To think some posters need a "reality check" re. views on benefit changes

[lesley33]

I have some concerns about some of the proposed changes to benefits and how these may adversely affect people. So this is NOT a thread about that. But I am getting increasingly fed up at some of the frankly ridiculous reasons some posters are giving against the proposed changes. Examples include:

1. That children 12 and over will be traumatised if both parents work - even if second parent only works 20 hours a week.

1. That a parent with children 12 and over shouldn't have to commute up to 90 minutes each way to work. Far from ideal I know and if someone is on low wages this might not be affordable. But perfectly doable.

1. That childcare is impossible to get for teenagers. Ignoring the fact that many parents, myself included use a combination of kids home alone and afterschool activities.

AIBU to think some people need a reality check? Plenty of people with children already work, many with both parents working full time by the time their kids are teenagers. Plenty of people have long commutes, struggle with childcare, etc. Things might not be "ideal", but these are things that many many working parents already do.

Its fine Methe. I can understand your anger. But I have read some posts about people who will genuinely be really badly affected.

so unless we wrap our children in cotton wool and micro manage our young teens we dont give a shit?

I have 2 teen dc and the oldest is sen, diagnosed at 3 and in a sen school but
i refuse to baby him and stillgive him some responsibility, rather than giving him a let out clause just because of his sen.

My daughter hasn't ever set the house on fire yet, but she has set 2 microwaves on fire and I once came home to find a pair of jeans in the oven, which was on full, and she'd gone out. (In the oven because they wouldn't fit in the microwave apparantly )

I don't think anyone is saying that cantspel. Are they?

lesley - the point I'm trying to make is that shiftwork is fast becoming the norm, and if we move people around en masse as will happen with HB changes and working people being encouraged to move where the jobs are, then we destroy support networks so that it also becomes more common that people don't have family and friends to help out with childcare.

I think the very thing these changes are trying to promote- self reliance and the so-called big society - are actually going to be made more difficult as a result of these changes, because there is no joined-up thinking going on.

I wouldn't get an exemption if I had to go on benefits - and quite rightly given that I've said I have no need to be at home looking after my DS, somebody needs to supervise him with my DD though and her with him tbh, lol

You'd think that really childcare for teenagers isn't needed, it sounds like it makes sense, but it's not the case for everyone

Hello Shirley!!

not outright but it can come across that way, but then maybe because i grew up back in the late 60's early 70's where my mum had no choice but to leave me home alone from alot younger than 12 i feel that my parent is somehow being judged as lacking.

I don't see why a 12 year old can't be left, overnight if necessary? I was babysitting my younger brothers at that age whilst my mum was out working. I don't see that it's a bad thing for children to learn responsibility in general ways - and occasionally take on a little more in an emergency.

I suppose it comes down to what's really needed and what isn't, doesn't it? If you need to go out to work to support the family, you'll do it, leaving older children at home. If it's a case of 'preference', well who wouldn't choose not to, honestly?

x-posted with Can'tspell... agree with her too.

unemployment in some areas of London is v higher than in Liverpool. so in london, the claimants either cannot or dont want to do the jobs that are available - in the whole of London.

www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/work-and-worklessness/unemployment-by-borough/

any support networks they have in place here have not helped them find employment.

We are ALL being affected by the way things are at the moment. Fuel and foot are costing everyone more.

Its not fair that people who don't work for their money are protected from the worst of it while people who work just have to struggle.

Fwiw, I agree with your OP. Some people have had it to easy for to long. So they have to move to an area they can afford to live in, so what, so your teenagers have to let themselves in the house a couple of times a week and eat beans on toast, so what, so you have to work nights while your partner is at home and struggle though the day on fuck all sleep so what thats life isn't it!

I really hate the way SN keep being brought up on these posts. Of course people with SN deserve to have more support and money but this isn't about SN.

