Right....we are a married couple...... mrs chat has to work as I am unable to for legitimate reasons ( I am not a lazy dosser before any one tries to tarnish me) We did put our child into child care for a while but found it was terrible.... I think children belong at home with a parent if possible... I know it is not always possible to do this and in some ways we are lucky. Most of my family are in the child care business and i have seen what they have to do and it is crazy......
I do not agree with all this about getting mothers back into work. they are best at home with there children...And deserve more respect from everyone for doing it and the fathers who look after the children too I find it a fantastic job and love spending the time with my son.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Workshy Mothers.....yes or no ?
I'm a single father and have been blessed with two wonderful kids. Bringing up kids on your own is very difficult trying to juggle work and home life but not impossible. My kids are my inspiration to get over whatever life throws at me because for their sakes I have to succeed. I know through various groups lots of parents who do not share this passion and that saddens me, not for the parents but for the kids. Kids are our future and should be given every opportunity to succeed, this starts at home looking up to the person they love most.......dad/mum. I think some parents underestimate the role they play in shaping their child’s future. Parents shouldn't be forced to work parents should want to work...............
Master of Sex
I understand the country is struggling with the finacial burdens that the 'workshy' put on it...but being a mother or father raising kids can be very rewarding but the hardest of jobs to do... I'm lucky as I have a partner who has always helped me out with the kids...both before we married and now after..
It infuriates me that the goverment seem to be singling out single mothers as the main culprets in this category. Most single mothers...and fathers for that only want whats best for their children and provide the best they can for them..
maybe the government should look at the workshy couples who keep popping babies out year on year out first....
Also i agree with westie....if we didnt have so many immigrants ..legal or not in the country there would be more money and jobs to go round...I recently became redundant..I'm taking a few weeks off before looking for a new job...I'm not work shy having worked since my youngest of 4 children was 1yr old...luckily I had family support not all are so fortunate..
I have the utmost respect for the majority of single parents as I know many who like westie have struggled and juggled kids around trying to proved the best for them...I know how hard it is working and missing out on so much as your children grow.
Instead of slating and stereotyping them all...maybe the politicians should get off their bums and find out what the real reasons behind people not bothering are....Now may not be the right time to force this through but it raises so many issues I dont think the government has really considered from their ivory towers and explored fully.
It infuriates me that the goverment seem to be singling out single mothers as the main culprets in this category. Most single mothers...and fathers for that only want whats best for their children and provide the best they can for them..
maybe the government should look at the workshy couples who keep popping babies out year on year out first....
Also i agree with westie....if we didnt have so many immigrants ..legal or not in the country there would be more money and jobs to go round...I recently became redundant..I'm taking a few weeks off before looking for a new job...I'm not work shy having worked since my youngest of 4 children was 1yr old...luckily I had family support not all are so fortunate..
I have the utmost respect for the majority of single parents as I know many who like westie have struggled and juggled kids around trying to proved the best for them...I know how hard it is working and missing out on so much as your children grow.
Instead of slating and stereotyping them all...maybe the politicians should get off their bums and find out what the real reasons behind people not bothering are....Now may not be the right time to force this through but it raises so many issues I dont think the government has really considered from their ivory towers and explored fully.
It also seems to me that the politicians who go on about work shy mothers and the 'fact' that they need to go back to "work" are forgetting one very important point...
Looking after a kid IS a job. It's an unpaid, very difficult and most of the time, untrained job.
When we had our first child I worked and the ex-wife stayed at home looking after her until she was of an age where the wife could go back to work.
When our second child arrived I was out of work due to injury so I looked after our youngest whilst the wife worked.
The end result is that I've seen it from both sides, so know just how much work it is to bring a kid up. No mum (or dad) bringing up a kid single-handed should ever be called "work shy". They may well be doing a shite job, but it's still a job nonetheless.
Looking after a kid IS a job. It's an unpaid, very difficult and most of the time, untrained job.
When we had our first child I worked and the ex-wife stayed at home looking after her until she was of an age where the wife could go back to work.
When our second child arrived I was out of work due to injury so I looked after our youngest whilst the wife worked.
