Welfare Reforms... worrying information coming daily...

[feeble]

I think your missing my point, i am specifically discussing the cutting of tax credits for families with children over 5...

So putting the main caregiver on JSA, suggesting that they MUST work (around school hours only) is not only forcing SAHM into work, it is also totally disregarding home schoolers, children who maybe have learning or special needs that require extra care in the home etc

 

[mum22ttc#3]

i didnt really understand your last post tbh.


im just fed up of jeremy kyle type people literally sponging. does my head in how an entire family (mum, dad, grandparents, uncle, auntie) ALL are on some form of IS or jsa idc if the mum has small children but when theyre at primary they have no excuse (unless they convienently have 4 kids all 4-5 years apart lol)

And these are the types of family's they need to be focusing on first IMO. But it doesn't seem that that is the way, instead they seem to be penalising working family's whether they be in the higher income bracket or the lower income bracket, which in the meantime is just funding the 'workshy' even more.

If they would concentrate on getting at least one parent from each family back into work rather than penalising working familys then surely that would help the economy more than their current 'plans'?

 

[Blah11]

they need to tackle childcare costs imo. at the moment, a lot of mums dont work because they cant afford to which is so ridiculously backwards! i think they need to change it so you only stay at home if you can afford it (like having a partner who can support the whole fam or if youve saved up), not because you have to. im sure a lot of single mums would love to go out to work but simply cant, especially if they have more than 1 child.

 

[mum22ttc#3]

I agree, childcare is a very big factor. I would love to be able to go back and study/work as a midwife in 3 years time but childcare will be a big factor on whether that is possible or not.

 

[feeble]

The problem with childcare, is that the people DOING the care get very, very little money whilst the managers, bosses, insurance companies etc walk off with it.

What I would love to see was a more community based vibe, where perhaps a group of parents could get together and work parttime and share the childcare evenly.

 

[Blah11]

The problem with childcare, is that the people DOING the care get very, very little money whilst the managers, bosses, insurance companies etc walk off with it.

What I would love to see was a more community based vibe, where perhaps a group of parents could get together and work parttime and share the childcare evenly.

i have no desire to look after anyone elses kids. if i wanted that id work in a nursery or whatever. I think there needs to be more gov run childcare.

 

[mum22ttc#3]

I just think that for now people should be given the option, if you want to home educate or be a SAHM then I don't really get why tax credits can not still be in place. Not only would the government be saving on your child's childcare but for home schooling they would also be saving on your child's education, I don't know how much it is to send a child through just primary but I would assume that it is a hell of alot.

On the otherhand though I do think that childcare should be made affordable for the parents that don't want the above options, at the moment childcare prices are extortionate and just not fair.

As for money going back into the economy if they concentrated on getting at least one parent from each family into work then that would surely be more cost effective?
It just seems everything is a dig at working family's, if you was to go onto benefits full time though, both parents that is, then you could claim up to 26,000 a year, that's like having a job of 35.000, how is that even fair? Me and OH take just over that with tax credits and him working 45 hours a week, it really would hardly affect us if he was to give up working and was to sit at home for the 26.000 This is what they need to concentrate on IMO and make it actually pay to work, because in alot of cases it just doesn't.

 

[Nibblenic]

I think the idea of creating a situation where both parents HAVE to work is a negative thing. Not everyone wants to put their children into childcare. The government/world have created a situation where in most cases two people have to work to pay mortgages/bills. The cost of living is through the roof. Then then have also created a situation where you can just leave you child with a trusted person whilst you work.
It is nor more than 30 years ago, where in the main, you only needed one income. Where you could leave you child with a friend and mutually work around eachother. I think they were called ginger bread groups.

