David Cameron to cut child benefit.

Britain's PM seems to be digging himself a deeper hole and it looks doubtful he will win the next election.

His latest idea is to cut child benefits for anyone who earns over £50,000 a year and says that those earners have to make a contribution.
But surely anyone earning that amount are paying a higher tax than those earning much less so they are contributing.

Cameron also claims that it will save £2billion a year but seems okay to give over £12billion in overseas aid.
He seems to be punishing people who work but rewarding people who don't work in Britain.
I know of one particular 30-year old single Mum who has 5 kids by 3 different Fathers, never worked in her life, got no intention to work and gets over £20,000 a year for doing nothing.

Labour were just as bad when they were in power.

I think most of the working British public are just sick and tired of this and the previous Government.

I for one, won't be voting in any future elections. The Tories, Labour, Lib Dem are all as bad as each other.

I agree with very little that the government is doing, however there are some things that I think are ridiculous. For example, child benefit for the rich. They don't need it, and child benefit should be means tested to a point. Should someone taking home £3000 a month really be entitled to child benefit? Would they even notice the £80 a month they are losing out on? I also don't think that the fuel allowance for the elderly should be given across the board. Again, it should be means tested. Mum gets £142 per week in pension, and yet gets the same fuel allowance as Margaret Thatcher. It's nonsensical. The same can be said for my own situation. I get a £14,000 grant to do my PhD. And yet I don't have to pay council tax because I'm classed as a student. But if I was working and earning that amount then I would have to pay it. I'm not complaining, of course (who would?), but the situation is ridiculous.

What I most strongly disagree with is the non-stop demonisation of the working class and the young. The constant branding of both as people who do not want to work is insulting and incorrect. Yes, there are always those who don't want to work, but that doesn't mean they are the majority of even a significant minority. As in the past, there is a need for a government to blame the current situation on someone, and at the moment that's those who are young and/or working class. What the government tries to make us forget is that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around anyway. It's not like the two million unemployed could find a job tomorrow if they wanted to.

While giving tax breaks to the wealthy, the government has withdrawn the small amount of money that was being given to 16 year olds who continue their education, and has tripled tuition fees for university while, at the party conference, the PM stated that the young working class should do all they can to better themselves - fat chance of that considering those recent changes. What's more the government has effectively removed any vocational qualifications at GCSE level - so the non-academically gifted can't learn carpentry or plumbing for example, but instead should continue to wade through subjects they will never be good at. The result of this is that they then leave school with virtually no good qualifications, no training and low moral for having been told they are crap at their work for the last eleven or twelve years.

I agree with very little that the government is doing, however there are some things that I think are ridiculous. For example, child benefit for the rich. They don't need it, and child benefit should be means tested to a point. Should someone taking home £3000 a month really be entitled to child benefit? Would they even notice the £80 a month they are losing out on? I also don't think that the fuel allowance for the elderly should be given across the board. Again, it should be means tested. Mum gets £142 per week in pension, and yet gets the same fuel allowance as Margaret Thatcher. It's nonsensical.

What I most strongly disagree with is the non-stop demonisation of the working class and the young. The constant branding of both as people who do not want to work is insulting and incorrect. Yes, there are always those who don't want to work, but that doesn't mean they are the majority of even a significant minority. As in the past, there is a need for a government to blame the current situation on someone, and at the moment that's those who are young and/or poorly off.

Yes it is ridiculous.

I don't know which Government brought the idea in of giving child benefit to anyone earning over £50k a year which is wrong and also who's idea it was to give out child benefit for more than 1 child for a single Mum who has never worked.

Cameron's cuts he is making is a joke really when , as i have said before, he is quite happy giving over £12billion a year in overseas' aid.
That just don't make sense to me.

I for one, won't be voting in any future elections.

You have a valid point of view, but I think that is a mistake. You should exercise your democratic right or promise never to complain about the winning party.

Chris

I don't know which Government brought the idea in of giving child benefit to anyone earning over £50k a year which is wrong and also who's idea it was to give out child benefit for more than 1 child for a single Mum who has never worked.

Child benefit was brought in over 60 years ago, in 1946, so it's definitely time for an overhaul in the system. The recent changes, where the higher paid can either opt out, or fill in tax forms and pay it back via PAYE tax, are going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, and will probably end up costing almost as much to administer as they will save.

The thing about paying benefits to single parents who keep having more children, though, is that if the benefits are stopped it's not the parent who will suffer - it's the children. The only answer to that one would be to bring in mandatory sterilisation, and I don't think that's going to be on any manifesto at the next election.

