Angry mobs...

[StripyPixieSocks]

Whilst perusing the BBC news website earlier this morning I came across a news article outlining the new benefits system and who single mothers with children of 12 years old will now have to be forced into work or face a 40% benefits cut.

Peoples replies to it were absolutely abysmal in the most thought these vulnerable people were scroungers and spongers and the sooner they worked for a living the better...

What will happen to their 12 year old children while they're forced into minimum wage jobs is anyone guess but are we just asking for more problems?

It will punish single mothers who earn and the ones who are abusing the system already will just see this as a green light to have dozens of kids and end up claiming more and being housed in larger and larger houses.

Can someone please explain to me why the poor and downtrodden are in for another kicking by the benefits system whilst they are trying to rid the system of the abusers (and I acknowledge there are people who do this)?

I'm exasperated!

Also, if you are not terminally ill and you are claiming benefits you will also be forced into work.

Now can you tell me how effective being shoved into a minimum wage job is going to benefit the health of say someone with mobility issues and severe depression?

I know peoples view of most people claiming benefits is that they are scum but there are those who genuinely need it and most certainly do not live the life or riley...

I am already feeling more and more anxiety about my future and how we are going to make ends meet and to be quite frank I've had enough of being the Governments kicking post and actually feel quite angry!

What does everyone else think about children as young as 12 being left to fend for themselves and disabled people being forced back to work?

[Bluemoon]

I can well believe it, this (and previous) governments seem to always aim their vitriol at the weakest members of society. For years they've supported policies which make a 'traditional' family impossible, high cost of housing, food etc, so mothers, whether single or married with a working partner, are increasingly being forced into work. No I do not think it's a good idea. Kids of 12 are too old for childcare and so will be left to wander the streets or at the very least spend much of their time alone and unsupervised. 10-20 years from now there will be another social problem when these kids have children of their own and don't have a clue how to care for them because they've never seen a good example.

I remember when my first baby was born there were no nurseries, our village had one childminder who took children exclusively from single fathers, firmly believing that men 'needed' to work. My OH worked, I didn't for many years. I admit that at the time I was bored and frustrated, especially as OH's sister was a single mum and despite having one child to our three her benefits made her considerably better off. I would never have expected her to be forced back to work though.

As for the disabled, I think that if they want to work then everything possible should be done to help (not force) them, but if they and their doctors (who are far more qualified to make such decisions than civil servants) feel that employment is not advisable then this should be listened to. I'm not sure the minimum wage argument stands though. My OH and I manage and are very happy on his minimum wage, but this was our own decision, made when we'd grown sick of the rat race.

[Graye]

I see where they are coming from with their new proposals but unfortunately, once again, the whole thing is ill-conceived and will hit the very people who need help while the "career claimants" will once again get around the system.

Moms who are single through no fault of their own will probably, as you say, be forced back into work and have no end of problems with child care. Moms who think nothing of popping out child after child so that they can get their "social" will carry on as before, conveniently forgetting the father's name so that they can't be pursued by the relevant department. They have certainly been plenty of examples in the press of late.

People who are genuinely not in a position to hold down a job through ill-health will be chased from pillar to post whereas the ones who know exactly how to con their doctors will carry on claiming as they know the appeals system inside out and will kick up such a fuss that their claim will continue. Then they will carry on doing a few jobs "on the side" and end up better off than most working people. Perhaps people who always "shtum up" about neighbours or acquaintances who quite blatantly work via the black economy might think a little more deeply about why they do so and who ultimately pays for this?

I'm interested to know why working people are discriminated against in the cases in the news recently which suggests five children equals a six bedroom house if you are a claimant. Since when did all the family boys stop having one room between them and the same for the girls? And these "children" are often adults too, also on benefits of course, and also bragging about their car-dealing or whatever.

Unfortunately, I don't know what the answer is. I do know that the benefits system was not conceived to support people on a long term basis unless their needs were exceptional but it has now almost become an acceptable way of life. It was envisaged people would take up training courses and try to improve themselves or retrain for other work but it doesn't seem to happen.

Any ideas anyone?