I do think they need to concentrate on those families where neither parents work. Looking to create a situation where you can afford a home/food/heat on one salary, even if it is minimum wage. Without top ups! NOt just take them away.
Before I was made redundant I worked with people who have been failed by the school system, by upbringing, by something as simple as circumstance. Some people are simply not ready for work because they havent been brought up around people working. Not because they arent qualified, you can get people basic qualifications. What you cant get them is a new outlook or attitude. Or a personality compatible with a work environment.
Its hard and it is even harder to get them to change an outlook which they have been shown since birth. In families where all the generations do not work.
I havent got an answer for it. Taking their money isnt going to solve their issues. It might solve some tax paying issues/economy issues.
But it isnt suddenly going to create jobs, or a new attitude in the nation. I cannot tell you how many people have told me they arent willing to take on young people 16-18 FOR FREE because they dont trust them

I am one of those people who were better off on benefits. Which my nasty employers LOVED to remind me of. I was one of those who needed 'reasonable adjustments' made at work. They were very hard to get through, belive it or not its pretty easy for your employer to wheedle out of them. They are now near enough impossible as Acess to work no longer has any funding for desk/chairs. So I was made redundant. I worked for a government funded organisation, the government halved the funding my employers halved the jobs.
So now im on £50 less a month than when I was working, which i easily spent on petrol getting there. Im getting a 5% increase in benfits that I would never have gotten working. Makes no sense to me!
Am I happy in this position NO! I hate the fact I am spoken down to at the JC even though I used to spend 50% of my working week there! Sometimes I just want to scream you are shit at your job. Why didnt the government make you redundant and not me!
People have been very rude to me on the phone they constantly loose paper work, or get it wrong. Without so much as a sorry.
I hate having to justify myself to people. I hate it! Infact I hate this so much I dont even claim the incapacity part of my ESA because I cannot stand the idea of taking more out of the system. Or having to go to one of those meeting where you have to talk about whats wrong with you

So now im stuck. I need a part time job (cant work FT I would be far to tired to even function) With someone willing to provide a £2k desk straight off, I need one that goes up and down. I have my chair from my previous employer. A emplyer that doesnt mind that im up and down all the time. That im oftern not at my best and emotionally and physically unstable and that I often make very big mistakes because im high on pain killers. Think anyone is willing to have me? I certainly dont. My previous employer had to put up with me, because they employed me before my accidents/pregnancy and god didnt they try hard to get rid of me!
Sound like im going to be working again any time soon? Nah I dont think so either and I hate it!

People look at me disgusted when I say im not really any worse off on benefits. It makes me so sad. Inc everything CB CTC and ESA (which is all I claim) I personally have just over£100 a week. I got £550 after tax working.
What they forget quickly enough is that when my daughter needs new shoes, which she does. Lets say we go to Clarks, Im spending 30% of my weekly income, I have to plan for it. Most of my friends working FT are getting £100 a day.

They still have their houses (which I had to sell as they dont help you with mortgages) they still have their own cars, they dont have to worry about buying the next pair of shoes. Yet they look down, when one day they could get hit by a car, become disabled, get made redundant and be just as grateful but hateful, that this is where they are in life. Its a long way down from there

Als people complaining about those not working not paying tax. As a house told this month we have paid over £1000 in tax. Next year when my Oh/mum paid for the extension we will be paying over 25k in tax. We pay tax on everything, even people who do not work pay into the system in terms of tax on food/alcohol/cigs/purchase of white goods/Tv's.
Although I do support the cap, and think it still should be lower again, as its the equivalent of earning 35k. I really think the governments priorities should be on getting families supported into work so at least one person is job ready at all times. Sorting out the rental market so people or more importantly landlords arent making a profit from the government. Like I dont think you should be able to claim HB for any address that has a mortgage on it. You shouldnt get CB/CTC or for over 2 children, we dont need to increase the population.

I think though at the end we've created a situation we couldnt sustain. There are no easy answers. People and unforgettably children are going to suffer. I also think we need to stop demoniseing everyone. No one talks about the people working in government offices taking 26k out of the system to push some bit of paper about. I know a few people who work for local government who will admit they are over paid and do very little, but its not them we hear about. Nor is it the NHS worker who is doing 3 peoples jobs on the same wage she was on to do one 3 years ago.

Its all going very very wrong. No on is in a good position at the moment. We're all to quick to point the finger away from oursleves though.