The end result is that I've seen it from both sides, so know just how much work it is to bring a kid up. No mum (or dad) bringing up a kid single-handed should ever be called "work shy". They may well be doing a shite job, but it's still a job nonetheless.
well said annie.... I agree the goverment should do something.... also with westie...they throw money into immagrants etc... worry about the English (British if I have to say the word sorry) Yeah there are alot of people who have children just to sponge off the goverment and I do beleive that we live are in one of the worst areas in a recent survey.... But if some one has children they should have them for the right reasons and not because of what money they can get off the goverment and being able to stay at home...I am not slating single mothers but there a a few out there who do have children for this reason.....
But at the end of the day the children come first.....mothers at home...fathers at home...as long as they are being cared for and educated well is all that matters....
But at the end of the day the children come first.....mothers at home...fathers at home...as long as they are being cared for and educated well is all that matters....
Quote by markz
I'm a single father and have been blessed with two wonderful kids. Bringing up kids on your own is very difficult trying to juggle work and home life but not impossible. My kids are my inspiration to get over whatever life throws at me because for their sakes I have to succeed. I know through various groups lots of parents who do not share this passion and that saddens me, not for the parents but for the kids. Kids are our future and should be given every opportunity to succeed, this starts at home looking up to the person they love most.......dad/mum. I think some parents underestimate the role they play in shaping their child’s future. Parents shouldn't be forced to work parents should want to work...............
Forum Virgin
The government has no idea what they are doing when it comes to unemployment. They think schemes that they set up such as the New Deal scheme are the way through when I found out through experience that it just gives companys incentives to take people on for six months then drop them and take someone else on through the same program.
I think that if the government was serious about helping people get back into work when you sign on they'd ask you to give them your CV etc so they can have a look at it and see if there is anything they've got at the jobcentre is suitable. However most of the staff dont seem too bothered about getting you back into work just getting you in and out. I can understand that there are some out there who dont want to work but most do.
Mothers with kids, fathers with kids, people with disabilitys and people who are just unlucky at the minute.
One thing people who criticise others who are unfortunate enough to not be working full time at the moment and contributing to our great society as much as they could should realise that in this current situation it could be you in that situation next.
I think that if the government was serious about helping people get back into work when you sign on they'd ask you to give them your CV etc so they can have a look at it and see if there is anything they've got at the jobcentre is suitable. However most of the staff dont seem too bothered about getting you back into work just getting you in and out. I can understand that there are some out there who dont want to work but most do.
Mothers with kids, fathers with kids, people with disabilitys and people who are just unlucky at the minute.
One thing people who criticise others who are unfortunate enough to not be working full time at the moment and contributing to our great society as much as they could should realise that in this current situation it could be you in that situation next.
Quote by kentswingers777
I really cannot see a problem with this, and the Mathews comment makes my blood curl.
"had seven children" and "never worked" all in the same sentence?
What fucking planet is that guy on? I'm sure he'd just love to stay at home and look after 7 kids all for 400 quid a week.
tell ya what kent if you cant see the problem you send your kids to the STATE REGISTERED child minder i had and see how happy you are when she locks your kids in a cold damp conservitory and go do the hours i used to do. my son now has severe asthma and yes i blame that bloody woman my son was never ill now i spend more time than enough in a&e with my son on a nibuliser
Quote by kentswingers777
It takes 2 parents to make children, why pick on just one?
Think you seem to forget that a lot of single mums have no experience, a lot being in long term relationships or married where the husband/father was working and supporting them all, its ok saying lets force them into work but are we also going to force employers to employ them, given they have no experience working? Especially when there are another 30 or so people applied for the vacancy that does have the experience, just wished it was all as black and white as that.
We all know there’s people out there who sponge off our benefits system, but this is not a scheme intended to weed out the spongers, its nothing more than an opportunity to pick on one section of our society, funnily enough the weakest, next they’ll be saying we should never retire and work till we die so they can cut the benefits bill more.
Whether you agree or not kent the fact is that if most of these single mums did get a job they would be entitled to more benefits than they get now as help with child minders and working tax credits would double or triple the benefit they receive at present.
So the question is, do we want to cut our annual spending bill, or do we want to cut unemployment figures because we cant have both and unfortunately cutting the unemployment figures costs us more.
