Income Support for loan Parent changes

[Amethyst]

At my review yesterday my advisor mentioned that from next year only parents with children under 12 years will be able to claim Income Support as opposed to JobSeekers. Thats okay - kids in secondary school at that age etc so yes would expect to be working full time. Then she went on to say the year after it would reduce to 10 and the year after to 7 years old.

At 7 years old a child does not want to be in school from 8am to 6pm (as there are new rules coming in that schools have to provide breakfast and tea time care to children and be open from 8 to 6)

This was meant to be great because the child care would be paid 80% for - oh whoopppeee.

I do not want to have my kids at school from 8 to 6. 9 to 3 tires them out enough (mines at 8,7 and 6) and i don't want to not pick them up or drop them off at school. From 2010 (hopefully I'll be working in some capacity by then as well as studying) I'd have to claim jobseekers as opposed to Income Support.

This will obviously impact on unemployment figures as people on IS will move over to Jobseekers much sooner. And I can see a proportion moving on to Disability instead.

I'm not adverse to working between 9 and 3 at all and we'll probably have a row of some sort on this subject, was just wondering if these new rules implementations were publicised anywhere.

[Amethyst]

Re: Income Support for loan Parent changes

source: directgov

Major changes to the benefit entitlement of lone parents
The Government are making changes to the Social Security Benefits system and introducing a new allowance to help people back into work. The current benefit rules enable lone parents with a child aged under 16 to claim Income Support. The proposed changes will mean that from the following dates, lone parents whose youngest child is:

• 12 years and over in November 2008;
• 10 years or over in October 2009; and
• 7 years or over in 2010

- will not be eligible to claim Income Support solely on the grounds of being a lone parent. There will be some exceptions for lone parents who receive Carer's Allowance, who are fostering or whose child receives the middle or higher rate care element of Disability living Allowance.

There will be some transitional arrangements for students who begin a full-time course before the above dates. Students currently undertaking a full-time course or starting full-time course this October 2008 will continue to be eligible for Income Support until their youngest child reaches 16 years of age or when their course ends, whichever comes first. Students currently undertaking a full-time course or starting full-time course this January 2008 will continue to be eligible for Income Support until their youngest child reaches 12 years of age or when their course ends, whichever comes first.

[Emerald]

Re: Income Support for loan Parent changes

Social Policy in this country amazes me, millions is spent on initiaves and inclusion to improve the outcomes for children, one of the most targetted areas being positive parents and strong family values, with parents being at the centre of a childs wellbeing.

Research shows that children are more likely to truant and get involved in crime if they have no positive emotional home life, how you are supposed provide that when you are worn out working full time is beyond me. Then when it all goes wrong you are expeced to drop everything and turn up to every scheduled meeting which are emmm during normal working hours.

http://www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/yjs/Prevention/

Young childen will be exhausted after those long hours and it also adds to social exclusion and choice IMO. Very few 12 year olds will go to a childminder or stay at school at the end of the day, and very few of them will rush to do homework when they get in, thus leaving it till much later in the evening when a tired mum starts nagging.

School holidays will be a nightmare for those with young children forced to work full time.

[theGobbyOne]

Re: Income Support for loan Parent changes

Some clever lawyer somewhere will be able to argue this point using the human rights act that I am sure of...............I would use the right to family life etc etc so I bet the idiots didnt think of that little nugget when they made their stupid new rules!!!!!!!!!!!

So I wonder what will hapen to couples who are on income support if this new rule applies to lone parents then surely it must apply to them too!!!!

[Emerald]

Re: Income Support for loan Parent changes

Some clever lawyer somewhere will be able to argue this point using the human rights act that I am sure of...............I would use the right to family life etc etc so I bet the idiots didnt think of that little nugget when they made their stupid new rules!!!!!!!!!!!

So I wonder what will hapen to couples who are on income support if this new rule applies to lone parents then surely it must apply to them too!!!!

I don't see what they could argue, many lone parents work without loss of family life. In fact it could be argued that the benefits of working part time and claiming tax credits improve family life, with increased parental self esteem and confidence. The problem comes when the children are younger and the parent on benefits cannot find a job to fit in with school hours, and is forced into leaving their child in clubs etc for extended hours before and after school.

For people on benefits who are able to use the early years productively, as Amethyst is proposing to study for a qualification that will offer her flexibility in the employment market, will be able to come off benefits painlessly. For others who simply do not have the academic ability or motivation, they will find it very hard to juggle children and work.