 

[Eternal]

they need to tackle childcare costs imo. at the moment, a lot of mums dont work because they cant afford to which is so ridiculously backwards! i think they need to change it so you only stay at home if you can afford it (like having a partner who can support the whole fam or if youve saved up), not because you have to. im sure a lot of single mums would love to go out to work but simply cant, especially if they have more than 1 child.

this is me, i cant afford to work as i have three kids under 25 months, my husband works and it would be nice to earn a little myself so that we can afford what a lot of people get on benefits! I obviously don't want to work right this second, as my twins are just 10 weeks, but by 5 years?

I don't think the change is there to force both parents to work, I think its meant to get people to take personal responsibility, if you don't earn enough to be able to support your family then maybe not keep having kids is a good idea?

If you need benefits then maybe you DO need to work. Otherwise you will be continued to get benefits until the child is 16 or older!!!

What is wrong with working while your kid is at school?

 

[feeble]

they need to tackle childcare costs imo. at the moment, a lot of mums dont work because they cant afford to which is so ridiculously backwards! i think they need to change it so you only stay at home if you can afford it (like having a partner who can support the whole fam or if youve saved up), not because you have to. im sure a lot of single mums would love to go out to work but simply cant, especially if they have more than 1 child.

this is me, i cant afford to work as i have three kids under 25 months, my husband works and it would be nice to earn a little myself so that we can afford what a lot of people get on benefits! I obviously don't want to work right this second, as my twins are just 10 weeks, but by 5 years?

I don't think the change is there to force both parents to work, I think its meant to get people to take personal responsibility, if you don't earn enough to be able to support your family then maybe not keep having kids is a good idea?

If you need benefits then maybe you DO need to work. Otherwise you will be continued to get benefits until the child is 16 or older!!!

What is wrong with working while your kid is at school?

What if you wish to homeschool? What if you have a child with learning disablities or social issues that needs you around in the day?

Should only the very rich be able to home educate?

Edit; sorry missed the rest of your post, you think only the very rich should have children at all.

If an adult working 40hr weeks cannot support their family, there is something wrong with the economy, not something wrong with the family. That's why we have tax credits.

 

[Blah11]

i wont comment on homeschooling as I have absolutely no knowledge on it but if your child is disabled in some way you do get extra money for them and as far as I'm aware its quite a bit more.

 

[mum22ttc#3]

they need to tackle childcare costs imo. at the moment, a lot of mums dont work because they cant afford to which is so ridiculously backwards! i think they need to change it so you only stay at home if you can afford it (like having a partner who can support the whole fam or if youve saved up), not because you have to. im sure a lot of single mums would love to go out to work but simply cant, especially if they have more than 1 child.

this is me, i cant afford to work as i have three kids under 25 months, my husband works and it would be nice to earn a little myself so that we can afford what a lot of people get on benefits! I obviously don't want to work right this second, as my twins are just 10 weeks, but by 5 years?

I don't think the change is there to force both parents to work, I think its meant to get people to take personal responsibility, if you don't earn enough to be able to support your family then maybe not keep having kids is a good idea?

If you need benefits then maybe you DO need to work. Otherwise you will be continued to get benefits until the child is 16 or older!!!

What is wrong with working while your kid is at school?

What if you wish to homeschool? What if you have a child with learning disablities or social issues that needs you around in the day?

Should only the very rich be able to home educate?

Edit; sorry missed the rest of your post, you think only the very rich should have children at all.

If an adult working 40hr weeks cannot support their family, there is something wrong with the economy, not something wrong with the family. That's why we have tax credits.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this part. My OH works 45+ hours a week and just doesn't take enough to live without having to claim tax credits.

Up until 3 years ago we both worked and was entitled to very little, things change though and so does circumstances. Unfortunately not everyone is going to have well payed jobs, someone has to have the less well payed ones but I certainly don't think it means they are less entitled to children.

As for 'what is wrong with working while your kids are at school'. I'm sure alto of mothers would love to go back to work while their children are at school but finding a job that is that flexible with times or having to cover the rest of the childcare costs that would come with it just wouldn't be possible.
Also with todays economy and job vacancies I think it is alot easier said than done.