I don't know which Government brought the idea in of giving child benefit to anyone earning over £50k a year which is wrong and also who's idea it was to give out child benefit for more than 1 child for a single Mum who has never worked.

Child benefit was brought in over 60 years ago, in 1946, so it's definitely time for an overhaul in the system. The recent changes, where the higher paid can either opt out, or fill in tax forms and pay it back via PAYE tax, are going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, and will probably end up costing almost as much to administer as they will save.

The thing about paying benefits to single parents who keep having more children, though, is that if the benefits are stopped it's not the parent who will suffer - it's the children. The only answer to that one would be to bring in mandatory sterilisation, and I don't think that's going to be on any manifesto at the next election.

Exactly - and, again, we are suggesting that this is a common problem, where in the great scheme of things, it isn't. Its relatively rare. And how do you know how many single Mums have never worked? All we know about such cases in the main is from the exaggerated press coverage of certain cases and the slanted propoganda from politicians. The percentage of such real cases is actually miniscule, and yet there is this picture (encouraged by Cameron & Co) that there are actually thousands upon thousands of women who get pregnant just to get some extra money. It's complete rubbish in the main. Sure, these people exist, but it is basically just another example of the demonisation of the working class and the making out that anyone on benefits are drug-addicted trailer trash.

I don't know which Government brought the idea in of giving child benefit to anyone earning over £50k a year which is wrong and also who's idea it was to give out child benefit for more than 1 child for a single Mum who has never worked.

Child benefit was brought in over 60 years ago, in 1946, so it's definitely time for an overhaul in the system. The recent changes, where the higher paid can either opt out, or fill in tax forms and pay it back via PAYE tax, are going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, and will probably end up costing almost as much to administer as they will save.

The thing about paying benefits to single parents who keep having more children, though, is that if the benefits are stopped it's not the parent who will suffer - it's the children. The only answer to that one would be to bring in mandatory sterilisation, and I don't think that's going to be on any manifesto at the next election.

Exactly - and, again, we are suggesting that this is a common problem, where in the great scheme of things, it isn't. Its relatively rare. And how do you know how many single Mums have never worked? All we know about such cases in the main is from the exaggerated press coverage of certain cases and the slanted propoganda from politicians. The percentage of such real cases is actually miniscule, and yet there is this picture (encouraged by Cameron & Co) that there are actually thousands upon thousands of women who get pregnant just to get some extra money. It's complete rubbish in the main. Sure, these people exist, but it is basically just another example of the demonisation of the working class and the making out that anyone on benefits are drug-addicted trailer trash.

I think in 1946 there wasn't so many single Mothers who had x-amount of children as we have today. Something has gone wrong with the system over the years.
I think alot of young women have children but have no awareness or care of the financial responsibilities it takes to bring a child up, or maybe they just expect taxpayers to fund their lifestyle and believe me, there are thousands upon thousands are just like that in Britain.
My sister is one of them.

I don't know which Government brought the idea in of giving child benefit to anyone earning over £50k a year which is wrong and also who's idea it was to give out child benefit for more than 1 child for a single Mum who has never worked.

Child benefit was brought in over 60 years ago, in 1946, so it's definitely time for an overhaul in the system. The recent changes, where the higher paid can either opt out, or fill in tax forms and pay it back via PAYE tax, are going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, and will probably end up costing almost as much to administer as they will save.

The thing about paying benefits to single parents who keep having more children, though, is that if the benefits are stopped it's not the parent who will suffer - it's the children. The only answer to that one would be to bring in mandatory sterilisation, and I don't think that's going to be on any manifesto at the next election.

Exactly - and, again, we are suggesting that this is a common problem, where in the great scheme of things, it isn't. Its relatively rare. And how do you know how many single Mums have never worked? All we know about such cases in the main is from the exaggerated press coverage of certain cases and the slanted propoganda from politicians. The percentage of such real cases is actually miniscule, and yet there is this picture (encouraged by Cameron & Co) that there are actually thousands upon thousands of women who get pregnant just to get some extra money. It's complete rubbish in the main. Sure, these people exist, but it is basically just another example of the demonisation of the working class and the making out that anyone on benefits are drug-addicted trailer trash.

I think in 1946 there wasn't so many single Mothers who had x-amount of children as we have today. Something has gone wrong with the system over the years.
I think alot of young women have children but have no awareness or care of the financial responsibilities it takes to bring a child up, or maybe they just expect taxpayers to fund their lifestyle and believe me, there are thousands upon thousands are just like that in Britain.
My sister is one of them.