I personally think 16 is too old to be able to claim benefits for no other reason that you are a sole parent, but equally I think 12, an dthe reducing proposal to age 7 is too young.

[Guest]

Re: Income Support for loan Parent changes

Social Policy in this country amazes me, millions is spent on initiaves and inclusion to improve the outcomes for children, one of the most targetted areas being positive parents and strong family values, with parents being at the centre of a childs wellbeing.

Research shows that children are more likely to truant and get involved in crime if they have no positive emotional home life, how you are supposed provide that when you are worn out working full time is beyond me. Then when it all goes wrong you are expeced to drop everything and turn up to every scheduled meeting which are emmm during normal working hours.

http://www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/yjs/Prevention/

Young childen will be exhausted after those long hours and it also adds to social exclusion and choice IMO. Very few 12 year olds will go to a childminder or stay at school at the end of the day, and very few of them will rush to do homework when they get in, thus leaving it till much later in the evening when a tired mum starts nagging.

School holidays will be a nightmare for those with young children forced to work full time.

I think you have a rather grand view of social policy.

This government has a policy of making fathers redundant in families, by downgrading the state's respect for marriage and providing a career structure for single mothers that includes state-provided childcare.

Couple that with the Blairite policy of turning the police into a weapon of social engineering from one of crime fighting and you see that they have presented us with today's under-achieving, feral youth, with its knives and guns, going around killing each other and making our cities seem like the dirtier suburbs of Los Angeles.

This is something that was written by Lord Saatchi and was sent to me in July. I think it sums up New Labour rather well.

How many of us claim benefits from the Government?
39 per cent of households, nearly double 10 years ago.
How many people are forced to claim benefits from the Government in order to pay taxes?
21 million.
How much do they claim, just to pay tax?
£36 billion a year.
How much of the year do the poorest people spend working just to pay tax?
Until the end of July.

These facts are filed today as exhibits in an indictment against "New Labour" on seven counts of conspiracy, solicitation, attempt and incitement:

Conspiracy to enslave UK citizens by making them unnecessarily dependent on the state (Count One); Conspiracy to force UK nationals to claim benefits to pay higher taxes (Count Two); Incitement of poor people to pay more tax than rich people (Count Three); Solicitation of multiple tax revenues by stealth (Count Four); Attempt to obstruct, interfere, impair, impede and defeat the right of UK nationals to independence (Count Five); Conspiracy to provide material support and resources to mesmerise and anaesthetise UK citizens (Count Six); Attempt to conceal and/or falsely represent their true status as an enemy of the people (Count Seven).

These charges are brought before "The Court of Public Opinion for the United Kingdom" by the plaintiff, the people.

There are 55 "General Allegations". These are some of them:

No.1 "From in or about May 1997 through in or about May 2008, inside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, the defendants, 'New Labour', did engage in a conspiracy with others, known and unknown, to make the people of the UK financially dependent on the state, and acted in furtherance of the object of their plan by covert acts."

No.2 "At all relevant times from in or about 1997 until the date of the filing of this indictment, it was a part of the conspiracy that the defendants fiscally attacked millions of people who live below the official poverty line. In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to effect the object thereof, the defendants made the poorest 10 per cent of people in the UK pay them up to 56 per cent of their income in tax."

No.13 "The defendants' methods, in their warped hierarchy of dependence, were as ruthless as they were effective. They first attempted to get innocent victims hooked on dependency with "Class C" benefits such as 'Child Benefit'; then they encouraged them to move up to 'Income Support', and then finally they administered highly addictive 'Class A' benefits in the form of 'Tax Credits'."

No.14 "In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the object thereof, the defendants committed various covert acts, including the invention of new taxes called "stealth taxes", with the intention of duping the people into thinking that the benefits they received cost them nothing."

No.16 "The evidence will show in Exhibit E that, cruellest of all, the defendants mercilessly selected the poorest and most vulnerable victims to extract the greatest amount of tax."

No.17 "It will be shown that these were not an assortment of unconnected events. On the contrary, they constituted a well integrated programme in which the defendants planned and collaborated among themselves and with others."

No.18 "As set out in the covert acts alleged, and depicted in Exhibit A, the defendants concocted and put into execution the 'Four-Stage Plan' to secure power over the people -

Step 1: The victims pay more tax;

Step 2: They receive "benefits" to pay the tax;

Step 3: They are grateful for the 'benefits';

Step 4: They vote for the defendants."