 

[feeble]

i wont comment on homeschooling as I have absolutely no knowledge on it but if your child is disabled in some way you do get extra money for them and as far as I'm aware its quite a bit more.

You don't need to know anything about homeschooling, the clue is in the name.

It's actually quite expensive for the government to put a child through school and it's a huge benefit to other children that some are homeschooled (think huge classes, strained resources)

Wether or not you know about homeschooling, it's quite clear that people should be able to educate their own young as they wish, wether that's because of religious reasons, educational beliefs or simply lifestyle.

A severely disabled child will get support, but what about a child who (according to the government) CAN be in school all day? Do you think a child who struggles a bit and is a bit tired due to their illness will be classified as 'disabled' by our governments ever changing standards?

How about a child who has suffered abuse, or has behavioural problems and needs mama on hand to calm/support them?

Do those children who don't quite fit into the disabled bracket, but also don't fit into the able bracket just get ignored?

Also the pp had a good point, where exactly are all these jobs for mothers who need to fit around school time? Who will probably need a few days off a term because of sickness? Who may want to attend sports days, be off for half term etc etc

The job market is dismal, these jobs do not exist, so why force people into that position?

 

[Nibblenic]

they need to tackle childcare costs imo. at the moment, a lot of mums dont work because they cant afford to which is so ridiculously backwards! i think they need to change it so you only stay at home if you can afford it (like having a partner who can support the whole fam or if youve saved up), not because you have to. im sure a lot of single mums would love to go out to work but simply cant, especially if they have more than 1 child.

this is me, i cant afford to work as i have three kids under 25 months, my husband works and it would be nice to earn a little myself so that we can afford what a lot of people get on benefits! I obviously don't want to work right this second, as my twins are just 10 weeks, but by 5 years?

I don't think the change is there to force both parents to work, I think its meant to get people to take personal responsibility, if you don't earn enough to be able to support your family then maybe not keep having kids is a good idea?

If you need benefits then maybe you DO need to work. Otherwise you will be continued to get benefits until the child is 16 or older!!!

What is wrong with working while your kid is at school?

What if you wish to homeschool? What if you have a child with learning disablities or social issues that needs you around in the day?

Should only the very rich be able to home educate?

Edit; sorry missed the rest of your post, you think only the very rich should have children at all.

If an adult working 40hr weeks cannot support their family, there is something wrong with the economy, not something wrong with the family. That's why we have tax credits.

I dont think there is anything wrong with working when your child is at school. However what you need to remember is that, children are only in school for 6 hours a day and off 19 weeks of the year. A normal working day is 8 hours with 4 week holiday. So yes I do think it is very important for at least one parent to be able to work.
However to the other point, you can no longer run a house and household on one person earning minimum wage without top ups in terms of WTC/CTC/CB. That is a national problem and a one that has been created within the last 30 years.

I dont think families should be better off on benefits. Its loose loose either way. I was better off on benefits when I worked, I was really resentful of that. Now Ive been made redundant it makes finding work where I am better off very difficult. Its most certainly not right and a very negative situation, which i dont honestly believe anyone wants to be in.

 

[lindseymw]

It's a difficult one really. I do think there needs to be changes to system so that being on benefits is a stop gap rather than a way of life. With regards to stopping Income Support after 1 year, I actually do agree with this, but there should be a maximum amount of children you can claim for. The way I see it is, I get a total of 12 months (3 months unpaid) maternity leave before I have to return to work, why should it be any different if you are on benefits?

If you wish to be a SAHM, then honestly, I think that you should be able to support yourself in doing this rather than expecting the government to foot this bill. Obviously single mums will struggle with this and possibly some exceptions could be made, especially with the lack of jobs around.

Homeschooling, well this is going to be tough. Although by homeschooling you are saving the Government money but should you be 'paid' to homeschool your children? I'm not too sure and to be honest I think if you were I can see 'workshy' parents using this an excuse not to work, pull their kids out of school to 'homeschool' and it will have a detrimental affect on their childrens education.

