Discussion:
Why Are Lone Parents On Benefits Banned From Earning Money?
(too old to reply)
Maria
2005-11-06 12:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?

What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
news
2005-11-06 13:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Jail them

They should ONLY have children when they have the cash to support a family
home.
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
kevin hollingsworth
2005-11-06 13:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
Jail them
They should ONLY have children when they have the cash to support a family
home.
It is this kind of backwards logic that as allowed us to lose our ethnic
heritage. The economic system is there to support the biological and when
it ceases to do this it is no longer progressive!!! The problems with
todays generation is that they see everything in regards to its emmediate
utilatarian usage. What is the value of a baby?...this depends on what it
grows up to become rather than the economic clout of its parents.
With regards to lone parents I think they should have their babies removed
and brought up by the 'state.' No lone parent can both look after a childs
needs and their own needs. The ionasation of the family is novel to our
species but we are supposed to be adaptable so let us adapt!
Maria
2005-11-06 13:15:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:15:09 GMT, "kevin hollingsworth"
Post by kevin hollingsworth
Post by news
Jail them
They should ONLY have children when they have the cash to support a family
home.
It is this kind of backwards logic that as allowed us to lose our ethnic
heritage. The economic system is there to support the biological and when
it ceases to do this it is no longer progressive!!! The problems with
todays generation is that they see everything in regards to its emmediate
utilatarian usage. What is the value of a baby?...this depends on what it
grows up to become rather than the economic clout of its parents.
With regards to lone parents I think they should have their babies removed
and brought up by the 'state.'
And why is that, given that the state does such a crap job of looking
after children?
Post by kevin hollingsworth
No lone parent can both look after a childs
needs and their own needs.
They managed after WWI and II, and people manage when they lose a
partner through death.
Post by kevin hollingsworth
The ionasation of the family is novel to our
species but we are supposed to be adaptable so let us adapt!
It seems to me that people now are happy to live in a society where
men are free to leave familes and women are free to eject men, and
anyone can have sex when they feel like it, but nobody wants to look
at the aftermath.
Why did familes tend to stay together in the past? Because they were
all so in love? lol. :)
Mark, Devon
2005-11-07 11:14:19 UTC
Permalink
<< Why did familes tend to stay together in the past? Because they were
all so in love? lol. :) >>

Marriage is often little more than an economic measure. If children
have the love of at least one parent, ideally two, they'll be happy and
content. But both parents do not have to live together to ensure this.
If the parents find out they weren't right for each other they should
split up.....it was the marriage that was wrong, not the split.

So, nah, they weren't in love :-) They just fell into what they thought
they had to do, and that was get married. They didn't fall in love.
Paul Hyett
2005-11-07 06:35:14 UTC
Permalink
In uk.politics.misc on Sun, 6 Nov 2005 at 13:15:09, kevin hollingsworth
Post by kevin hollingsworth
With regards to lone parents I think they should have their babies removed
and brought up by the 'state.' No lone parent can both look after a childs
needs and their own needs.
Raised by the State?? They be better off being raised by paedophiles!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
bigboard
2005-11-07 11:02:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:15:09 -0000, kevin hollingsworth
Post by kevin hollingsworth
With regards to lone parents I think they should have their babies removed
and brought up by the 'state.' No lone parent can both look after a childs
needs and their own needs. The ionasation of the family is novel to our
species but we are supposed to be adaptable so let us adapt!
Thus sprake an idiot.
AlanG
2005-11-06 18:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
Jail them
They should ONLY have children when they have the cash to support a family
home.
Theuy could always eat the kids.
Lots of eating on one of those.
Post by news
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
Gaz
2005-11-06 13:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
Its always the difficulty. The system needs to provide enough to live off,
but not enough to act as an incentive.

Various schemes exist to encourage people on benefits to make the transition
into work. Benefits by their nature are always going to be a trap......