In a quick answer to your post, I would suggest you pop along to any post office on a Monday morning, and see how many Mothers are there.
Of course there are loads of others that take the piss out of the system but....in this instance the artical was about single Mothers.
Why can't any member of society be it male or female, who can work be made to do something? IF they are able too.
In this scenario the Government have singled out single Mothers and for me rightly so. And before anyone slates my views MY own Daughter would fall into this too. She is a single Mother who could do something, but why should she if she is not forced
Sorry but the time has come for a massive shake up of the whole welfare system. Give to the REAL people who need it and let the able bodied do something, anything for their money.
I do not want to hear about people being allowed to stay in million pound houses that their councils are paying massive ammounts for. The trouble is so many have no incentive to work, no ambitions at all. That is the sad culture that is now out there.
Force them to work for their money, because I have to work for mine. No work no benefits....a simple logic that in the long run will only have massive benefits itself for us all.
Excuse me but i visit the post office every monday morning, the only benifit we recieve is child benefit which unless i'm mistaken everyone with children is entitled to, so to assume that everyone who visits a post office on a monday morning or any other day for that matter is claiming benefits is just outrageous, talk about tarring everyone with the same brush? suppose you've never recieved child benefit or family allowance as it used to be known.
In answer to that one....yes we did.
So you are saying that all the young Mothers there on a Monday morning at 9am, are not all collecting their benefits? Only their child benefit? I am not taring ALL with the same brush, just most of them.
With some people attitudes no wonder we find ourselves in a benefit culture. God knows what the next generation will be like. Work will be used in the same term as fuckoff, and to tell somebody to work in twenty years time, will get ya a smack in the gob. :shock:
Most of the young girls outside my post office on a Monday morning, would not know the word work, if it slipped out of their ears. Work it out....9am outside post office, with two kids, or more. If there was not a problem then the single mother stats showing how many single Mothers are claiming, would be very low, but they are the opposite of low.
The highest in Western Europe, along with the highest number of single Mums in Western Europe too.
Have you actualy thought any of this through? i would hedge a bet that everyone would like to see everyone working, but like many of your debates, you only see things in black and white.
Lets all take your stance and force single mothers to work, firstly they have to find a job, what happens if they cant? not all employers will employ people with no experience, suppose they are trying but fail, what then? just stop their benefits, make her homeless as well as her 2 or 3 children, yes extremely bright idea that, why not just take the children into care at the cost of the tax payer.
Have you actualy thought any of this through, why pick on single mums when there are plenty of single people without children on benefits, shouldn't they be looking at sorting that first. Theyre obviously intent on picking on the weakest while their happy to bail out banks and keep our criminals in prisons at a cost of £1000 per head per week. Never thought i'd see the day that criminals would come before single parent families.
IF you had bothered to read some of my replies, which it seems you have not, then you will see that I clearly said " I think when a child gets to 5 then something should be done ".
What is the problem with that? Why don't people want to go to work?
Mrs777 got a diploma in a job that worked in with the kids school holidays. She spent 2 years of hard graft getting it. She had two kids but wanted to work. There lies the word " wanted " to work.
The link on my opening post says it all for me, and for me it is 100% on the money. It seems the only ones moaning here are the ones who will be affected by the new changes.
What about some charity work for your benefits whilst the kids are at school? That way no childminders. That is one of the things they are looking at doing. NOT full time work but some work for your money. From both of us who work hard, I can say we both believe the artical at the front of this topic, is about as accurate as it gets.
Don't forget though, it is my opinion, as others are entitles to theirs.
What is the problem with that? Why don't people want to go to work?
Mrs777 got a diploma in a job that worked in with the kids school holidays. She spent 2 years of hard graft getting it. She had two kids but wanted to work. There lies the word " wanted " to work.
The link on my opening post says it all for me, and for me it is 100% on the money. It seems the only ones moaning here are the ones who will be affected by the new changes.
What about some charity work for your benefits whilst the kids are at school? That way no childminders. That is one of the things they are looking at doing. NOT full time work but some work for your money. From both of us who work hard, I can say we both believe the artical at the front of this topic, is about as accurate as it gets.