Thousands upon thousands, eh? Well, firstly the reason why there weren't so many in 1946 was partly due to the fact that half of the men hadn't been in the country for the previous half decade or so, thus making it considerably more difficult to pregnant.

But thousands upon thousands. Just where do you get that figure from? Statistics online? Newspapers? Thin air? We are led to believe that half of those on benefits are people such as those you mention, but there really are no figures to back this up, any more than there are figures to back up the notion that half the unemployed have no intention of working. This ridiculous bombardment of hatred towards single parents is pathetic for a number of reasons. Firstly, the hatred is generally spewed by the generation older than the single mums in question - in other words, the generation that allowed the situations in question to materialise in the first place. And, secondly, most of what we are told is actually completely skewed information and nothing more that putrid propaganda. Take the excerpt from the following article from The Telegraph:

I was torn to shreds in the pub late yesterday evening after I suggested that if I had my time again, I would be a single mother rather than a career girl. From the perspective of my bank balance at least.

Don’t get me wrong, being married is my ideal situation – something my parents have achieved for nearly 50 years. But not yet married, I’m wondering if slaving at my desk all hours to achieve my financial survival is a better option – financially at least – than starting a family alone at the taxpayers’ expense.

My concerns come from being able to see close hand how single mums can manipulate their status to their financial advantage as two of my best friends fall into this category.

One of the girls enjoys the support of more than £1,000 in working tax credits to top up her part-time job working several days a week for the council (where she finishes at 4.30pm on the dot and has a gold-plated public sector pension). Her income also includes child maintenance from the father and child benefit. It all makes for a rather attractive bank balance as her take home pay is equivalent to a £70,000 salary.

...

And so I welcome the benefits cap of £26,000 because without it, more women will have soon cottoned on to the fact that a good work ethic is not worth the bank statement it is written on and you’d be better off sending a CV to the benefits office instead.

So, what stands out here is the fact that the single mum in question gets £70,000 a year in total, and there is a link in that final paragraph to suggest that all that money comes from benefits. Horrendous, you say (as people who have commented on the article have stated over and over). But let's look at the facts here. Only £1000 comes from working tax credits, and the woman also gets child benefit - which everyone gets no matter what their income. It's quite clear that, unless she has about 20 children, the majority of her income is coming from the child maintenance from the child's father who, presumably, has a very nice job or he wouldn't be paying that much, and not from benefits at all. And child maintenance is actually intended for the child and not the single mother.

So, is she getting her money through fraudulent means or by sitting at home bringing children into the world every year? No. She has a job and happens to have a wealthy ex-partner.

As one feisty comment at the end of the article puts it:

I wish it was a crime to incite hatred towards single mums. Perhaps you could be fined £70K - that would really sting, wouldn't it? You mix up so many different issues in your article that it's almost hysterical to read of the knee-jerking going on below. I'm a single mum and yes I get tax credits 100% of which go to pay part of my child's nursery care while I'm in full-time work. And yes I get child maintenance - which is not 'my income' but my child's and is spent on my child. And yes because I work full-time, I can pay for my mortgage and buy myself a nice dress every once in a while. Sadly my income is nothing like a £70K salary or even half that but, hey ho - i'm not jealous of your friend who has a good job and a rich ex. Why shouldn't he support his kids exactly?

And I agree. Single mothers, like the unemployed and the young are easy targets. And, like most targets of politician's and society's venom, the vast majority are innocent of all charges. And let's remember that the people accusing others of cheating the benefits systems and spending taxpayers money are the same ones that bought themselves duck ponds and plasma TVs, and wrote it off under expenses so the taxpayer could pay for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/8049211/The-benefit-of-being-a-single-mother.html

I don't know which Government brought the idea in of giving child benefit to anyone earning over £50k a year which is wrong and also who's idea it was to give out child benefit for more than 1 child for a single Mum who has never worked.

Child benefit was brought in over 60 years ago, in 1946, so it's definitely time for an overhaul in the system. The recent changes, where the higher paid can either opt out, or fill in tax forms and pay it back via PAYE tax, are going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, and will probably end up costing almost as much to administer as they will save.

The thing about paying benefits to single parents who keep having more children, though, is that if the benefits are stopped it's not the parent who will suffer - it's the children. The only answer to that one would be to bring in mandatory sterilisation, and I don't think that's going to be on any manifesto at the next election.