Gaz
Maria
2005-11-06 13:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
Its always the difficulty. The system needs to provide enough to live off,
but not enough to act as an incentive.
Various schemes exist to encourage people on benefits to make the transition
into work. Benefits by their nature are always going to be a trap......
The trap part is the part I have a problem with - it *is* so
demoralising and makes you feel pretty hopeless, which also encourages
depression and resulting lack of effort to get out of it.
kevin hollingsworth
2005-11-06 13:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Trouble with the benefits system is that it isn't based on sound logic and
doesn't embrace sliding scales that would allow people to use it
intelligently. It is a triggered catchment system that is rigged in favour
of its administrators survival rather than the good of its clients. Since
most of the adminstrators are for want of another word 'retards' I don't see
the benefits system evolving beyond its present stagnation. The whole
benefits system needs to be replaced with something more sophisticated but
this won't happen whilst we have a culture of ' dumbass makes good!'
ingrained in the British pysche. I'm a great believer in naturally evolved
elites who bring radical change and hope this will happen one day soon with
regards to the Benefits Trap!
Post by Maria
Post by Gaz
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
Its always the difficulty. The system needs to provide enough to live off,
but not enough to act as an incentive.
Various schemes exist to encourage people on benefits to make the transition
into work. Benefits by their nature are always going to be a trap......
The trap part is the part I have a problem with - it *is* so
demoralising and makes you feel pretty hopeless, which also encourages
depression and resulting lack of effort to get out of it.
tarquinlinbin
2005-11-06 13:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
A true lone parent is a rare thing indeed. Almost all children have
fathers. Even if they are useless fathers they should be made to pay
for their childs upkeep.
Post by Maria
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

http://www.no2id.org/
Maria
2005-11-06 13:31:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:19:15 +0000, tarquinlinbin
Post by tarquinlinbin
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
A true lone parent is a rare thing indeed. Almost all children have
fathers. Even if they are useless fathers they should be made to pay
for their childs upkeep.
The CSA is useless - perhaps a return to the court system?
Mickey Gee
2005-11-06 16:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Maria you are a silly bitch, you post useless tripe about nothing.
Maria
2005-11-06 17:09:31 UTC
Permalink
On 6 Nov 2005 08:47:14 -0800, "Mickey Gee"
Post by Mickey Gee
Maria you are a silly bitch, you post useless tripe about nothing.
Is it because I is a half-breed?
lol
Mickey Gee
2005-11-07 22:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
On 6 Nov 2005 08:47:14 -0800, "Mickey Gee"
Post by Mickey Gee
Maria you are a silly bitch, you post useless tripe about nothing.
Is it because I is a half-breed?
lol
Above message from "Mickey Gee" was a forgery.
Maria
2005-11-07 23:11:38 UTC
Permalink
On 7 Nov 2005 14:40:40 -0800, "Mickey Gee"
Post by Mickey Gee
Post by Maria
On 6 Nov 2005 08:47:14 -0800, "Mickey Gee"
Post by Mickey Gee
Maria you are a silly bitch, you post useless tripe about nothing.
Is it because I is a half-breed?
lol
Above message from "Mickey Gee" was a forgery.
Fairy nuff. :)
B***@isp.com
2005-11-07 04:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mickey Gee
Maria you are a silly bitch, you post useless tripe about nothing.
Oh, the irony.
Ariadne
2005-11-07 22:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Mickey Gee wrote:

Path:
g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Mickey Gee" <***@yahoo.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Why Are Lone Parents On Benefits Banned From Earning
Money?
Date: 6 Nov 2005 08:47:14 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <***@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.117.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1131295639 4321 127.0.0.1 (6 Nov 2005
16:47:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-***@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:47:19 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x
4.90; PKBL008),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-***@google.com
Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=213.78.117.122;
posting-account=QqZzbgwAAAA9N1X7NvNDcO4mQhnb5tpl
Post by Mickey Gee
Maria you are a silly bitch, you post useless tripe about nothing.
AlanG
2005-11-06 18:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
You could say the same about anyone on benefits.
A single person on JSA gets about £55 a week and is allowed to earn
£5pw before jsa reduces. a couple are allowed £10pw and get about £86
JSA. When other things like medical treatment, housing and council
tax are taken into account it isn't worth taking a part time job
unless it pays exceedingly well.
Maria
2005-11-06 19:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
You could say the same about anyone on benefits.
A single person on JSA gets about £55 a week and is allowed to earn
£5pw before jsa reduces. a couple are allowed £10pw and get about £86
JSA.
Reduces or is removed completely?
Post by AlanG
When other things like medical treatment, housing and council
tax are taken into account it isn't worth taking a part time job
unless it pays exceedingly well.
Exactly.
AlanG
2005-11-06 20:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by AlanG
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
You could say the same about anyone on benefits.
A single person on JSA gets about £55 a week and is allowed to earn
£5pw before jsa reduces. a couple are allowed £10pw and get about £86
JSA.
Reduces or is removed completely?
Reduces pro rata
Post by Maria
Post by AlanG
When other things like medical treatment, housing and council
tax are taken into account it isn't worth taking a part time job
unless it pays exceedingly well.
Exactly.
Indeed.
I was in that postiton myself a few years ago. Had to keep my earnings
under £93 pw in order to claim a few pence JSA which passported me and
my wife onto free medical treatment and no council tax. I could only
afford to work either one day a week or a minimum of 4 days a week.
Not a pleasant situation.
Maria
2005-11-06 20:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
Post by Maria
Post by AlanG
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
You could say the same about anyone on benefits.
A single person on JSA gets about £55 a week and is allowed to earn
£5pw before jsa reduces. a couple are allowed £10pw and get about £86
JSA.
Reduces or is removed completely?
Reduces pro rata
Unless things have changed, if you are a lone parent on IS (i.e. not
actively seeking work), you are allowed to earn £5/week and after that
your benefit simply stops. There is no pro-rata reduction.
Post by AlanG
Post by Maria
Post by AlanG
When other things like medical treatment, housing and council
tax are taken into account it isn't worth taking a part time job
unless it pays exceedingly well.
Exactly.
Indeed.
I was in that postiton myself a few years ago. Had to keep my earnings
under £93 pw in order to claim a few pence JSA which passported me and
my wife onto free medical treatment and no council tax. I could only
afford to work either one day a week or a minimum of 4 days a week.
Not a pleasant situation.
Most of the lone parents knew who lost their benefits because they
were working were earning 20-30 pounds per week extra cleaning old
peoples homes for basic £3/hour wages. Nobody else wanted the jobs
because the hours were too few and too poorly paid, and it suited the
earner because they could usually take their children with them (and
mostly befriended the elderly people they were cleaning for).
There would be many social and economical benefits in allowing such
people to keep part of their earnings - it's not unthinkable, because
again unless they have changed the rules, you can keep two-thirds of
your IS if you are a childminder!
the idiot
2005-11-07 17:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
they dont.
if they work over 16 hrs they will then get the working families tax credit
stuff to take their income up to whatever the minimum earnings guarantee is
for their particular situation.
i think.
AlanG
2005-11-07 18:31:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:16:48 -0000, "the idiot"
Post by the idiot
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
they dont.
if they work over 16 hrs they will then get the working families tax credit
stuff to take their income up to whatever the minimum earnings guarantee is
for their particular situation.
i think.
You think wrong.
Ian Bailey
2005-11-07 23:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Just something which only just occurred to me. Why do lone parents on
income support only have the choice between earning nothing or giving
up income support and working at least 16 hours/week?
What would be wrong with them being allowed to earn say £50/week, and
then beginning to lose some benefits over and above that, which would
allow them to improve their standard of living and encourage them to
find work (which very often leads on to bigger and better things)?
The money the government gives people is enough to live on. Therefore
anything you earn above that is money you don't need so they cut your
benefits to compensate.

Of course in the real world their "enough" is a joke, but they set the
rules.....

Ian

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...