Don't forget though, it is my opinion, as others are entitles to theirs.
Sex God
Quote by Deviants
. Theyre obviously intent on picking on the weakest while their happy to bail out banks and keep our criminals in prisons at a cost of £1000 per head per week. Never thought i'd see the day that criminals would come before single parent families.
F***ing aye :thumbup:Quote by Dave__Notts
If enough "volunteer" work can be found then it should be made into a full time job that is paid a going wage.
Dave_Notts
Too true!
Quote by kentswingers777
IF you had bothered to read some of my replies, which it seems you have not, then you will see that I clearly said " I think when a child gets to 5 then something should be done ".
What is the problem with that? Why don't people want to go to work?
Mrs777 got a diploma in a job that worked in with the kids school holidays. She spent 2 years of hard graft getting it. She had two kids but wanted to work. There lies the word " wanted " to work.
The link on my opening post says it all for me, and for me it is 100% on the money. It seems the only ones moaning here are the ones who will be affected by the new changes.
What about some charity work for your benefits whilst the kids are at school? That way no childminders. That is one of the things they are looking at doing. NOT full time work but some work for your money. From both of us who work hard, I can say we both believe the artical at the front of this topic, is about as accurate as it gets.
Don't forget though, it is my opinion, as others are entitles to theirs.
Is this you now assuming that everyone who disagrees with you or this great government plan must be claiming benefits? It certainly wont affect me/us but does that mean we have to agree with it, or is it just another one of your cheap shots at you trying to judge others. Dummy out the pram time is it?
It’s not your opinions that’s bothering me, its all your assumptions your making about people whilst dressing it up as an opinion.
Quote by Deviants
IF you had bothered to read some of my replies, which it seems you have not, then you will see that I clearly said " I think when a child gets to 5 then something should be done ".
What is the problem with that? Why don't people want to go to work?
Mrs777 got a diploma in a job that worked in with the kids school holidays. She spent 2 years of hard graft getting it. She had two kids but wanted to work. There lies the word " wanted " to work.
The link on my opening post says it all for me, and for me it is 100% on the money. It seems the only ones moaning here are the ones who will be affected by the new changes.
What about some charity work for your benefits whilst the kids are at school? That way no childminders. That is one of the things they are looking at doing. NOT full time work but some work for your money. From both of us who work hard, I can say we both believe the artical at the front of this topic, is about as accurate as it gets.
Don't forget though, it is my opinion, as others are entitles to theirs.
Is this you now assuming that everyone who disagrees with you or this great government plan must be claiming benefits? It certainly wont affect me/us but does that mean we have to agree with it, or is it just another one of your cheap shots at you trying to judge others. Dummy out the pram time is it?
It’s not your opinions that’s bothering me, its all your assumptions your making about people whilst dressing it up as an opinion.
What a naff comment..either argue with some logic or dont argue at all. That was a cheap snipe at me. Sorry but people always get the hump when these kind of things affect them.
Why have you got such a problem with people having to do something for their benefits IF they can??
It is not my assumptions they are Facts, you know those things that are real? Have a go at the Google search and see how many people there are claiming benefits when they Could do something! In this instance we are not talking about others.....the artical was about Mothers working, or have you only seen in this thread what YOU have wanted to see?
I am really interested for you to explain what your problem is in making people who CAN work do so, for their free benefits? Why have you such a problem with some doing some kind of work within their communities, whilst their kids are at school?
You have your opinions and I have mine, but try and be adult about it and cut out the cheap shots, it really does not suit you.
Sex God
I'm just wondering how many employers are really going to want to have the Karen Matthews of this world on their team? The kind of single mothers this is aimed at are not likely to be the most employable, and given that a million or more of the poorest paid, lowest skilled jobs are likely to be lost in a recession, what work exactly are they expected to do?
Some of them will have no work experience whatsoever. Some of them will be semi-literate at best. Some of them will have problems with alcohol and substance abuse. Some of them will have mental health issues. Some of them will be determined come what may that they are not going to be forced into work they don't want to do. What do you do in those cases? Cut their benefits come what may? The result of that in many cases will be that their kids suffer the consequences for their mothers actions, and I for one was always under the impression that the welfare state was designed to ensure precisely the opposite, namely, that kids are protected from the failings of their parents.