 

[mum22ttc#3]

It's a difficult one really. I do think there needs to be changes to system so that being on benefits is a stop gap rather than a way of life. With regards to stopping Income Support after 1 year, I actually do agree with this, but there should be a maximum amount of children you can claim for. The way I see it is, I get a total of 12 months (3 months unpaid) maternity leave before I have to return to work, why should it be any different if you are on benefits?

If you wish to be a SAHM, then honestly, I think that you should be able to support yourself in doing this rather than expecting the government to foot this bill. Obviously single mums will struggle with this and possibly some exceptions could be made, especially with the lack of jobs around.Homeschooling, well this is going to be tough. Although by homeschooling you are saving the Government money but should you be 'paid' to homeschool your children? I'm not too sure and to be honest I think if you were I can see 'workshy' parents using this an excuse not to work, pull their kids out of school to 'homeschool' and it will have a detrimental affect on their childrens education.

I'm sorry but I don't see how single mums will find this any harder than a married/co-habiting mother? Both will have to find childcare, (both will get the same amount of help with childcare money wise as it goes on income), both will have to work around school hours etc etc.

TBH I can't really comment on income support as I've never been on it so really don't get it. I do agree though with the 'workshy' which is why I think it would benefit the government more to focus on getting at least one parent back to work, it shouldn't pay to be on benefits but unfortunalty it does. Me and OH would be better off once petrol was taken away, for him to not be working, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[feeble]

It's a difficult one really. I do think there needs to be changes to system so that being on benefits is a stop gap rather than a way of life. With regards to stopping Income Support after 1 year, I actually do agree with this, but there should be a maximum amount of children you can claim for. The way I see it is, I get a total of 12 months (3 months unpaid) maternity leave before I have to return to work, why should it be any different if you are on benefits?

If you wish to be a SAHM, then honestly, I think that you should be able to support yourself in doing this rather than expecting the government to foot this bill. Obviously single mums will struggle with this and possibly some exceptions could be made, especially with the lack of jobs around.

Homeschooling, well this is going to be tough. Although by homeschooling you are saving the Government money but should you be 'paid' to homeschool your children? I'm not too sure and to be honest I think if you were I can see 'workshy' parents using this an excuse not to work, pull their kids out of school to 'homeschool' and it will have a detrimental affect on their childrens education.

Definitely dont think people should be 'paid' to homeschool, however (and i might be in a minority here) i think there 'should' be benefits to working, to having one member of the family working at least, and part of that is having the ability for one family member to stay at home with the children.

I know people will think its harsh on single mothers, but actually it DOES take two children to make a baby and so very few children actually have one parent, they usually have two and it has become so easy for the mother to keep the child away from the father, or the father to just forget about the kid, that actually making one parent per child financially responsible for that child would be a huge step forward.

Home schooling is definitely not an 'easy' option, we have to provide a form of education for children and i think any home schooler would agree, that a 16hr a week job, would be less 'work' than homeschooling, so i dont think it would be that attractive to the workshy.

I dont think we should pay parents to school children, but i think we should keep in mind that if a parent is working, out of the home for 40hrs a week, that their income SHOULD be enough (even if its 'minimum wage) to support that family comfortably.

lets not forget that the economic state of a country is as much about how much percentage of work is required to feed a your family as anything else.

Definitely something should be done about folk having loads of kids (because more than anything, we cannot sustain more humans on this planet, regardless of 'tax') but i think cutting tax credits to those families who DO work is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Nibblenic]

This is the thing, well we want parents to work but, we dont mean single mothers that would be too hard to find hours around school. We dont mean this man because you were abused and neglected as a child, which has left you with emotional problems and no our education. We dont mean you, your disabled. Oh no we certainly dont mean you you have a disabled child that needs care. We most definitely dont mean you your a drug addict infact I can just lock you up somewhere unseen. We dont mean you either, you shouldnt have to work until you find the right job for you, after all youve got a degree. WE dont mean you either, you were one of 8 raised by two people who dont work, we cant figure out to support you.

