Benefits cap ruling today

So if the fathers are paying maintenance then that is taken off their benefits, so still doesn't really change anything the single mother who is still stuck not being able to work because childcare costs more than she could earn.

 

How can childcare not be relevant here? What do you think happens to a child when it's parent(s) go to work? A magic fairy pops up and looks after it all day with no costs? So to go to work you have to have some form of childcare. Lots of people don't live near family or have family that can help so you have to pay nursery fees which in some places can cost more than you'd earn on minimum wage per day, so going to work would actually cost you money. Do you understand this? Whereas clearly if one of the parents hadn't left then there would either be 2 incomes so they could afford childcare if they wanted to continue a career or one of them could stay at home. The fact that they are single parents (of either gender, I was wrong to target men solely, mothers walk out too leaving fathers in the same crap place) IS the problem as it reduces your choices down to null.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 17:11 ----------

 

 

They should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get a job that costs them more in childcare than they earn so they all starve to death. It's their fault after all.

As usual you've managed to turn my post round to something else.

I originally said it's a disgrace that anyone on benefits should be getting more than someone working forty hours a week on minimum wage, and I stand by that.

We know a single person working in a care home doing that who doesn't get housing benefit, free prescriptions or any of the other things people on benefits get. That's why even allowing for the disaster that was Theresa May more people voted Tory than Labour at the recent election because of Labours policies of throwing money at the feckless and benefit breeders.

You, like all the left wingers start quoting the ones who've fallen on hard times conveniently forgetting the ones who are having kids to avoid having to work.

It's a generational thing, the ones who aren't capable of supporting their family are likely to have kids who are just the same, but the left wing answer as always is to impose more tax on others to pay for it.

As usual you've managed to turn my post round to something else.

I originally said it's a disgrace that anyone on benefits should be getting more than someone working forty hours a week on minimum wage, and I stand by that.

We know a single person working in a care home doing that who doesn't get housing benefit, free prescriptions or any of the other things people on benefits get. That's why even allowing for the disaster that was Theresa May more people voted Tory than Labour at the recent election because of Labours policies of throwing money at the feckless and benefit breeders.

You, like all the left wingers start quoting the ones who've fallen on hard times conveniently forgetting the ones who are having kids to avoid having to work.

It's a generational thing, the ones who aren't capable of supporting their family are likely to have kids who are just the same, but the left wing answer as always is to impose more tax on others to pay for it.

Someone working blah blah, gets in work benefits. (Dependant on circumstances of course).

Someone working blah blah, gets in work benefits. (Dependant on circumstances of course).

Well this one doesn't, applied for and refused, blah blah, but then again she's a responsible person so the left aren't bothered about people like her.

Here's the Law Report, just published: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/1446.html&query=(%22DHP%22)

Well this one doesn't, applied for and refused, blah blah, but then again she's a responsible person so the left aren't bothered about people like her.

I'm pretty sure that responsibility isn't measured as part of a benefits application. It's much more objective than that.

Lawyers for the four families said they had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds they are single parents and therefore unable to work as many hours as other people.

 

Thats rather daft, don't they get positive discrimination on other things?

Or perhaps as clearly the claimants were both single MOTHERS that the pathetic excuses for men that banged them up and then walked away leaving a child with no support or income is the actual problem here. Maybe if more men actually took a bit more responsibility when it comes to their offspring we'd have considerably less single mothers out there who are unable to work as childcare would cost more than they'd be able to get in wages. Because it's perfectly possible that these woman had good jobs before their child's dad walked out leaving them as the sole carer of their kid...and with childcare costs in London being an average of £70 per day, that's more than minimum wage, therefore the mothers can't actually afford to pay for that childcare so are forced to quit their jobs. Funny how you seem to think that the childcare is 'her' problem and not 'his'. Sums you up really.

how do you know that your first sentence is really what happened?

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 22:02 ----------

in fact all your post is full of suppositions

Or perhaps as clearly the claimants were both single MOTHERS that the pathetic excuses for men that banged them up and then walked away leaving a child with no support or income is the actual problem here. Maybe if more men actually took a bit more responsibility when it comes to their offspring we'd have considerably less single mothers out there who are unable to work as childcare would cost more than they'd be able to get in wages. Because it's perfectly possible that these woman had good jobs before their child's dad walked out leaving them as the sole carer of their kid...and with childcare costs in London being an average of £70 per day, that's more than minimum wage, therefore the mothers can't actually afford to pay for that childcare so are forced to quit their jobs. Funny how you seem to think that the childcare is 'her' problem and not 'his'. Sums you up really.

Wouldn't someone doing 40 hours on minimum wage with a couple of kids probably be getting benefits on top of his salary. Working tax credits, child benefit, (child tax credits?) etc.

(Sorry, this was supposed to be a response to Gomgeg's post 25, not Sgtkate)

Do you think that no benefits recipients ever spend any of their money in gambling establishments?

All the government states is that this is the amount the government have decided you need to live on. What that money is then spent on is nobody's business except the recipient.

Wouldn't someone doing 40 hours on minimum wage with a couple of kids probably be getting benefits on top of his salary. Working tax credits, child benefit, (child tax credits?) etc.

 

(Sorry, this was supposed to be a response to Gomgeg's post 25, not Sgtkate)

Quite possibly yes. I was giving a scenario that demonstrates why single parents should be excluded from the requirements to work 16 hours per week. Whether the amounts we give to benefits claimants are too high, wrongly allocated, whether minimum wage is wrong etc is a different discussion.

Or perhaps as clearly the claimants were both single MOTHERS that the pathetic excuses for men that banged them up and then walked away leaving a child with no support or income is the actual problem here. Maybe if more men actually took a bit more responsibility when it comes to their offspring we'd have considerably less single mothers out there who are unable to work as childcare would cost more than they'd be able to get in wages. Because it's perfectly possible that these woman had good jobs before their child's dad walked out leaving them as the sole carer of their kid...and with childcare costs in London being an average of £70 per day, that's more than minimum wage, therefore the mothers can't actually afford to pay for that childcare so are forced to quit their jobs. Funny how you seem to think that the childcare is 'her' problem and not 'his'. Sums you up really.

Or perhaps the claimants saw a gravy train and got pregnant so they could get a house and free money.

See what I did there?

Or perhaps the claimants saw a gravy train and got pregnant so they could get a house and free money.

 

See what I did there?

Yes perhaps they did. You did exactly what I did and there's nothing wrong with that as you are almost certainly correct that there are some people who abuse the benefits system, but are they the minority or majority. Like many things it once again comes down to ideology:

- Would you prefer someone genuinely poor to suffer to make sure no one can get something they don't deserve

or

- Would you prefer everyone gets something even if they don't deserve it as you don't want anyone to suffer

I'd say the people who say one over the other will have similarly held view on whether our justice system should try to minimise false imprisonment or maximise convictions.