Exactly - and, again, we are suggesting that this is a common problem, where in the great scheme of things, it isn't. Its relatively rare. And how do you know how many single Mums have never worked? All we know about such cases in the main is from the exaggerated press coverage of certain cases and the slanted propoganda from politicians. The percentage of such real cases is actually miniscule, and yet there is this picture (encouraged by Cameron & Co) that there are actually thousands upon thousands of women who get pregnant just to get some extra money. It's complete rubbish in the main. Sure, these people exist, but it is basically just another example of the demonisation of the working class and the making out that anyone on benefits are drug-addicted trailer trash.

I think in 1946 there wasn't so many single Mothers who had x-amount of children as we have today. Something has gone wrong with the system over the years.
I think alot of young women have children but have no awareness or care of the financial responsibilities it takes to bring a child up, or maybe they just expect taxpayers to fund their lifestyle and believe me, there are thousands upon thousands are just like that in Britain.
My sister is one of them.

Thousands upon thousands, eh? Well, firstly the reason why there weren't so many in 1946 was partly due to the fact that half of the men hadn't been in the country for the previous half decade or so, thus making it considerably more difficult to pregnant.

But thousands upon thousands. Just where do you get that figure from? Statistics online? Newspapers? Thin air? We are led to believe that half of those on benefits are people such as those you mention, but there really are no figures to back this up, any more than there are figures to back up the notion that half the unemployed have no intention of working. This ridiculous bombardment of hatred towards single parents is pathetic for a number of reasons. Firstly, the hatred is generally spewed by the generation older than the single mums in question - in other words, the generation that allowed the situations in question to materialise in the first place. And, secondly, most of what we are told is actually completely skewed information and nothing more that putrid propaganda. Take the excerpt from the following article from The Telegraph:

I was torn to shreds in the pub late yesterday evening after I suggested that if I had my time again, I would be a single mother rather than a career girl. From the perspective of my bank balance at least.

Don’t get me wrong, being married is my ideal situation – something my parents have achieved for nearly 50 years. But not yet married, I’m wondering if slaving at my desk all hours to achieve my financial survival is a better option – financially at least – than starting a family alone at the taxpayers’ expense.

My concerns come from being able to see close hand how single mums can manipulate their status to their financial advantage as two of my best friends fall into this category.

One of the girls enjoys the support of more than £1,000 in working tax credits to top up her part-time job working several days a week for the council (where she finishes at 4.30pm on the dot and has a gold-plated public sector pension). Her income also includes child maintenance from the father and child benefit. It all makes for a rather attractive bank balance as her take home pay is equivalent to a £70,000 salary.

...

And so I welcome the benefits cap of £26,000 because without it, more women will have soon cottoned on to the fact that a good work ethic is not worth the bank statement it is written on and you’d be better off sending a CV to the benefits office instead.

So, what stands out here is the fact that the single mum in question gets £70,000 a year in total, and there is a link in that final paragraph to suggest that all that money comes from benefits. Horrendous, you say (as people who have commented on the article have stated over and over). But let's look at the facts here. Only £1000 comes from working tax credits, and the woman also gets child benefit - which everyone gets no matter what their income. It's quite clear that, unless she has about 20 children, the majority of her income is coming from the child maintenance from the child's father who, presumably, has a very nice job or he wouldn't be paying that much, and not from benefits at all. And child maintenance is actually intended for the child and not the single mother.

So, is she getting her money through fraudulent means or by sitting at home bringing children into the world every year? No. She has a job and happens to have a wealthy ex-partner.

As one feisty comment at the end of the article puts it:

I wish it was a crime to incite hatred towards single mums. Perhaps you could be fined £70K - that would really sting, wouldn't it? You mix up so many different issues in your article that it's almost hysterical to read of the knee-jerking going on below. I'm a single mum and yes I get tax credits 100% of which go to pay part of my child's nursery care while I'm in full-time work. And yes I get child maintenance - which is not 'my income' but my child's and is spent on my child. And yes because I work full-time, I can pay for my mortgage and buy myself a nice dress every once in a while. Sadly my income is nothing like a £70K salary or even half that but, hey ho - i'm not jealous of your friend who has a good job and a rich ex. Why shouldn't he support his kids exactly?

And I agree. Single mothers, like the unemployed and the young are easy targets. And, like most targets of politician's and society's venom, the vast majority are innocent of all charges. And let's remember that the people accusing others of cheating the benefits systems and spending taxpayers money are the same ones that bought themselves duck ponds and plasma TVs, and wrote it off under expenses so the taxpayer could pay for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/8049211/The-benefit-of-being-a-single-mother.html

That's roughly 115.000 USD

I don't know which Government brought the idea in of giving child benefit to anyone earning over £50k a year which is wrong and also who's idea it was to give out child benefit for more than 1 child for a single Mum who has never worked.