[baldowrie]

One of the things regarding this that has come up is the single parents, and it's not just mothers, who home educated for various reasons including that they have disabled child/children will also be penalised under this new system. So even though our state education is not/unable to cope with children who have some kind of disability and the parent has had no choice but to home educate they will not be exempt. What happens you the home educated child? Job centres were/are being told that being a home educator is no excuse and the parent should still be actively job hunting. More or less say that a single person who home educates is basically doing so they don't have to work

[baldowrie]

you would think so wouldn't you, but it's income support receivers they want. Yes there are some that shouldn't be getting and getting off their back sides, but they are too hard to chase!

I am unable to work due to my disability and my sons disability and his inability, or is the school inability? , for him to cope in main stream education. I should be entitled to claim income support but for this reason, and one other, I don't claim it as the amount I would entitled too is not enough to face the hassle.

There are MP's fighting against genuine cases and home ed children.

[Rosendula]

Bit busy this evening, so no time to think too much at the mo. I would like to say, though, that after I graduated in July 2002, I found a job, 30-hours pw +. My son was 10 and my daughter was 8. Their Dad worked unsocial hours and got home mid-day and needed a sleep in an afternoon. So by the time he had had lunch and wound down, he got to bed just before they came home from school - while I was at work. I really felt uncomfortable about not being there for them, even though their Dad was there and would get up if they needed help in any way. I left that job in March 2006, just before Katie was born. My son was 14, my daughter just turned 13. It was then that I realised how much my children had missed having me at home. Kids of that age need a lot of support. OK, they don't need us to dress them, brush their teeth and give them a wash. They are very capable of getting themselves something to eat if they are hungry. But what they do need is someone to talk to. Emotional and moral support. Someone to tell about their day. Someone to complain to about other kids and teachers. Someone to guide them. Someone who loves them and isn't doing it for the money. I firmly believe that when I left paid work my teenagers were much happier and mentally/emotionally healthier. This is one of the reasons I chose not to return to paid work after Katie was born. Not just to be with Katie, but to be there for my older children, too.

[the.fee.fairy]

Maybe some of the angry mobs have a point...

I can't have children, and therefore i feel that there are a lot of people 'entitled' by their ability to reproduce to take out of a system designed to help people.

Help is the operative word - too often now benefits are seen as something that people are entitled to, something that society must give them, even though they have no intentions of giving back to the society that's keeping them.

Jobseekers is a joke - after a lifetime of working, too many people are being told that they are only entitled to a very minimum, while those who have never worked are entitled to a full spectrum.

There ar far too many people taking more and more from a system not deisgned to be taken from constantly.

Maybe it would help to not think of people being penalised by these initiatives, but helped. At the end of the day, many people who claim to not be able to work can't work becuase there are no suitable jobs. hopefully, with the new initiative, more jobs will be created for these people to do. There are many other countries that don't have benefits systems, or those that keep their systems as intended - a temporary help for those who need it, and these countries manage perfectly well. It appears that its only the 'developed' world that allows a group to take from the rest of the country and give nothing back.

[StripyPixieSocks]

Maybe some of the angry mobs have a point...

I can't have children, and therefore i feel that there are a lot of people 'entitled' by their ability to reproduce to take out of a system designed to help people.

Help is the operative word - too often now benefits are seen as something that people are entitled to, something that society must give them, even though they have no intentions of giving back to the society that's keeping them.

Jobseekers is a joke - after a lifetime of working, too many people are being told that they are only entitled to a very minimum, while those who have never worked are entitled to a full spectrum.

There ar far too many people taking more and more from a system not deisgned to be taken from constantly.

Maybe it would help to not think of people being penalised by these initiatives, but helped. At the end of the day, many people who claim to not be able to work can't work becuase there are no suitable jobs. hopefully, with the new initiative, more jobs will be created for these people to do. There are many other countries that don't have benefits systems, or those that keep their systems as intended - a temporary help for those who need it, and these countries manage perfectly well. It appears that its only the 'developed' world that allows a group to take from the rest of the country and give nothing back.

Just for the record, I have no children and probably can't also but I do not begrudge people in real need of Income Support their money! I should point out that it is anyone claiming Income Support who will be penalised not just those with children.