Taking money away isnt going to solve anything. We talk about these imaginary people, workshy. scroungers, druggies, alcoholics, people with large numbers of children who are not rich. Basically people we consider leaches on what we consider 'ours'. Taking the money isnt going to change the amount of jobs out there, taking the money isnt going to change the fact it is impossible without large amounts of support to work around the school timeable until they are 12. Taking the money isnt going to disappear the children who have already been born that need providing for. Yes the state should not be providing all of this. But there is a situation that has been created where help has created need.

Ripping the baby from the teat isnt going to do anything but create a angry baby. Those people arent suddenly going to wake up and think oh yeah lets get s job. When they are just not work ready, in midset or qualifications.

I dont think the softly softly approach has worked. I certainly dont think simply taking away the money is going to result in anything but the children suffering.

Yes in an ideal world, everyone would have a main wage earner brining in enough not to receive benefits, whats that now about 36k a year only 40% of the people who are working in the UK get that, I dont know how many of those have children under 5 years of age but i dont think it would be many.It is also 3 times the minium wage for a 40hr week. 3 times! So what we're saying as a society is we've created a situation in the economy where people who have one person working in a household need to find paid work on NMW for the whole 24 hours of a day 7 days a week. No realistic. I certainly dont know anyone earning 36k with a young child and i am officially 'middle class'. Does that mean only the select few should be having children?

Yes there are some scummy people out there. People who have never worked with no intention to. But neither feeding in to that or simply take away the money. Will not address the funder-mental issues.

There is no real point in pointing the at people. Because the 3 pointing back at your self will show that the majority of us take more out of the system than we put in. Be that through the use of the nhs, doing a degree, having children, or not recycling or getting CB you could do without or tax credits for you childcare.

 

[feeble]

despite all of that, there is simply Not The Money right now to be funding the people who dont want to work, who have a sore knee so cannot be the builder they trained to be 20 years ago so have been on the dole for 10, or the mother who keeps having kids despite having no support network of her own.

what peeves me more, is that we can send bombs into Libya, at a cost of 10s of millions of pounds and people do not FLINCH, yet cutting benefits to working families is 'fine'

where exactly are the priorities here?

there are a million and 1 reasons why a person doesnt work. But if you cant/wont get a job, why arent you volunteering in the hours you DO have down the local food bank? Or over at one of the many many charities around?

people will say 'it doesnt pay me to work so why should i' well if your on benefits, why do you NEED to be paid to work?

why do we pay people, to sit around and then pay someone else to sweep the streets? Surely if you are claiming beneftis from our government, you should sweep the streets yourself? Put something into the local community? Offer to help with the local surestart center, cleaning toys or hoovering up.

We pay people to stay at home and look after their kids, we pay teachers to teach those same kids, why? Surely if you are at home, you dont need a teacher to teach your kids, you can do it yourself?

the problem is double barrelled

on one side people dont want to/dont see any need to work

on the other side there is NO work for those people who only have a few hours a day or might need a bit of support with the job that they can do.

both sides need addressing in a big way, but the way to address it is not to go 'oh well there are so many folk who cannot work for whatever reason that we might as well not bother' or to say 'every working family must send their stay at home parent off to the work place.

that family is already putting money/tax/support into the community, focus on getting those who are putting NOTHING in rather than penalising those who already do something.

you say its not enough, maybe it will NEVER be enough, but we can try. And cutting tax credits for working families is NOT the way to go about it.

 

[indy and lara]

Firstly I don't believe at all that only the 'rich' should have children. And yes, if you are working you shoudl be able to afford to support your family. However, I don't think that people should have 4 or 5 children because they want to but cannot afford them.
I know you are passionate about homeschooling Feeble but I think the issue is that when you start making exceptions the system becomes even more difficult to manage.

I am probably in a more unusual situation than many as I see both ends of the salary spectrum. I took a career break after my maternity leave so I have been a SAHM for 3 years and we live solely on DH salary, without any benefits. Almost all of our friends are earning beyond the £36k mentioned but many of them are choosing not to have more than 2 kids due to financial concerns. At the other end of the spectrum I work with many families on very low incomes and I see daily how they struggle. I just don't think that we should be having large families when we know in our heart of hearts that we cannot afford to support them.