Jobless mum spends £2k of benefits on christmas
Discussion
Pesty said:
No you havn't, you have just had a go at others without really adding to the thread.
Care to share you're opinions?
None of that is true is it? May I suggest you look back a little for where the vitriol emanated from? Care to share you're opinions?
As for not adding to the thread? Well, until I posted no one was considering the obvious fact that pouring hatred onto the recipients of benefits is pointless and stupid.
Oh, and I think one bloke is still angry at me for refusing to say that tax evasion was acceptable and seems to just follow me around making angry posts for the last year or so.
DonkeyApple said:
Load yourself up with two kids and then try and do your job.
It's the kids that cost. Any one of us can actually live on bugger all if we needed or wanted to. Rent a room, buy beans and a jumper. As blokes we can exist on almost nothing.
The problem arises when you throw a couple of kids into the equation. At the moment by contrasting your lifestyle to a mother of two you are comparing apples and oranges. The maths doesn't stack up.
I suspect you would have to stop working so as to raise the children as you couldn't afford child care.
So this does raise the question of how to promote the family unit, how to stop excessive breeding in a financially insecure environment etc etc.
Yep - the comparisons from those childless people who are working are ridiculous. If the girl in the article didn't have kids she'd be getting £60/wk JSA and that's it.It's the kids that cost. Any one of us can actually live on bugger all if we needed or wanted to. Rent a room, buy beans and a jumper. As blokes we can exist on almost nothing.
The problem arises when you throw a couple of kids into the equation. At the moment by contrasting your lifestyle to a mother of two you are comparing apples and oranges. The maths doesn't stack up.
I suspect you would have to stop working so as to raise the children as you couldn't afford child care.
So this does raise the question of how to promote the family unit, how to stop excessive breeding in a financially insecure environment etc etc.
DonkeyApple said:
Mobile Chicane said:
Crafty_ said:
Tampon said:
Sensational story IMO, still not nice to read.
Shame she is where she is, sounds pretty able and switched on for a lass who has no formal education. Imagine how financially savvy she would be running her own business.
Not many people in her situation manage money so well.
All shes got to do is pay the electric bill and buy food/clothes, everything else is covered by benefits, even buying milk!Shame she is where she is, sounds pretty able and switched on for a lass who has no formal education. Imagine how financially savvy she would be running her own business.
Not many people in her situation manage money so well.
Shes probably got more disposable income than many homeowners.
From an income of £1,290, minus £444 for rent and £80 for council tax, I make her 'disposable income' as £766 per month.
I work in a job she wouldn't have a hope in Hell of getting, and have £729 per month in disposable income. From this I have to maintain a professional appearance for work and run a car, over and above feeding myself and heating the house.
If I didn't loathe children, I could quite see the economic argument behind 'breeding' as a career choice.
It's the kids that cost. Any one of us can actually live on bugger all if we needed or wanted to. Rent a room, buy beans and a jumper. As blokes we can exist on almost nothing.
The problem arises when you throw a couple of kids into the equation. At the moment by contrasting your lifestyle to a mother of two you are comparing apples and oranges. The maths doesn't stack up.
I suspect you would have to stop working so as to raise the children as you couldn't afford child care.
So this does raise the question of how to promote the family unit, how to stop excessive breeding in a financially insecure environment etc etc.
Can you imagine a situation where a mother of two loses her recently enlisted husband in Afghanistan or in a road accident etc. It would be very wrong as a society not to protect them? The majority won't be single due to these events or similar but where do you draw the line? The two children exist and you can't stick them back up the hole and you can't sell them on eBay. A modern society is better than that.
No reason why such a system couldn't work here.
'All' Britain needs to do is issue an edict that as of, say, 1 January 2014, there will be no State benefits or subsidised housing for new single mothers. (Obviously it can't penalise those already in The System.)
Problem solved.
Mobile Chicane said:
In much of the world, it's the norm to farm children out to grandparents while parents go out to work, often overseas.
No reason why such a system couldn't work here.
'All' Britain needs to do is issue an edict that as of, say, 1 January 2014, there will be no State benefits or subsidised housing for new single mothers. (Obviously it can't penalise those already in The System.)
Problem solved.
What do you do with the ones who become single mums anyway, despite the edict?No reason why such a system couldn't work here.
'All' Britain needs to do is issue an edict that as of, say, 1 January 2014, there will be no State benefits or subsidised housing for new single mothers. (Obviously it can't penalise those already in The System.)
Problem solved.
Mobile Chicane said:
In much of the world, it's the norm to farm children out to grandparents while parents go out to work, often overseas.
No reason why such a system couldn't work here.
.
Sorry but yes there is a good reason why this wont work here now. People have to work later these days and its getting worse.No reason why such a system couldn't work here.
.
My mother is Over 65 and still working. my eldest is 16, grandmother was obviously still working where she was young and in need of child care.