Child benefit was brought in over 60 years ago, in 1946, so it's definitely time for an overhaul in the system. The recent changes, where the higher paid can either opt out, or fill in tax forms and pay it back via PAYE tax, are going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, and will probably end up costing almost as much to administer as they will save.

The thing about paying benefits to single parents who keep having more children, though, is that if the benefits are stopped it's not the parent who will suffer - it's the children. The only answer to that one would be to bring in mandatory sterilisation, and I don't think that's going to be on any manifesto at the next election.

Exactly - and, again, we are suggesting that this is a common problem, where in the great scheme of things, it isn't. Its relatively rare. And how do you know how many single Mums have never worked? All we know about such cases in the main is from the exaggerated press coverage of certain cases and the slanted propoganda from politicians. The percentage of such real cases is actually miniscule, and yet there is this picture (encouraged by Cameron & Co) that there are actually thousands upon thousands of women who get pregnant just to get some extra money. It's complete rubbish in the main. Sure, these people exist, but it is basically just another example of the demonisation of the working class and the making out that anyone on benefits are drug-addicted trailer trash.

I think in 1946 there wasn't so many single Mothers who had x-amount of children as we have today. Something has gone wrong with the system over the years.
I think alot of young women have children but have no awareness or care of the financial responsibilities it takes to bring a child up, or maybe they just expect taxpayers to fund their lifestyle and believe me, there are thousands upon thousands are just like that in Britain.
My sister is one of them.

Thousands upon thousands, eh? Well, firstly the reason why there weren't so many in 1946 was partly due to the fact that half of the men hadn't been in the country for the previous half decade or so, thus making it considerably more difficult to pregnant.

But thousands upon thousands. Just where do you get that figure from? Statistics online? Newspapers? Thin air? We are led to believe that half of those on benefits are people such as those you mention, but there really are no figures to back this up, any more than there are figures to back up the notion that half the unemployed have no intention of working. This ridiculous bombardment of hatred towards single parents is pathetic for a number of reasons. Firstly, the hatred is generally spewed by the generation older than the single mums in question - in other words, the generation that allowed the situations in question to materialise in the first place. And, secondly, most of what we are told is actually completely skewed information and nothing more that putrid propaganda. Take the excerpt from the following article from The Telegraph:

I was torn to shreds in the pub late yesterday evening after I suggested that if I had my time again, I would be a single mother rather than a career girl. From the perspective of my bank balance at least.

Don’t get me wrong, being married is my ideal situation – something my parents have achieved for nearly 50 years. But not yet married, I’m wondering if slaving at my desk all hours to achieve my financial survival is a better option – financially at least – than starting a family alone at the taxpayers’ expense.

My concerns come from being able to see close hand how single mums can manipulate their status to their financial advantage as two of my best friends fall into this category.

One of the girls enjoys the support of more than £1,000 in working tax credits to top up her part-time job working several days a week for the council (where she finishes at 4.30pm on the dot and has a gold-plated public sector pension). Her income also includes child maintenance from the father and child benefit. It all makes for a rather attractive bank balance as her take home pay is equivalent to a £70,000 salary.

...

And so I welcome the benefits cap of £26,000 because without it, more women will have soon cottoned on to the fact that a good work ethic is not worth the bank statement it is written on and you’d be better off sending a CV to the benefits office instead.

So, what stands out here is the fact that the single mum in question gets £70,000 a year in total, and there is a link in that final paragraph to suggest that all that money comes from benefits. Horrendous, you say (as people who have commented on the article have stated over and over). But let's look at the facts here. Only £1000 comes from working tax credits, and the woman also gets child benefit - which everyone gets no matter what their income. It's quite clear that, unless she has about 20 children, the majority of her income is coming from the child maintenance from the child's father who, presumably, has a very nice job or he wouldn't be paying that much, and not from benefits at all. And child maintenance is actually intended for the child and not the single mother.

So, is she getting her money through fraudulent means or by sitting at home bringing children into the world every year? No. She has a job and happens to have a wealthy ex-partner.

As one feisty comment at the end of the article puts it:

I wish it was a crime to incite hatred towards single mums. Perhaps you could be fined £70K - that would really sting, wouldn't it? You mix up so many different issues in your article that it's almost hysterical to read of the knee-jerking going on below. I'm a single mum and yes I get tax credits 100% of which go to pay part of my child's nursery care while I'm in full-time work. And yes I get child maintenance - which is not 'my income' but my child's and is spent on my child. And yes because I work full-time, I can pay for my mortgage and buy myself a nice dress every once in a while. Sadly my income is nothing like a £70K salary or even half that but, hey ho - i'm not jealous of your friend who has a good job and a rich ex. Why shouldn't he support his kids exactly?

And I agree. Single mothers, like the unemployed and the young are easy targets. And, like most targets of politician's and society's venom, the vast majority are innocent of all charges. And let's remember that the people accusing others of cheating the benefits systems and spending taxpayers money are the same ones that bought themselves duck ponds and plasma TVs, and wrote it off under expenses so the taxpayer could pay for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/8049211/The-benefit-of-being-a-single-mother.html

That's roughly 115.000 USD

And you completely miss the whole point of the post. Congrats.

I don't know which Government brought the idea in of giving child benefit to anyone earning over £50k a year which is wrong and also who's idea it was to give out child benefit for more than 1 child for a single Mum who has never worked.

Child benefit was brought in over 60 years ago, in 1946, so it's definitely time for an overhaul in the system. The recent changes, where the higher paid can either opt out, or fill in tax forms and pay it back via PAYE tax, are going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, and will probably end up costing almost as much to administer as they will save.

The thing about paying benefits to single parents who keep having more children, though, is that if the benefits are stopped it's not the parent who will suffer - it's the children. The only answer to that one would be to bring in mandatory sterilisation, and I don't think that's going to be on any manifesto at the next election.

Exactly - and, again, we are suggesting that this is a common problem, where in the great scheme of things, it isn't. Its relatively rare. And how do you know how many single Mums have never worked? All we know about such cases in the main is from the exaggerated press coverage of certain cases and the slanted propoganda from politicians. The percentage of such real cases is actually miniscule, and yet there is this picture (encouraged by Cameron & Co) that there are actually thousands upon thousands of women who get pregnant just to get some extra money. It's complete rubbish in the main. Sure, these people exist, but it is basically just another example of the demonisation of the working class and the making out that anyone on benefits are drug-addicted trailer trash.

I think in 1946 there wasn't so many single Mothers who had x-amount of children as we have today. Something has gone wrong with the system over the years.
I think alot of young women have children but have no awareness or care of the financial responsibilities it takes to bring a child up, or maybe they just expect taxpayers to fund their lifestyle and believe me, there are thousands upon thousands are just like that in Britain.
My sister is one of them.

Thousands upon thousands, eh? Well, firstly the reason why there weren't so many in 1946 was partly due to the fact that half of the men hadn't been in the country for the previous half decade or so, thus making it considerably more difficult to pregnant.

But thousands upon thousands. Just where do you get that figure from? Statistics online? Newspapers? Thin air? We are led to believe that half of those on benefits are people such as those you mention, but there really are no figures to back this up, any more than there are figures to back up the notion that half the unemployed have no intention of working. This ridiculous bombardment of hatred towards single parents is pathetic for a number of reasons. Firstly, the hatred is generally spewed by the generation older than the single mums in question - in other words, the generation that allowed the situations in question to materialise in the first place. And, secondly, most of what we are told is actually completely skewed information and nothing more that putrid propaganda. Take the excerpt from the following article from The Telegraph:

I was torn to shreds in the pub late yesterday evening after I suggested that if I had my time again, I would be a single mother rather than a career girl. From the perspective of my bank balance at least.

Don’t get me wrong, being married is my ideal situation – something my parents have achieved for nearly 50 years. But not yet married, I’m wondering if slaving at my desk all hours to achieve my financial survival is a better option – financially at least – than starting a family alone at the taxpayers’ expense.

My concerns come from being able to see close hand how single mums can manipulate their status to their financial advantage as two of my best friends fall into this category.

One of the girls enjoys the support of more than £1,000 in working tax credits to top up her part-time job working several days a week for the council (where she finishes at 4.30pm on the dot and has a gold-plated public sector pension). Her income also includes child maintenance from the father and child benefit. It all makes for a rather attractive bank balance as her take home pay is equivalent to a £70,000 salary.

...

And so I welcome the benefits cap of £26,000 because without it, more women will have soon cottoned on to the fact that a good work ethic is not worth the bank statement it is written on and you’d be better off sending a CV to the benefits office instead.

So, what stands out here is the fact that the single mum in question gets £70,000 a year in total, and there is a link in that final paragraph to suggest that all that money comes from benefits. Horrendous, you say (as people who have commented on the article have stated over and over). But let's look at the facts here. Only £1000 comes from working tax credits, and the woman also gets child benefit - which everyone gets no matter what their income. It's quite clear that, unless she has about 20 children, the majority of her income is coming from the child maintenance from the child's father who, presumably, has a very nice job or he wouldn't be paying that much, and not from benefits at all. And child maintenance is actually intended for the child and not the single mother.

