Benefits cap ruling today

[hackey lad]

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

[Anna B]

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)

Edited June 22, 2017 by Anna B

[apelike]

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.

[sgtkate]

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.

[Berberis]

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?

[sgtkate]

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.