A question

[SusieOwl4]

I am trying to watch the political debates and I have a question that is not directly about Brexit . This is a genuine question .

I am from a , what I would call poor background, but have been lucky enough to now run my own business and employ others in an area where there is very low unemployment. I am not rich but comfortable.

JC has repeatedly said there are 4 million children living in poverty .

What do you consider to be poverty ?
What is it about the benefits system that does not work ?
Is the poverty purely because of the benefit system not paying enough ?
Or is it because mothers need more help with child care to get them into work ? Or are the jobs just not available ?
Is any of this the fault of absence fathers ?
Or is the poverty actually within families that are working and don’t claim benefits but just don’t earn enough to make ends meet ?

Personally I do feel the child care system is very lacking but would be interested to hear people’s view .

Since the Tories got in in 2010 as part of the coalition, they immediately changed the existing benefits system to Universal credit. It leaves most people switching from the old system £100s a month worse off.

And that's without even considering the effects on families who have children with disabilities. Under the old system, you could get a tax credit premium if your child was in receipt of higher rate or middle rate personal care. But the coalition scrapped that payment for those children on middle rate care.

The other thing is the benefits cap. Which adversely affects larger families who claim benefits particularly severely. Especially in areas like London where the cost of renting is so much higher. Families have had to relocate away from their support systems because their rent allowance was cut by up to 50%

They have closed the children's Sure Start centres which previously helped poor families to get a more level playing field for their preschoolers before starting school. Thereby putting a stop on social mobility (which they claim to support).

Poverty is within many kinds of families, including those who work and claim benefits. The government (and previous governments) do just not care about poor people. It’s incredibly hard to drag yourself out of poverty. Support services have been decimated. UC is a complete mess. The two child benefit cap and bedroom tax has screwed many people. There is not enough social housing so millions is spent on housing benefit to private landlords.

I don’t think people should be able to rely on living on benefits forever but there should be support to help people get out of shit situations.

So my answer relates to your a about payments of benefits and the direct effects on families.

As the parent of a disabled child who needed around the clock care until she went into residential school at 15, I personally have not had any problems getting jobs. But I come from a mc background and have qualifications etc.

Everything is very expensive OP. I am a single mum and have an OK wage (about £20k). I struggle and sometimes have a choice between food and petrol at the end of the Month.

So for those who are single mums are the fathers not contributing at all or not enough ?

I can totally see why a single mum would struggle on 20k . What would help you most ? Child care or just increased wages ?

I do have a relative who has three young children and not working and one of the fathers will not contribute at all . If she could not live at home she could not cope at all and at the moment she has no way out of her situation . She can’t work because of the cost of child care . So it’s a vicious circle . She ( only talking about her case ) should not have got pregnant the third time . But the situation seems now hopeless and there is no way out at the moment .

So if you gave free child care to single mums ? What about struggling families ? Should it be done on income ? Or for retraining for a career?

I really feel that mumsnet could start a campaign but how do you start finding. A fair system ?

There is always a backlash about people who have larger families and then don’t have the money to look after them so there have to be limits. People earning just a bit more then end up paying more in tax to support larger families than they can afford. Often, it’s claimed, these people don’t like that.

There were huge problems with Sure Start. It didn’t ensure social mobility because too many DC from MC families got places and the DC who needed them didn’t. Often because the parent(s) were not chased up about the places and then didn’t reliably bring the children. The organised parents got the places.

Income is problematic too. The self employed can have a decent income but might be low tax payers. What about accounting for absent parents who are high earners but are awol? They should be paying and should the state step in to help them get more well off?

Any family relying on one low income is going to struggle. No one wants to see this but the state has limited resources and how is poverty measured? 4m sounds very high. It’s over 1/3 of all those 18 and under.

There were huge problems with Sure Start. It didn’t ensure social mobility because too many DC from MC families got places and the DC who needed them didn’t. Often because the parent(s) were not chased up about the places and then didn’t reliably bring the children. The organised parents got the places.

Whilst I can see your point about this, I still do not think it is a reasonable enough argument to cut SS funding. And where is your evidence for the sweeping statement that poor people are disorganised and didn't generally bring their children? Some poor people I know are extremely organised and very good at managing the finances they have.

Childcare is an important factor. Nursery fees often cost more than private school fees.

It's all very well to say the state has limited resources but they always seem to have money to pay companies like ATOS to strip money away from genuine disabled claimants. There are many stories about people dying a week after being declared fit for work. This is not a civilised way to treat people.

Personally I am from an era where mothers were if at all possible at home with young children so I think in the early years we should not force people (mothers or fathers ) back to work . But I don’t see why society should pick up the bill for absent fathers either . But definitely agree child care is a huge problem and although it’s expensive it’s obviously not properly funded as there seems to be a shortage of quality care available.

I agree with how sickness claimants are treated. There are many Invisible illnesses that also vary from day to day for example ms ,as, pd , me ,fibromyalgia. These people need in a way jobs they can do on the goods days and help when they are ill , or help to get a suitable job and I am not quite sure how that could work .

But I don’t see why society should pick up the bill for absent fathers either

If the father is alive and working, I agree with the above. The only good thing the Tories have done, imo is to reform the CSA to CMS.

Under the old system, absent parents could spin things out for nearly a year. I had to make a formal complaint for the CSA to set up a deduction of earnings order for my dd's feckless 'father'