So, is she getting her money through fraudulent means or by sitting at home bringing children into the world every year? No. She has a job and happens to have a wealthy ex-partner.

As one feisty comment at the end of the article puts it:

I wish it was a crime to incite hatred towards single mums. Perhaps you could be fined £70K - that would really sting, wouldn't it? You mix up so many different issues in your article that it's almost hysterical to read of the knee-jerking going on below. I'm a single mum and yes I get tax credits 100% of which go to pay part of my child's nursery care while I'm in full-time work. And yes I get child maintenance - which is not 'my income' but my child's and is spent on my child. And yes because I work full-time, I can pay for my mortgage and buy myself a nice dress every once in a while. Sadly my income is nothing like a £70K salary or even half that but, hey ho - i'm not jealous of your friend who has a good job and a rich ex. Why shouldn't he support his kids exactly?

And I agree. Single mothers, like the unemployed and the young are easy targets. And, like most targets of politician's and society's venom, the vast majority are innocent of all charges. And let's remember that the people accusing others of cheating the benefits systems and spending taxpayers money are the same ones that bought themselves duck ponds and plasma TVs, and wrote it off under expenses so the taxpayer could pay for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/8049211/The-benefit-of-being-a-single-mother.html

That's roughly 115.000 USD

And you completely miss the whole point of the post. Congrats.

No I just try to avoid much of your posts as possible!

No I just try to avoid much of your posts as possible!

Bearing this in mind you wouldn't know if i was a troublemaker or not, now would you?

Cameron could make changes in other ways if he really thought about it - for example, deporting non UK members to their birth country and more to the point bring back Capital Punishment, how many pieces of scum are in prison for murder, rape, terrorism, paediphilia and how much does it cost to keep them there per annem, come on they don't deserve to live LET'S START HANGING THESE BASTARDS, There's ways of proving they are guilty 100% with medical technologies these days so we won't get another Stefan Kisco situation, but no party will dare do that. We should have a national referendem on it but they won't do that either cos they know the truth and most people will vote YES for an eye for an eye, this government is a sham just like the last one who sold off our gold reserves, where's Guy Fawkes when you need him.

Cameron could make changes in other ways if he really thought about it - for example, deporting non UK members to their birth country and more to the point bring back Capital Punishment, how many pieces of scum are in prison for murder, rape, terrorism, paediphilia and how much does it cost to keep them there per annem, come on they don't deserve to live LET'S START HANGING THESE BASTARDS, There's ways of proving they are guilty 100% with medical technologies these days so we won't get another Stefan Kisco situation, but no party will dare do that. We should have a national referendem on it but they won't do that either cos they know the truth and most people will vote YES for an eye for an eye, this government is a sham just like the last one who sold off our gold reserves, where's Guy Fawkes when you need him.

Oh yeah, that would help a lot.

I'm no fan of Cameron, or this coalition government, but it does seem, in these austere times, that paying child benefit & the Winter Fuel Payment to well-off pensioners, is not necessary or wise.

Stopping child benefit for higher-rate tax payers [which is what they are doing] is one way to target it to the most deserving families.

I know 'means testing' is hated by many, but a simple way to limit the Winter Fuel Payment would be to pay only to those who rely solely on the State Pension for their income.

There are no plans to do that.

I'm no fan of Cameron, or this coalition government, but it does seem, in these austere times, that paying child benefit & the Winter Fuel Payment to well-off pensioners, is not necessary or wise.

Stopping child benefit for higher-rate tax payers [which is what they are doing] is one way to target it to the most deserving families.

I know 'means testing' is hated by many, but a simple way to limit the Winter Fuel Payment would be to pay only to those who rely solely on the State Pension for their income.

There are no plans to do that.

agree Colin, it makes so much sense to 'means test'. If you don't need it....you don't get it

Exactly. While I understand the "don't-penalise-me-because-i-worked-hard-and-paid-into-a-private-pension" brigade, the likelihood is that they are so well off now because they come from a well off family. There are very very few from poorly off families who ever make it beyond a certain level career-wise. That;s not to say it doesn't happen, but sadly it's bloody difficult in this day and age for it to happen.

poormadpeter,

You really do have a major issue when you don't agree with what someone puts in a post cause you get personal and turn it into a fight.

