay them. I know that the victims of the poverty trap are the kids, and I am not proposing any real solutions to the problem (I'm a banker not a politician) but there has to be something wrong with a society where half the people expect that the other half will provide for them. Otherwise we just bring up generations of kids from sink estates, who go on to have kids on sink estates because theres no educaion to make them realise they can do better, and no incentive for them to do so.

Here Here Prufrock!!

I was not aware of how much people on benefit are paid - am now of course - I am absolutely fuming to say the least that I pay more tax per week that you get per week in benefits Mammya.

I get nothing from the state in terms of benefit other than my child allowance and I am the one paying in!!

I would much rather my money go towards benefits for the disabled, a better health service, better schools, better roads, better state pensions for the elderly, as I am sure some of it does.

I resent being away from my daughter each day, thinking I am being a responsible adult and providing for me and my own, to allow you to claim benefits from a pot that I am paying into so you can stay with your child.

I am sorry if people disagree but I think if you chose to have a child you should support it and not expect taxpayers like me to pick up the burden and I think if you are a single mum on benefits it is highly irresponsible and selfish to even consider having another child that people like me in the long run will have to support.

Just logged on again and had to respond to Gumdrop as I felt she jumped down my throat rather....I did not say whether or not I was for or against private medicine. I made the point that the richer people in society pay into two pots for health care. I do disagree with you about it reducing the burden though.

fio2 - the SW told me they make a "contribution" towards nappies - 90 sounds about right she said a few a day- but I've never managed to claim them! I keep saying "if he isn't trained by such and such a date I'll push it" but then I never do. The ones they provide here are too small for him anyway! (It would still be worth claiming becuase I would just use them on ds2 and pay for ds1's pull ups iyswim).

If you do need to clain DLA vicmelly- GET HELP FILLING IN THE FORM!!!!! I almost keeled over the first time I saw it. What a marathon that was! I had some very good tips about the way to fill it in to ensure you get what you are entitled to. For example if you get up at night you have to be up for 20 minuted for it to count. Now when ds1 wakes at night he is awake for 2 hours (usually pretty much to the minute) - I am not sitting with him for those 2 hours but I am up and down, and am most definitely awake. Because I knew about the 20 minute rule I was able to ensure that our night time fun and games was included- if I hadn't known that I may have filled in the form in such a way that his night time wakenings weren't counted.

Boe you are lucky you don't need something from the state- if you did you wouldn't get it. Have to say I think your view of single mothers is a little simplistic. I paid into the state for years, dh pays a bloody fortune in tax and we still don't get the services our child needs. I don't resent it going to your average single mother though, becuase most that I've met would rather be able to work and be able to live somewhere above the bread line.

OK - just to show I can be semi-reasonable (I've had coffee now) here's what I would change to make the benefits system is fairer.

Allow childcare to be a taxable expense. At any income level. That benefits me (because I work in an area full of rich bankers I have to pay £1,145/ month for a decent nursery) and the single mother, who can't afford to work because childcare consumes all the after tax wages.

Pay a decent level of child benefit for all children under school age. (And all disabled children up to any age) Enough to make it possible for mothers(or fathers) to stay at home. And don't call it child benefit - call it parents pay or some other fancy nomiker to remove the stigma of the SAHP on benefits. Because she/he does work - in one of the hardest jobs in the world.

Stop unemployment benefit after one year. Force the long term unemployed into jobs provided by the state.

Maybe I could be a politician...

Boe and Prufrock I am speechless... !

jimjams my HV sorted the nappies out for me ask yours if she'll do the same, they only have to fill in a form and get the GP to sign it. Also I have a choice of size 5 nappies or size 5or6 pampers easy up pants so if I was you I'd ring up your HV and give her a push. Mind you I dont know if it depends on the area you live in but as Ive said before Im in Staffordshire at the moment(will be moving soon) and the funding here is very bad.

I must musn't I fio2- but then I'd feel like I'd given up on toilet training and he's so nearly there.......

Ahhhh you're in a "pull-ups" area........ I've heard about them...... My friend is still having to squeeze her 6 year old into a maxi nappy (even my 18 month old ds2 has junior!). Health/SS whoever provides them isn't very practical down here!

You would be speechless if you saw my tax bill.

Tinker, your points just back mine up (not sure if you meant that or not, but thanks!) Taxing the superrich further just will increase avoidance schemes - that is very clear. Look at bloody michael ashcroft based in the cayman islands, paying no tax, with multiple suggestions of moneylaundering through his company (all unproven and I'm sure completely unfounded, she says to ensure that mumsnet is not accused of libel) but still getting a peerage. Look at the sale of the Inland Revenue property portfolio to Mapperly Limited - based in the BVI or some other tax haven! God, if the IR can't ensure they sell their properties somewhere they can at least collect stamp duty on them, what hope is there for dealing with tax avoidance?! But put in place a fair and reasonable tax system for all and you will get less avoidance (partly because it will be less financially viable to put in place these expensive schemes and to take the v expensive tax advice needed to run them and partly because people will see that it is fair). But taxing someone on £150k a year out of existence while someone on £1m can afford to avoid half of those taxes by being paid in jersey isn't going to solve anyone's problems.

Look hate to point it out, but your tax bill is huge because you earn a lot. I know what big tax bills look like- when dh was working in the City his was huge as well. However you are paying a lot of tax becuase you are earning a lot. How can you be angry that you are paying more tax than someone is living on each week? I do think there is a very strong argument for raising the threshold for the 40% band and for doing away with indirect taxation etc etc, but if you earn a lot why are you so anti paying for those less fortunate than yourselves. I'm not including benefit cheats, I'm not including people who have absolutely no intention of ever lifting a finger, but those people form a minority. The majority of people I know on benefits have spent some time paying into the system (ie working and being taxed- like myslef) and some time needing help from the state- ie it goes both ways. They have paid in and will pay in in the future- why can't they expect help when they need it. What are you going to do stop people on benefits accessing the NHS (actually the health service is so bad that it has now reached the stage where you can't access a decent standard of care unless you pay for it).

Not sure which party would take on your ideas prufrock. I think they could be a bit too extreme even for IDS!

Winnie, me too. Prufrock, thank goodness you are a banker and not a politician. Will write more in a while.

Jimjams - thanks for recommending the Sunday Times article by India Knight, very thought provoking and yes, I agree that children are a 'privilege' (or not in some cases!!) not a right.

excellent manifesto Prufrock - you've got my vote

PSH- that IR affair is shocking isn't it? I think we do more or less agree on this. What's wrong with a sliding scale of taxation though? I do take your point about taxing the super-rich no working- but you are arguing that its not fair that someone on 150k is paying the same as someone on 1 millions- surely by extension its not fair that someone on 35 is paying the same on any pay rise as soemone on 150k etc etc.

I'm all for direct taxation. Fair taxation. And the super-rich paying their share . I know none of this would ever work though.

Can I just make it clear my vote is with winnie and www.

prufrock- out of interest are you a City banker? It's just I know a lot and often I have found the city becomes somewhat insulated an they have generally lost sight of what goes on outside of the square mile. I remember explaining to a banker friend that another friend was having problems with her PhD grant and was only getting 4 grand and the banker friend said "what a month that's dreadful" - I had to point out that I meant 4 grand a YEAR. She did have the decency to look a bit embarrassed.