Yes there are too many people taking from a system that is not designed to be taken from constantly but there is a great difference between someone in genuine need and someone who claims just because they don't want to work.

I worked very hard and very long hours before I came to London at which point my already failing health took a nose dive and I have ended up being more or less disabled.

I cannot walk at the moment because I have fluid on my spine which is crushing my nerves but under the new law I have to go out and look for work... I'm sure I'm the most employable person in the world given I also have severe depression which needs constant medication and sometimes I need constant supervision... but hey... I can take a 40% cut on £82 per week after all I was just squandering it on heating bills and food and living the life of riley eh?

Lets do away with War Widow pensions while we're at it shall we, after all I don't see why people who fought in the war should get benefits like that when I didn't fight in the war and so begrudge them having money for something I didn't or can't do...

All these single mothers who have been thrown out on the street by husbands who installed their new mistress' or wives of husbands who have beaten them black and blue or abused the children are obviously scroungers and don't need that extra 40% benefit.

Lets give it to the people who have enough money already and can hire lawyers if we make them go without because quite frankly it's easier to kick disabled and people in desperate need who are already at the end of their tethers.

Give it to those immigrants who purposely come over here, work three months then grab every handout that they can (and there are some who work the system like that) whilst never having paid a single bean in because after all they need to bring their entire families over and will need a big house etc etc etc

I have always been proud of our countries ability to help those in need, to care for the sick and elderly in the NHS and I have never begrudged the HUGE cut out of the hard earned wages I earned while working because it would go towards helping people in need and those who through no fault of their own had hit rock bottom.

Now I am in need and I do not like being the dog being kicked and kicked hard just when I am in need of the help the most and I simply cannot imagine how mothers with children must be coping.

It's not the best feeling in the world to wake up and wonder what the future has in store and have to hope that it gets better and not worse because it might happen to you one day and I would hope that there was still a system in place for you to fall back on when you need it most! I don't wish you one heart thudding minute of the feeling of dread I get which keeps me awake at night!

What happened to the time when women were supposed to stay at home and bring the children up and were looked up for it?

I would love more than anything to get my business on it's feet (HA I'm close to giving up entirely) and be back with a lovely earned wage in my pocket but unless some fairy godmother is going to come and heal my back so I'm not in constant pain and can walk further than about 5 yards then I'm sorry but I am going to have to rely on the state just that little bit longer!

[Annpan]

-Posted at the same time as SPS-

Our benifits system should be there for those who need it, those who can't support themselves for whatever reason.

I often use the analogy of it being like a village -
An old couple in the village, who worked and raised a family the rest of the village would look after them in their old age.
A couple with a young family would perhaps be given a few years of help to get them on their feet
A man who was made redundant is helped out until he finds another job.
A young man with disabilites might be given a helping hand.

But what about when the young couple stop bothering trying to help themselves, because the village is paying for it anyway. Or the man who was made redundant isn't looking for another job.
Why should the rest of us have to continue to pay for them? If people really were held accountable, as in the village setting, we would have fewer problems.


It sickens me when I see how much we pay in tax every month.

Of course there are people who need help, their are people who have fallen on hard times and can't get back on their feet for many reasons but some people treat it like it is a choice, they would rather live off of benefits than work... those people need to be held accountable, why should my family have to continue to pay for their lifestyle?

[StripyPixieSocks]

Oh please, don't get me wrong I agree there are people who seem to enjoy a life on benefits (although god knows why it's horrible!!)and they should be dealt with asap... I have no qualms about that whatsoever!

Unfortunately the way they are choosing to go about it is make it intolerable for those who are already suffering in order to get rid of those abusing the system.

[mrsflibble]

i have many friends on benefits who NEED to be.... I personally am yet again very pleased that i dont have to claim anything other than the child benefit and child tax credits; i'm so incredibly lucky to have james supporting us and that he earns enough that he can.

[Stonehead]

One of the reasons I'm working the croft full-time and looking after the boys is that when we moved here I too a job paying £21,000. Once I'd paid for childcare and travel costs to work, I was clearing £10 a month and putting another £50 a month into a pension. We were also receiving £40 a month in family tax credit.

Then the tax credit was removed at the same time that the child care fees were put up. I was now paying money from my savings to go to work. So I quit being an employee and now work the croft while looking after the boys.

Given that most of the single parents being forced out to work will be on close to the minimum wage, they'll be lucky to make £12,000-£13,000 a year. If I couldn't afford the cost of child care and transport to work on £21,000 a year how the **** is someone going to afford it on just over half that?

And why is it that if you are paid to look after other people's children, that's fine because it's a job but if you look after your own and receive benefits then you're a bludging scumbag? Perhaps single parents should also register themselves as childminders and then look after a neighbouring single parents children while they do the same in return. Then they'd all be in full-time work!!!

[Graye]

I'm sorry to sound like a sceptic here but are we talking of children over the age of 12, which is the point from which the new scheme will apply? I can't understand how childcare costs for over 12s plus travelling to and from work will almost totally use up the net salary from a £21000 job.

I know that in a perfect world all moms (married or otherwise) would be paid to stay at home and care for their children until they leave school but it just isn't realistic. There are many, many single parents who work full time at minimum wage jobs, run themselves ragged trying to juggle childcare arrangements and still bring up perfectly normal, balanced kids. There are many, many others who sit at home claiming their "social" and doing absolutely nothing to guide or nurture their children and merely produce a whole new generation of people who think the welfare pot is bottomless. How many of these then carry on producing children without a thought as to how they will support them? I realise that it is impossible to look at the situation in such black and white terms too, there are many more in the grey area between for whatever reason.

And for these single parents "forced" out to work are there not still tax credits etc, maintenance from ex-partners, etc? The whole point of the welfare state was to give a helping hand in times of need. It has now become an lifetime's expectation for a large number of people and this is wrong. I have heard mothers complaining that their Child Benefit goes nowhere near covering the cost of raising a child. Was it ever supposed to do?

AS I understand it, in the various states of the US unemployed people and single parents of children over 5 years of age are almost forced into employment, not just by cutting their benefits but by removing them altogether or reducing them to total subsistence level augmented by food stamps and vouchers etc. I was once waiting in a hospital waiting room there for many hours and overheard the lady sweeping and mopping the floor there. She had been made to take the job on this premis and was chatting to a friend who was also waiting. It was quite plain that she was proud of herself, was looking at ways of moving up to being a supervisor, etc, etc. I don't see why this sytem would not work in the UK. Of course there will always be people who cannot work through ill-health. Sending them out for totally inappropriate jobs is ridiculous. But we now seem to have a system where it is easier for a doctor to sign someone off as sick instead of finding out whether there is a genuine illness.

[baldowrie]

I am currently saving the government of Britain £24,000 a year by home educating my son. I am not single parent by choice but it better than getting a black eye!

As for a doctors signing sick note on whim...pah More than their jobs worth!

It's bit of paper that is practically meaning less to the work and pensions. You also have to attend several medicals over a number of year before they decide your doctor might actually know what they are talking about!

Also the age of the child is currently 12 but will over the next few years drop to 7....we will eventually go back to latch key kids, that's if an employer would ever take on a single parent in the first place, school holidays become a bit of a pest with no child care facilities available then, and children getting ill well that's just not on.

and it's not just single mums and stay at home mum, single dad and stay at home dads do just as good a job.

Yes at one stage the child benefit did cover child costs but cost have risen the benefit has not, if it did now there would be no need for top benefits. It was introduced to bring poor families out of the slums. Allowing them to live better, spend money which in turn creates more job meaning those that need more money can find paid employment.

If there was affordable and available child care I sure a lot more single and non single parents would seek paid work. But the fact is there isn't. So what happens to the children before and after school?

Oh and I understand the benefits in France are an awful lot higher than there here!

[Russian Doll]

so does that mean your oldest 12 year old or your youngest...when hannah is 12 zachy will only be 6 and im sorry yes i could get a job during school hours but what happens in the hols...my 12 year old isnot old enough to look after the others and lets be honest the price of childcare is stupid....

but then as a mum of four maybe i should register as a chilldminder as suggested then i would be working