So for that reason i won't post on this topic any more.

poormadpeter,

You really do have a major issue when you don't agree with what someone puts in a post cause you get personal and turn it into a fight.

So for that reason i won't post on this topic any more.

I have no idea what you're talking about, Bodie. There is no fighting on this topic. It's not that I don't agree with you that is the problem, it's that you wave around a figure as if it is fact, and yet there is no basis to that figure and the suggestion of it only adds to the propaganda that comes from the government and elsewhere. If you are unable to give evidence of "thousands upon thousands" of single mothers flaunting the system, then I really think it is an insult to all single mothers that you decide to encourage what is actually unfounded allegations, and thus judging them without any evidence of wrongdoing.

poormadpeter,

You really do have a major issue when you don't agree with what someone puts in a post cause you get personal and turn it into a fight.

So for that reason i won't post on this topic any more.

I have no idea what you're talking about, Bodie. There is no fighting on this topic. It's not that I don't agree with you that is the problem, it's that you wave around a figure as if it is fact, and yet there is no basis to that figure and the suggestion of it only adds to the propaganda that comes from the government and elsewhere. If you are unable to give evidence of "thousands upon thousands" of single mothers flaunting the system, then I really think it is an insult to all single mothers that you decide to encourage what is actually unfounded allegations, and thus judging them without any evidence of wrongdoing.

Okay, well i would say there are at least 10,000 single Mothers who are not working and claiming benefits.
Would you agree with that figure?

Okay, well i would say there are at least 10,000 single Mothers who are not working and claiming benefits.
Would you agree with that figure?

I can't agree with a figure that comes out of thin air! What would you base that figure on?

Let's for the sake of argument say that you are correct. How many of those single mothers are wanting to work but can't find a job? But lets say that your figure is actually all the single mothers who don't want to work. That actually accounts for the grand sum of 0.4% of the unemployment figures. A drop in the ocean.

And lets say there are 10,000 single mothers out there who dont want to work. How does that figure compare with the single mothers IN work or wanting to find a job?

Well, there are approximately 2 million single parents in the UK as of 2012. So, you number of workshy single parents accounts for a mere 0.5% of single parents.

The amount of single parents in work has actually gone up 14.5% since 1997. 59.2% of single mothers are currently working. That figure rises to 71% when their child reaches the age of 12 - more or less the same figure as mothers who are part of a couple.

Let's look at those single mothers who are not working:
33 % of unemployed single parents have a disability or longstanding illness and 34 % have a child with a disability.

And as for the money they are apparantly raking in:
The median weekly income for working single parent families doing 16 hours a week or more is £337, compared with £491 for couple families with one worker and £700 where both parents work.
So much for them being better off than everyone else.

So, I repeat once again, the clumping together of "single mothers" as workshy louts who spend all day waiting in bed for the boyfriend of the week to come and impregnate them so they can get more benefits is

1) a pack of lies
2) bloody insulting

Source: http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content.a ... goryID=365

I totally disagree with you.

I totally disagree with you.

How you can disagree with facts is something only you can know. But your lack of willingness to provide any reasoning for you disagreement with the facts tells us a great deal.

I totally disagree with you.

How you can disagree with facts is something only you can know. But your lack of willingness to provide any reasoning for you disagreement with the facts tells us a great deal.

Vast numbers of people around Britain have just become lazy and greedy and you don't need facts to tell you that, just open your eyes.
Those who want to work can't cause there are not enough jobs.

I feel sorry for the youngsters today, if a young couple want to start a family and buy/rent a house without claiming benefit, its practically impossible for them to do so.They need to bring in at least £30,000 just to survive.

If a teenager with average grades leaves school, they have no chance of finding a decent job cause there too many people looking for work.
Someone who is made reduntant who is in their 40's, they have practially no chance of finding another decent job.

The building trade is finished in Britain, so many British workers are out of work, the retail industry is falling apart and we have at least 50 shops a day closing down cause most people are buying online.
Everything is being taken over by the internet and computers.
You go into any Tesco's, Sainsbury's, WHSmith etc, you will find self-service tills which don't need any people on them, even at the cinema you can buy your ticket on a machine.

So many people who are able to work either can't find work, have become totally disillusioned with trying to find work they have given up.
Doing the job i do, i see enough of what is happening in the everyday life and talk to enough people to see how badly this country is going.
Its a sinking ship and this Government are trying to save it from sinking by making all these cuts but its too late.
Britain is finished and its going to get alot worse than it is now.

In a single post you have argued that people are lazy and greedy...but also that people are hard-done-by because there are no jobs. Make up your mind. You can't have your cake and eat it.