Note: newly single mothers... ie. those who choose to have kids who didn't previously have them.
I'm not suggesting those already in The System should be penalised.
What we as a society need to do is to disincentivise breeding as a 'career choice'.
Benefits should be a safety net rather than a hammock.
I'm not suggesting those already in The System should be penalised.
What we as a society need to do is to disincentivise breeding as a 'career choice'.
Benefits should be a safety net rather than a hammock.
Mobile Chicane said:
DonkeyApple said:
Mobile Chicane said:
Crafty_ said:
Tampon said:
Sensational story IMO, still not nice to read.
Shame she is where she is, sounds pretty able and switched on for a lass who has no formal education. Imagine how financially savvy she would be running her own business.
Not many people in her situation manage money so well.
All shes got to do is pay the electric bill and buy food/clothes, everything else is covered by benefits, even buying milk!Shame she is where she is, sounds pretty able and switched on for a lass who has no formal education. Imagine how financially savvy she would be running her own business.
Not many people in her situation manage money so well.
Shes probably got more disposable income than many homeowners.
From an income of £1,290, minus £444 for rent and £80 for council tax, I make her 'disposable income' as £766 per month.
I work in a job she wouldn't have a hope in Hell of getting, and have £729 per month in disposable income. From this I have to maintain a professional appearance for work and run a car, over and above feeding myself and heating the house.
If I didn't loathe children, I could quite see the economic argument behind 'breeding' as a career choice.
It's the kids that cost. Any one of us can actually live on bugger all if we needed or wanted to. Rent a room, buy beans and a jumper. As blokes we can exist on almost nothing.
The problem arises when you throw a couple of kids into the equation. At the moment by contrasting your lifestyle to a mother of two you are comparing apples and oranges. The maths doesn't stack up.
I suspect you would have to stop working so as to raise the children as you couldn't afford child care.
So this does raise the question of how to promote the family unit, how to stop excessive breeding in a financially insecure environment etc etc.
Can you imagine a situation where a mother of two loses her recently enlisted husband in Afghanistan or in a road accident etc. It would be very wrong as a society not to protect them? The majority won't be single due to these events or similar but where do you draw the line? The two children exist and you can't stick them back up the hole and you can't sell them on eBay. A modern society is better than that.
No reason why such a system couldn't work here.
'All' Britain needs to do is issue an edict that as of, say, 1 January 2014, there will be no State benefits or subsidised housing for new single mothers. (Obviously it can't penalise those already in The System.)
Problem solved.
Stepping back in time you can look to the fact that people lived closer to, or even with, parents (grandparents) so had competent childcare on tap. But there were other factors also at play that kept these social units geographically closer etc.
Another way to look at it is that we humans are pretty damn resourceful when we are not stupefied on a full stomach with a roof over our heads. Remove this security and people won't be dying in the streets.
People would be forced to work together to replace the efficiency of the old style family unit. One such idea would be each mother taking one day off work to run the nursery that they've set up etc.
But improvisation and initiatives are only borne out of necessity. And I suspect there is none.
Pesty said:
Mobile Chicane said:
In much of the world, it's the norm to farm children out to grandparents while parents go out to work, often overseas.
No reason why such a system couldn't work here.
.
Sorry but yes there is a good reason why this wont work here now. People have to work later these days and its getting worse.No reason why such a system couldn't work here.
.
My mother is Over 65 and still working. my eldest is 16, grandmother was obviously still working where she was young and in need of child care.
Mobile Chicane said:
So have kids later, when you're more certain you can afford them, and have the necessary support structures in place.
Errrm I'm 41 and she is still working how old do you want me to have them Oh by the way I agree with affording to have them. worked all my life. Can't say the same for the mrs though
However we are certainly getting into only rich can have babies territory which hmmmm
I tell you what as a fan of a safety lest just stop people taking the piss.
DonkeyApple said:
Mobile Chicane said:
DonkeyApple said:
Mobile Chicane said:
Crafty_ said:
Tampon said:
Sensational story IMO, still not nice to read.
Shame she is where she is, sounds pretty able and switched on for a lass who has no formal education. Imagine how financially savvy she would be running her own business.
Not many people in her situation manage money so well.
All shes got to do is pay the electric bill and buy food/clothes, everything else is covered by benefits, even buying milk!Shame she is where she is, sounds pretty able and switched on for a lass who has no formal education. Imagine how financially savvy she would be running her own business.
Not many people in her situation manage money so well.
Shes probably got more disposable income than many homeowners.
From an income of £1,290, minus £444 for rent and £80 for council tax, I make her 'disposable income' as £766 per month.
I work in a job she wouldn't have a hope in Hell of getting, and have £729 per month in disposable income. From this I have to maintain a professional appearance for work and run a car, over and above feeding myself and heating the house.