We will not solve the problem of an underclass that has never worked by taking a stick to them. Not without massive investment in childcare, training, adult education, etc, all of which are underfunded and of mixed quality. Successive governments have created the problem, but now seek to attach all responsibility for the consequences of their political decisions to the poorest and weakest members of society, taking none for themselves. I for one never expected a Labour government to propose policies that distinguish the 'deserving' versus 'undeserving' poor. You accept a certain amount of 'scrounging' because in the grand scheme of things they are the price you pay for being civilised enough to have protections in place for all in the shape of the welfare state.
Neil x x x ;)
Some of them will have no work experience whatsoever. Some of them will be semi-literate at best. Some of them will have problems with alcohol and substance abuse. Some of them will have mental health issues. Some of them will be determined come what may that they are not going to be forced into work they don't want to do. What do you do in those cases? Cut their benefits come what may? The result of that in many cases will be that their kids suffer the consequences for their mothers actions, and I for one was always under the impression that the welfare state was designed to ensure precisely the opposite, namely, that kids are protected from the failings of their parents.
We will not solve the problem of an underclass that has never worked by taking a stick to them. Not without massive investment in childcare, training, adult education, etc, all of which are underfunded and of mixed quality. Successive governments have created the problem, but now seek to attach all responsibility for the consequences of their political decisions to the poorest and weakest members of society, taking none for themselves. I for one never expected a Labour government to propose policies that distinguish the 'deserving' versus 'undeserving' poor. You accept a certain amount of 'scrounging' because in the grand scheme of things they are the price you pay for being civilised enough to have protections in place for all in the shape of the welfare state.
Neil x x x ;)
Why do people get so uptight about people claiming benefits?
The simple fact of the matters is that these people are entitled by law to the benefits they are claiming otherwise they wouldn't be getting them.
So why, over time, has something which all of us are entitled to should we meet the requirements become and excuse to be called a sponger or someone that is forced into a situation that probably isn't best for them?
State benefits for the entitled are one of the things that sets us apart from most other countries (and I mean that in a good way).
Why must the right wing always be moaning about the cost of benefits paid out when the Government wastes far more money on other things that don't really benefit us as people. Trident missiles anyone? Bailing out incompetent banks. Lending money to countries who obviously will never be able to pay it back.
I wonder how many people could have benefited from the money spent on the Millenium Dome, or Blair's pied de terre?
People should always come first, something the Right always seem to forget.
The simple fact of the matters is that these people are entitled by law to the benefits they are claiming otherwise they wouldn't be getting them.
So why, over time, has something which all of us are entitled to should we meet the requirements become and excuse to be called a sponger or someone that is forced into a situation that probably isn't best for them?
State benefits for the entitled are one of the things that sets us apart from most other countries (and I mean that in a good way).
Why must the right wing always be moaning about the cost of benefits paid out when the Government wastes far more money on other things that don't really benefit us as people. Trident missiles anyone? Bailing out incompetent banks. Lending money to countries who obviously will never be able to pay it back.
I wonder how many people could have benefited from the money spent on the Millenium Dome, or Blair's pied de terre?
People should always come first, something the Right always seem to forget.
Peanut I have made my opinions very clear, on many occasions. I have not nor never have had, any problems with people claiming benefits IF they are entitled to them.
Yes you are correct by saying these Mothers ARE entitled to the money they get by law. What is happening now is that the laws will be changed. Laws change all the time.
I believe that the genuine claimants out there are NOT given anywhere near the ammount they should be but....others are being given money that they could do something to get.
Would it not be a fairer system whereby the genuine ones get more money, and the ones that can work, do something constructive to get theirs?
As you seem to be a genuine claimant, would you not want more money? I think you would as would others but...we cannot continue to sustain Mothers with kids who do not or have never worked, and more importantly have no intention of ever doing so. That surely cannot be right, but a balance has to be struck where it is fair. And that is where I think this will fall down because, some genuine claimants will be dragged into the net and told they have to find some kind of work.
This kind of radical change in the law of course will have people up in arms, but radical decisions normally does.
I would just like to see a fairer system where the likes of Karen Mathews cannot screw the system, and if she could have worked and payed her dues like most do, maybe just maybe she would not have become the dreadful Mother she turned out to be.
It has become a culture for many who can work, but choose the benefit route as a lifestyle choice. I am saying that choice should be taken away, but NOT from the genuine claimants. That to me seems a fairer system than the one we currently have.
Yes you are correct by saying these Mothers ARE entitled to the money they get by law. What is happening now is that the laws will be changed. Laws change all the time.
I believe that the genuine claimants out there are NOT given anywhere near the ammount they should be but....others are being given money that they could do something to get.
Would it not be a fairer system whereby the genuine ones get more money, and the ones that can work, do something constructive to get theirs?
As you seem to be a genuine claimant, would you not want more money? I think you would as would others but...we cannot continue to sustain Mothers with kids who do not or have never worked, and more importantly have no intention of ever doing so. That surely cannot be right, but a balance has to be struck where it is fair. And that is where I think this will fall down because, some genuine claimants will be dragged into the net and told they have to find some kind of work.
This kind of radical change in the law of course will have people up in arms, but radical decisions normally does.
I would just like to see a fairer system where the likes of Karen Mathews cannot screw the system, and if she could have worked and payed her dues like most do, maybe just maybe she would not have become the dreadful Mother she turned out to be.
It has become a culture for many who can work, but choose the benefit route as a lifestyle choice. I am saying that choice should be taken away, but NOT from the genuine claimants. That to me seems a fairer system than the one we currently have.
Quote by kentswingers777
Peanut I have made my opinions very clear, on many occasions. I have not nor never have had, any problems with people claiming benefits IF they are entitled to them.
Yes you are correct by saying these Mothers ARE entitled to the money they get by law. What is happening now is that the laws will be changed. Laws change all the time.
I believe that the genuine claimants out there are NOT given anywhere near the ammount they should be but....others are being given money that they could do something to get.
Would it not be a fairer system whereby the genuine ones get more money, and the ones that can work, do something constructive to get theirs?
As you seem to be a genuine claimant, would you not want more money? I think you would as would others but...we cannot continue to sustain Mothers with kids who do not or have never worked, and more importantly have no intention of ever doing so. That surely cannot be right, but a balance has to be struck where it is fair. And that is where I think this will fall down because, some genuine claimants will be dragged into the net and told they have to find some kind of work.
This kind of radical change in the law of course will have people up in arms, but radical decisions normally does.
I would just like to see a fairer system where the likes of Karen Mathews cannot screw the system, and if she could have worked and payed her dues like most do, maybe just maybe she would not have become the dreadful Mother she turned out to be.
It has become a culture for many who can work, but choose the benefit route as a lifestyle choice. I am saying that choice should be taken away, but NOT from the genuine claimants. That to me seems a fairer system than the one we currently have.
Firstly please let me make it clear. I wasn't referring to you directly. If you want to consider yourself as part of the 'Right' then that's fine too. Just so long as you realise that when I refer to the Right I'm talking about a political doctrine not anyone in particular.
Now I've cleared that up, what's with the segregation of so-called "genuine" claimants. If any claimant has passed the criteria for entitlement to any benefits then they are genuine. Full stop. You or anyone else outside the benefits system do not get to decide who is genuine and who isn't.
The other thing I take exception to with your usual black and white sweeping generalisations is "intent". Means tested benefits are based on circumstance and financial situation. Intent is not a factor and until it is it is unfair to start spouting off about mothers who "don't intend to work". Whilst the rules don't insist they work then why the hell should they? It's hard enough work looking after a youngster as it is.
Yes rules/laws do change, often not for the better. Most times for the benefit of the people who make the law and not for the benefit of the people subject to the law.
And what's this BS about benefits not being sustainable? Of course they are. If the Government can keep throwing money at a Defence budget that is becoming increasingly unnecessary then I'm bloody sure they can throw money at the people who are in the most need of help.
Once again your opinions show bias towards money and not people. I for one find that far more distasteful than the odd fake SS claimant.
Quote by Dave__Notts
They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??
Most of the "nice" kids who end up in trouble have sensible parents. They teach and educate them but they do not always do as the parent wishes............then the papers and others then berate the parents for not keeping an eye on them and where were they.
Dave_Notts
:thumbup: Thank you Dave, couldn't have put it better myself.
Quote by Peanut
Why do people get so uptight about people claiming benefits?
The simple fact of the matters is that these people are entitled by law to the benefits they are claiming otherwise they wouldn't be getting them.
So why, over time, has something which all of us are entitled to should we meet the requirements become and excuse to be called a sponger or someone that is forced into a situation that probably isn't best for them?
State benefits for the entitled are one of the things that sets us apart from most other countries (and I mean that in a good way).
Why must the right wing always be moaning about the cost of benefits paid out when the Government wastes far more money on other things that don't really benefit us as people. Trident missiles anyone? Bailing out incompetent banks. Lending money to countries who obviously will never be able to pay it back.
I wonder how many people could have benefited from the money spent on the Millenium Dome, or Blair's pied de terre?
People should always come first, something the Right always seem to forget.
:thumbup: For once, I agree with you.
While I was a student, Tax Credits were a fantastic help, this enabled me to study to get a better paid job for myself and my family.
I wouldn't hesitate to access that service again should the need arise, that's what it's there for and I'm not ashamed to use it.
Sexlightened
6 months ago I found myself in the position of being a single parent and had to claim benefits for myself and two children aged 9 & 4. I've never claimed benefits before now.
My youngest recently started school so I thought right I'll start to look for work. I went to several employment agencies all who said they could arrange interviews for me and gave me details of the jobs and salary.
So before I went on the interviews I looked into the cost of child care and as one of my children has autism he needs specialist after school care/school holiday care and after working out costs and what I would earn and what I would have to pay out and finding out tax credits etc etc I would be £4 a week better off working 37 1/2 hours per week.
Then I have the big problem that my sons autism means I am often called into his school to deal with problems he has. Is anyone employer really going to employ me when I have to say half way though the day can I have a few hours off to go sort my son out. And then I would have to take that time off as unpaid leave so I would be actually worse off working.
Does the government really think I would go back to work to be worse off. Somehow I cant see it happening.
My youngest recently started school so I thought right I'll start to look for work. I went to several employment agencies all who said they could arrange interviews for me and gave me details of the jobs and salary.
So before I went on the interviews I looked into the cost of child care and as one of my children has autism he needs specialist after school care/school holiday care and after working out costs and what I would earn and what I would have to pay out and finding out tax credits etc etc I would be £4 a week better off working 37 1/2 hours per week.
Then I have the big problem that my sons autism means I am often called into his school to deal with problems he has. Is anyone employer really going to employ me when I have to say half way though the day can I have a few hours off to go sort my son out. And then I would have to take that time off as unpaid leave so I would be actually worse off working.
Does the government really think I would go back to work to be worse off. Somehow I cant see it happening.
Bottom line is whether people like it or not, it IS going to happen. Moan about it, slag off the system, even slag off the Government but....it is coming and is going to happen.
I just hope that when it does happen the people who DESERVE the money, still get it. That would be my one and only worry.
As for somebody saying about throwing money at the armed forces or the " war ", that comes out of a completly different budget. I am talking about the Social Security budget and what money they have, or not as the case maybe.
The ones who will moan the loudest are the ones who will be affected by the changes, for me I will work whether they change the law or not. It makes no difference to me really at all BUT...it will affect MY Daughter, as she falls into the can work but won't work catagory, I am afraid to say. But she will like many others have to do some work to be able to collect their benefits. She will not be happy about it, but it will be better for her than just sitting at home all day watching the telly. She ain't happy, but hey lifes a bitch at times.
I just hope that when it does happen the people who DESERVE the money, still get it. That would be my one and only worry.
As for somebody saying about throwing money at the armed forces or the " war ", that comes out of a completly different budget. I am talking about the Social Security budget and what money they have, or not as the case maybe.
The ones who will moan the loudest are the ones who will be affected by the changes, for me I will work whether they change the law or not. It makes no difference to me really at all BUT...it will affect MY Daughter, as she falls into the can work but won't work catagory, I am afraid to say. But she will like many others have to do some work to be able to collect their benefits. She will not be happy about it, but it will be better for her than just sitting at home all day watching the telly. She ain't happy, but hey lifes a bitch at times.