I agree
I was watching a programme the other day about the 5 year term in council housing. A conversation went like this;

Council tennant "I don't understand why they want to move us after 5 years, I mean they will just have to rehouse us all somewhere".

Interviewer "well they don't do they if you're earning a good salary."

Council tennant "But where would we go"

Interviewer "err.. the private rental market"

Council Tennant "Oh! "

It's summed up to me the lack of responsibility amongst some long term council tennants, especially those who have been earning well over the national average wage.

cantspel - i certainly didn't mean that. I have left all my 4 dcs alone for long periods of time since they started secondary school. And I left them alone when they were younger for shorter periods of time.

And I was left alone all during the holidays and afterschool at a fairly young age as well.

Hey Mary! Lots going on at home..... Teens..... Exams, uni open days,kitchen re fit etc, all good though!

I don't see how anyone can have a social housing tenancy removed because they work??

Glad to hear all going well ILT!

The short sightedness is brilliant isn;t it? On the other threads banging on about the 26k cap people are saying that WHY OH WHY won't people just move somewhere cheaper? And then on here ity's all WHY OH WHY must these people get cheap housing?

arf

"I don't see how anyone can have a social housing tenancy removed because they work??"

It's not because they work but because no matter how much they earn they have the house for life at the moment. It's not right that social houses at subsidised rents should be occupied by people earning high salaries.

Council housing should be available for those that need it during a period of their lives, when they get out of the difficult situation they should move on. It should be available for people doing any job that doesn't pay enough for to rent privately surely?

do people say this???? wow. then YANBU

not even going there on the benefits issue. too busy earning a dollar and PAYING FUCKING TAXES ha ha

'I really hate the way SN keep being brought up on these posts. Of course people with SN deserve to have more support and money but this isn't about SN.'

Ok, I'll tell David Cameron you said that and I'm sure he'll throw support and money at me and my DS

Methe - that poster was me, and actually, while I may have '£1,800' left after my rent, I had forgotten that my Tax Credits will drop by £45+pcm because DS3 turned 1yo yesterday.

I WOULD be on a higher income if I was working for NMW, as I would STILL get CTC and Child Benefit for my children, AND I would also get £910pcm help towards my childcare costs, AND I would get WTC on top, of roughly £388pcm. And I would still get all my rent paid, too, as my childcare costs would be way MORE than the £910pcm that I would be given to help TOWARDS the cost of childcare, and the cost of childcare is taken into acount when looking at how much Housing Benefit they will give you.

So I DON'T have more 'disposable income' than if I was working, not at all. I will ALWAYS be better off in work under the current system, and if it were not for the additional issues that my family has, I WOULD be working. Why would I choose to be worse off??

Could you PLEASE research your figures BEFORE getting all ragey at my situation? Even as a family with one SAHP and one FT worker on £16.8k, we got £4.28 a week WTC, over half of our rent paid through Housing Benefit, and we, as a family, were BETTER OFF than I am now. Until my Ex-P left, that is. Taking his £16.8k wages with him. .

And that is even before you take into account the disabilities affecting my family that are recognised by the NHS but not by the DWP.

Unfortunately it largely is about SN, disability, fleeing domestic violence, etc, Methe.

Specifically the cap will hit larger households including those receiving disability benefits (other than DLA, which is for the more severe).

Single people living alone with no intention of working won't be affected by the cap. Being 3rd generation unemployed won't trigger the cap. Committing fraud won't trigger the cap. Living less densely and taking up more housing will be positively encouraged by the cap.

I actually can't work which problem the cap is supposed to solve.

Other than providing a good headline if you don't look too closely.

Is it right for someone earning say #40K to get social housing, whilst nurses and other essential workers are renting privately because there's not enough social housing stock available. I know several 30 somethings in professional jobs earning over #40K in social housing that they got when they were students! The cut off being #26K is not the point the logic behind the new ruling is sound.

Tabulahrasa has hit the nail on the head. As has Nilgiri.