If I didn't loathe children, I could quite see the economic argument behind 'breeding' as a career choice.
It's the kids that cost. Any one of us can actually live on bugger all if we needed or wanted to. Rent a room, buy beans and a jumper. As blokes we can exist on almost nothing.
The problem arises when you throw a couple of kids into the equation. At the moment by contrasting your lifestyle to a mother of two you are comparing apples and oranges. The maths doesn't stack up.
I suspect you would have to stop working so as to raise the children as you couldn't afford child care.
So this does raise the question of how to promote the family unit, how to stop excessive breeding in a financially insecure environment etc etc.
Can you imagine a situation where a mother of two loses her recently enlisted husband in Afghanistan or in a road accident etc. It would be very wrong as a society not to protect them? The majority won't be single due to these events or similar but where do you draw the line? The two children exist and you can't stick them back up the hole and you can't sell them on eBay. A modern society is better than that.
No reason why such a system couldn't work here.
'All' Britain needs to do is issue an edict that as of, say, 1 January 2014, there will be no State benefits or subsidised housing for new single mothers. (Obviously it can't penalise those already in The System.)
Problem solved.
Stepping back in time you can look to the fact that people lived closer to, or even with, parents (grandparents) so had competent childcare on tap. But there were other factors also at play that kept these social units geographically closer etc.
Another way to look at it is that we humans are pretty damn resourceful when we are not stupefied on a full stomach with a roof over our heads. Remove this security and people won't be dying in the streets.
People would be forced to work together to replace the efficiency of the old style family unit. One such idea would be each mother taking one day off work to run the nursery that they've set up etc.
But improvisation and initiatives are only borne out of necessity. And I suspect there is none.
Pesty said:
Mobile Chicane said:
So have kids later, when you're more certain you can afford them, and have the necessary support structures in place.
Errrm I'm 41 and she is still working how old do you want me to have them Oh by the way I agree with affording to have them. worked all my life. Can't say the same for the mrs though
Some of them may be getting sufficiently bored of golf, cruises and clogging up B roads to contemplate a spot of charity work running crèches for women less fortunate than themselves and imagine the wisdom they can pass on to the young children, many who may be lacking good roll models other than one parent?
There's an army of young retirees in the UK and they can't all stand at the doors of B&Q saying good morning to me.
DonkeyApple said:
But as an aside, thanks to huge pension pay offs there is an army of early retired pensioners in every community around Britain.
As soon as our daughter announced she was pregnant my missus immediately put in for early retirement. She has our grandaughter 2 days a week.For the other days grandaughter goes to nursury. It costs £45/day, so if people aren't available to do the caring for free, once you've got a couple of kids it would need a chunky salary to make working worthwhile.
If someone on a lowish salary chose to work and use paid-for childcare, they'd most likely be getting more in benefits than if they didn't work at all.
Deva Link said:
DonkeyApple said:
But as an aside, thanks to huge pension pay offs there is an army of early retired pensioners in every community around Britain.
As soon as our daughter announced she was pregnant my missus immediately put in for early retirement. She has our grandaughter 2 days a week.For the other days grandaughter goes to nursury. It costs £45/day, so if people aren't available to do the caring for free, once you've got a couple of kids it would need a chunky salary to make working worthwhile.
If someone on a lowish salary chose to work and use paid-for childcare, they'd most likely be getting more in benefits than if they didn't work at all.
Our village has a system whereby mothers in the village can dump sproggs at the village hall 3 days a week and the old duffers stun them to sleep with tales of the war or when Britain was a world leader and it is a superb service arranged by the village council. They even manage to bully the church into giving the Sunday takings to it.
It's a sign of what can easily be achieved outside of the family unit when society is functioning humanely.
You can't stop people having kids, you can't stop partners dying or legging it, you can't stop people from being people, but I do think you can stop incentivising it and also encouraging ways in which groups can use each other to synthesise the family unit.
Dracoro said:
Vipers said:
Cap benfits at the average wage for those who genuinly can't find work.
Why "average" wage and not minimum wage? Many unemployed don't have the skills (yet) to earn the average wage so there's no incentive to find work only to end up with less money than when unemployed.First few months at the equivalent of a 40 hour week just below minimum wage and then the hourly rate falls steadily lower and lower.
Or with human psychology do we respond better to sudden drops rather than gradual reductions? Like the frog in hot water.
I think it also relevant to bring in a bit of sexism to the debate and recognise that women with young children are probably better not working and raising their children. But at the same time remove the financial incentives for breeding?
Dracoro said:
Vipers said:
Cap benfits at the average wage for those who genuinly can't find work.
Why "average" wage and not minimum wage? Many unemployed don't have the skills (yet) to earn the average wage so there's no incentive to find work only to end up with less money than when unemployed.Whoops, your right, not average.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff