2007-03-06
10:20:49
·
9 answers
·
asked by
noeusuperstate
6
in
Society & Culture
➔ Other - Society & Culture
Interesting point frog but not mentioned as that in any of the media, only talk of single mums.
I think at 12 it is pretty irrelevant, I don't personally know many mums single or otherwise who are not trying to find work or working already. Still these days I live in a relatively prosperous area so perhaps I don't witness the real lives of other groups of people.
The implication appears to be that some women are having children just to get benefits, something Labour has been at pains to deny is happening as a result of the benefit system they have developed.
Looks like a gimmick to me rather than a serious attempt to challenge the circumstances some find themselves in.
Intensive support does work, but it costs a huge sum of money. From a social view point it is an undeniable need and benefit to the community, set against our inability to educate, pay pensions and care for the sick and elderly it looks like money badly spent.
2007-03-06
20:03:10 ·
update #1
Julie, it does seem unfair, but also it seems to be increasingly represented as a 'life style' choice. I.E the Woman wnated the child/children but not the man. In those instances why should the sate benefit system pay anything at all?
Should child benefit and tax credit be even more allied to the wealth of the parent/parents and reduced more rapidly for those with income above a certain level?
2007-03-10
10:38:33 ·
update #2
Well done to you cat woman.
Most of those who happen to be currently net tax payers are always pleased when someone gets help to get their foot on the first rung.
It is important that you keep your positive attitude as in the future you will be paying for others who are less fortunate than you have become.
2007-03-13
03:17:52 ·
update #3