No.22 "Beginning on or about May 2 1997, and continuing until the date of the filing of this indictment, the defendants did knowingly, intentionally and wilfully, conspire, combine and agree together and with others unknown, to raise taxes with the intent to cause UK citizens to require benefits to pay taxes to the defendants."

No.23 "The people will introduce a statement by the Prime Minister. The people incorporate by reference the statement he made to a newspaper on the May 1, 2008. In this, he admitted his motive. In or about April 2007, he had personally authorised the doubling of the tax to be paid by the poorest people. In or about May 2008, when this came to light, he confessed to his 'mistakes'. As the statement referenced here shows, his confession did not concern the raising of the tax rate; only that he failed to provide sufficient state benefits to pay the tax:

'We made two mistakes. We didn't cover as well as we should that group of low-paid workers who don't get the working tax credits and we weren't able to help the 60- to 64-year-olds who didn't get the pensioner's tax allowance'."

No.26 "It will further be shown in Exhibit F, that at a time known as "the credit crunch", the defendants drove the people into more debt, and therefore more dependence. From in or about May 1997 to in or about May 2007, the amount of debt owed by the average household more than doubled from £23,000 to £56,000 per household; an increase in debt of £33,000."

The verdict of the court is: guilty on all counts.

The sentence of the court is handed down:

1. Participate for a minimum of five years in the "Face-To-Face Justice" scheme, in which the offenders will meet their victims, apologise for their offence and comprehend the effect it had on their victims.

2. To reduce the risk of re-offending, a minimum period of five years of opposition will be required. The defendants will not be eligible for the Early Release scheme.

This is all part of New Labour's plan for everlasting socialist government. This secret was discovered in Sweden decades ago. First raise tax and employ as much of the electorate as possible. Next, offer generous welfare and bribe the middle classes with childcare. Soon, a critical mass of voters becomes part of the government project and votes for its expansion. Higher private sector earners may squeal at the tax rates, but are easily outnumbered. Eventually the right-wing opposition grows tired of losing elections, and starts pledging to outspend the government, if elected. Then victory is complete.

This and this alone is the sole reason for the social policy in this country.

In the UK now state employees account for over 15 percent of the electorate, the out-of-work and on welfare are around 11 percent, benefit-dependent pensioners are 18 per cent and pensioners with independent means total 8 per cent. Add these all together and it turns out that more than half of the electorate are today, in one way or another, in the pay of the government. Today, one in four employed people work for the government in this country. That is over 800,000 more than in 1997. New Labour have done it, they now control the electorate.

[miffy]

Re: Income Support for loan Parent changes

i have only just found this information out and not through being informed by the government either, i happened upon wqhile getting a phone number online.
i am appalled! i am not a lone parent by choice , my husband had mental health and drug issues and was committed. he had had a very good job and was providing for us very well before that.
so i find myself alone with 2 children and on income support and now i find out that in a couple of years when my children are but 7 and 9 years oldi will be forced to go out to work on top of all that!
what am i supposed to do with my kids? i dont want to leave them in the care of strangers! i want to bring them up my way! and with the love of thier mother! i want to feed them what i choose and watch over them.
so the government are saying they need to be put into childcare? before school , after school , in the holidays? my kids are very clingy to me, they have already lost one parent! how can they justify forcing this kind of life onnto a child just because of the unfortunate circumstances of thier family!
so the government are offering to pay for my childcare? wait a minute ...i have no qualifications and TWO children...i can only earn minimum wage in a rubbish job (no satisfaction and confidence will come from that , just depresion so that wont make the family better) so there i am working on minimum wage all the while there is a childcare provider out there somewhere watching my 2 kids, lets for example say they take minimun wage per child , they have 2 of my kids so the governmenmt is paying out TWICE what i am earning an hour to somebody else for looking after MY kids! this is ridiculous!
if it comes to it i wil make myself available for work in 2 years , (even though i have just applied for college ) but i will only be available for work between the hours of 9.30 and 3 and only in term time and i will expect my empoyer to be flexible if my children should need a day off for illness and if this miraculous job dosent appear then i dont see how they can dispute me claiming my job seekers allowance!
and if it does appear ill take it but i can say goodbye to ever providing for my family with a good job after earning my qualifications and spend the rest of my life recieving huge ammounts from the government as top up. silly government!