Quote by kentswingers777
As for somebody saying about throwing money at the armed forces or the " war ", that comes out of a completly different budget. I am talking about the Social Security budget and what money they have, or not as the case maybe.
LMAO.
I do hope you didn't mean to be serious with that statement.
Where do you think the Government gets their money from before it's split up into different budgets.
And why do you think that expression "that's a different budget" is used so frequently? It's because it's a tried and tested obfuscation method.
Every single penny of Government money is public money. It matters not a jot which "budget" it is spent under.
Every penny spent on 'defence' could very easily be re-routed to be spent anywhere else. They're just a number in a computer.
The public 'pot' is finite so all Government spending is in effect 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.
Different budget? How hilarious.
i am i single mum to 3kids. for me to go to work i would need part-time care for my 3yr old full time care for my 2 yr old and after school care for my 9 yr old.
so for me to work it just wouldn't happen to be honest not that i don't want to but coz off the above. i receive to be fair. a lot off benefits not nearly a lot as some of my friends get. but i also have a child that gets dla. etc so most of my benefits are through her. i receive csa off 1 father for 2kids the other appears to have vanished.. witch actually replaces my income support though get it through there..
basically what i am saying is that the above is the reason i can't work 1. coz off child care and fact my kids dad works full time and refuse's to care for his kids so i could get a small job. and 2 coz i have a disabled child also.
but there is some people who actually chose not to. my friends partner left a well paid job to rise is 3kids and her 3 other kids and the reason was she would lose a lot off benefits if he continued to work after they got married. that's a bit unfair on the benefits system really. witch i did tell her?
there well always be different reason's why people can't work and i am sure the government take this into account. as i have to attend an appointment to see if i can start work.
so for me to work it just wouldn't happen to be honest not that i don't want to but coz off the above. i receive to be fair. a lot off benefits not nearly a lot as some of my friends get. but i also have a child that gets dla. etc so most of my benefits are through her. i receive csa off 1 father for 2kids the other appears to have vanished.. witch actually replaces my income support though get it through there..
basically what i am saying is that the above is the reason i can't work 1. coz off child care and fact my kids dad works full time and refuse's to care for his kids so i could get a small job. and 2 coz i have a disabled child also.
but there is some people who actually chose not to. my friends partner left a well paid job to rise is 3kids and her 3 other kids and the reason was she would lose a lot off benefits if he continued to work after they got married. that's a bit unfair on the benefits system really. witch i did tell her?
there well always be different reason's why people can't work and i am sure the government take this into account. as i have to attend an appointment to see if i can start work.
Quote by Peanut
As for somebody saying about throwing money at the armed forces or the " war ", that comes out of a completly different budget. I am talking about the Social Security budget and what money they have, or not as the case maybe.
LMAO.
I do hope you didn't mean to be serious with that statement.
Where do you think the Government gets their money from before it's split up into different budgets.
And why do you think that expression "that's a different budget" is used so frequently? It's because it's a tried and tested obfuscation method.
Every single penny of Government money is public money. It matters not a jot which "budget" it is spent under.
Every penny spent on 'defence' could very easily be re-routed to be spent anywhere else. They're just a number in a computer.
The public 'pot' is finite so all Government spending is in effect 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.
Different budget? How hilarious.
I know exactly how it works and how it is divided. Some people on here are nowhere near as clever or smart as yourself, so was trying to put it in easy to digest terms. Am glad you helped to explain it to us all.
Somebody else could easily say...don't put anything into the Social security budget, put it all in the NHS. There is no easy solution as you well know. You have a problem with people " digging " out people on benefits, or money spent on the armed forces. Others may have a problem with so much money being wasted on the NHS. Everybody has their own ideas as to how they would like to see OUR money spent. But you nor I are in a position to do that. There are elected people who do that, and Governments set what money goes to where.
For somebody who said they had no opinion on this topic, ya certainly have said quite a bit.
:wink: 
Sex God
Why do you 2... peanut and kentswingers777 ALWAYS end up getting in a row???!!!
