What are your views on slashing single mothers benefits if they don't work when their child reaches 12 ?

Question

What do u think to this idea ? do u think its a good thing or a bad thing ?
I am a single mum and i do work....just want to know your views ... Thanks ...

Just to clarify I am in Wales .... (uk)

I think that yes a child needs his mother around when he/she is young but when they reach a certain age lets face it as a parent we are no longer needed as much ...

Answer 1

I think the Government are seeing single mothers as a soft target. They need to get the bone idle layabouts back to work first by slashing their benefits!

Answer 2

While the mother should try to get a job, slashing the benefits not only punishes the mother, but it punishes the child. I say the benefits shouldn't be cut. When the child reaches 16, maybe, but 12 is way too young. A 12 year old can't get a job like a 16 year old can. If the mother is working and she doesn't make enough to support her children, then let her collect the benifits.

Answer 3

As a previous single / welfare mom, my feeling is that if the state does not provide incentives, support and opportunities to help this person become independant, and a contributing member of society, then the state should take responsibility and continue to provide support.
That being said; When a mother / father / family walks into the welfare office it should be with the understanding that it is a means to an end of their poverty. They should have to agree to further their education, take courses on family budgeting, parenting (if needed), in addition to GED and skills training.
Each case should be individualized, and each one should have a set of objectives with deadlines to meet the final goal of independence and social productivity.
When I became a single mother of 2, I was employed full time making $1 more than minimum wage. There was no way I was going to be able to provide for my children (ages 1.5 & 3). I walked into the welfare office in tears, moved to a much smaller apartment on the third floor / main street, and applied to nursing school all within 48 hours. I was on Welfare for 3.5 years. Graduated an R.N., all the while volunteering at food pantries, and soup kitchens to "give back".
Welfare didn't pay me much...$579 / Month with $175 in food stamps. Rent was $535 / /month. Drove a delapitated Ford Escort to and from school.
Now, I make 4x's what I was making before welfard, own my own little ranch house, and have one of the most stable positions in this country today as a nurse.
Welfare is a means to and end. No-one should get the idea that the state OWES them, and therefore they should be able to stay at home, collect, and never become a productive, contributing member of their society.
If it were that way...why would it be fair for one family to get assistance...while others work 40++ hours / week to get by. Everyone should work, and put back into their society through finances, labor, activity etc...

Answer 4

I think it depends on the situation. I know a woman on welfare who does awesome community work that is alot more useful than any shitty $7 an hour job she can get at walmart. As far as i know, welfare for a single mom with one child is around $540 here in Oakland, and a SMALL studio rents for $750-900. There isnt much to slash. I mean, the mom *should* go out and get a job, but you have to realize you are not just slashing her benefits, but the benefits of a 12 year old.

Answer 5

I think that benefits should continue as long as the child needs them (mainly health care if the mother cannot afford or is bot able to get it through work). I dont think anyone should be allowed to sit on public aid for more than a few years. And I think EVERYONE on aid should be made to work. Financial Aid should be capped at some level so to not encourage dependancy on the system. Younger moms should be required to stay in school or lose benefits.

I really dont mind the 5 year thing- because it really pushed some to do better for themselves.

But in the same breath of air- i think what would be even better would be for the government to actively seek out dead beat dads (or moms depending on who has the kids) and MAKE them pay for their children instead of giving them slaps on the wrist. Too much emphasis is placed on the caregiver of the child, instead of the absent parent.

Bottom line though is as a parent you are financially responsible for taking care of your children. It is your duty to get out and work and depend on yourself. Either through education and a better job- the county aid is only a buffer- not a career.

Answer 6

I'm not sure where you are asking this question from. Are you here in the U.S. or outside of the country.

But to answer your question...I have very mixed emotions about this. I feel that it depends on each individual case. Some moms just want a way to avoid working, while others are in a cycle that they cannot easily get out of. Daycare costs are very expensive, and when you factor in costs of daycare, benefits, taxes, and other factors, a mom may only end up bringing home a very small paycheck.

For example: I once had a job that paid $550 per week, which is over $12 per hour, but taxes were $72 per week, medical insurance was $105 per week, daycare $125 per week, gas and lunches were another $30 per week. So I took home $136 per week to pay for housing, food, utilities, and any misc expenses.

So, imagine a mom who can only get an $8 per hour job due to lack of job skills. How can they pay for similar expenses or worse yet, what if they need to pay for more than one child in daycare?

My only solution was to return to school to get a degree. Now I don't need daycare because my children are in school and dad is home after work. But for a single mom, with no Dad (or free daycare) how can they afford to work and pay daycare?

The solution is to encourage moms to return to school for a degree. With a college degree, there are options out there for a parent to be able to support their family.

Answer 7

I think it is a good idea, though it may be unfair on some.
It's not easy (physically, mentally, financially, etc) for some being single mothers and some will only receive the minimum wage when they return to work. I think each case should be treated if possible on it's own merit.
Whilst most single mothers welcome the opportunity to work, there is a minority who seem to have babies, and keep having babies, as a means to avoid going to work. They thus collect whatever benefits they can and seem to have no intention of working, for as long as possible. It seems rather unfair as they can be better off than the 'workers'.
I think more support should be available to single mothers looking for employment, with opportunities of training, etc.

Answer 8

I`m also a single mum and would be frazzled if i had to work and look after my son who although starts school this year has learning difficulties and behavioural problems but yes i think 12 is a good age and hopefully then he`ll have calmed down and i`ll get back to work.I will be starting college soon so wont be siting about watching daytime tv!

Answer 9

what a good question !!
not just single mums though, or do u receive more child benefit than me (married 2 small children, working part time) ?
i wonder if it would be possible to start training mums from home in something that interests them so that when the time comes they will be in a better position to apply for work, i have married friends who left their careers to raise children but are now so out of touch with everything are struggling to find someone willing to take them on & retrain them.

Answer 10

I think it's a good thing, when their child hits twelve there is no excuse for sponging off the government.
When their child is young working can be difficult due to school hols etc so I'm not saying all single parents should be forced to work.