Who Is Worse Off?

[New Judge]

Three single mothers (and one of each of their children) have lost a legal challenge to the government’s benefit cap. This caps the total benefits they can receive at £500 per week:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24818747

Lawyers acting for the group argued that the "cruel and arbitrary" measure was "reminiscent of the days of the workhouse". They also argued (surprise, surprise) that the cap unlawfully breached the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for home and family life. The women themselves feared it would leave them destitute.

Where, then, does this leave State pensioners? I’m sure some of them would not mind being so destitute. Their plight is a little more pronounced as the cruel and arbitrary level of their payments is capped at £145 (for the poorest who receive full Pension Credit). Of course they receive Housing Benefit as well (example rates are £120pw in leafy Maidstone up to £250pw in Mayfair). This still leaves them considerably worse off. A pensioner living in Maidstone receives a little over half the workhouse levels that the single mothers are complaining of. Perhaps they’d like to swap places.

[rockyracoon]

Sherr, my youngest brother has just been given a housing assoc flat, he's on probation for a year, if all ok then after 5 years his needs will be reassessed.

[weecalf]

I work five days a week 28 hours for less than 10pound a hour .so she is being for 50 hours for what?

[Hypognosis]

@pixie and emmie

//i agree with you about absent and irresponsible fathers. Unfortunately, it's the mothers that pick up the pieces. And get the blame for being spongers. //

So is it a myth that a culture developed whereby teenage girls worked out that they could jump the queue on the council house list by getting themselves knocked up?

I recall stories like that in circulation back in the 80s. So why did it take another decade or two before they decided to make the fathers financially accountable?

Retro-active punishments! For behaviour practically condoned by the state.

[pixie373]

Surely fathers have always known they are financially accountable? It used to be them rather than the mothers who worked - so it is them dumping their responsibilities on the state. Also, if anyone thinks they'll be financially better off having a baby, under any circumstances, they'll soon learn differently.

[Hypognosis]

@pixie
//Surely fathers have always known they are financially accountable?//

Yes, but the fast track on council housing only worked if the mother was unmarried and lacked the very financial support of which you speak.

Presumably, the deal was that you help them get pregnant and then you naff off and stay out of their lives.

Ten years later, the gubmint hounds down the poor saps who fell for this routine and syphons their bank account until they have no life left.

It's been debated to death on TV over the years and men ARE more wary and responsible these days. Take a look at how many people choose to live alone these days, instead of raising a family.

[emmie]

i didn't tar them all with the same brush, you should actually read my posts, however if the cost of child care for the child, children is too high how can they afford it, the state will have to pay. If dads were made to pay, those that leave the women in the lurch and pay nothing, then maybe the women would be able to return to work, or at least part time.

[emmie]

rent in the capital is high, as if people didn't know that already, so that would take a fair chunk of one's money whether you work or not.

[dave50]

When social housing was first introduced, you had to be in paid work and prove you could afford the rent. The rot set in when they started letting anyone move in to these houses, whether they were responsible people or not.