Tax System Explained in Beer

[mudskipper]

So single parents whose partner died in Afghanistan deserve help. No-one disputes that.

What about a single parent whose partner died run over by a drunk driver?

What about a single parent whose partner killed him/herself drink driving?

What about a single parent who left an abusive partner?

What about a single parent who left because their partner had an affair?

What about a single parent whose partner left because they had an affair?

What about the thirty year old who finds herself accidentally pregnant?

What about the sixteen year old who finds herself accidentally pregnant?

What about the sixteen year old who deliberately gets pregnant because she can see no prospect of a future and all she ever wanted to be was a mum?

Lumping all sixteen year olds as 'bad' is just the same as lumping all single parents as 'bad'. At sixteen you're at the age where you take stupid risks, make mistakes and with a bit of luck come out of it without any permanent ill-effects. Even those in the very last category - your 'council-estate pram pushers' are a result of the raw deal society has dealt them. If you read the Daily Mail, you'd be forgiven for believing that these girls are a huge problem. Actually they're not. They are a tiny proportion of benefit claimants, and if anything, need and deserve extra help to get their lives back on track and get a sense of self worth.

[RichardCranium]

And we need them to win.

Only if you really believe they will be any different.

Which I certainly don't.

The big parties now have their policies made up for them by consultancies and these are enforced on their MPs by the whips. There is nothing for the MPs to do except vote how they are ordered to vote. How long do you think they can keep that up before they are just lining their pockets with whatever expenses and fiddles they can? Because they sure won't be there to represent you, me or their constituents.

And another thing's for sure: it will be the same consultants advising the Tories as it was Labour and they'll be giving them the same self-serving, short termist advice.

[gingerjedi]

So single parents whose partner died in Afghanistan deserve help. No-one disputes that.

What about a single parent whose partner died run over by a drunk driver?

What about a single parent whose partner killed him/herself drink driving?

What about a single parent who left an abusive partner?

What about a single parent who left because their partner had an affair?

What about a single parent whose partner left because they had an affair?

What about the thirty year old who finds herself accidentally pregnant?

What about the sixteen year old who finds herself accidentally pregnant?

What about the sixteen year old who deliberately gets pregnant because she can see no prospect of a future and all she ever wanted to be was a mum?

Lumping all sixteen year olds as 'bad' is just the same as lumping all single parents as 'bad'. At sixteen you're at the age where you take stupid risks, make mistakes and with a bit of luck come out of it without any permanent ill-effects. Even those in the very last category - your 'council-estate pram pushers' are a result of the raw deal society has dealt them. If you read the Daily Mail, you'd be forgiven for believing that these girls are a huge problem. Actually they're not. They are a tiny proportion of benefit claimants, and if anything, need and deserve extra help to get their lives back on track and get a sense of self worth.

I don't think anyone would disagree with what you have said, as it stands the system favours single people and has done for many years.

When I was a permy I knew a guy who was on a fairly good wage but chose to live with his mother 4 nights a week so his wife could claim benefits for herself and child, he was a selfish bastard for doing it but I doubt his son had much say in the mater.

A system that encourages families to split up for financial gain can't be right.

[Pogle]

So single parents whose partner died in Afghanistan deserve help. No-one disputes that.

What about a single parent whose partner died run over by a drunk driver?

What about a single parent whose partner killed him/herself drink driving?

What about a single parent who left an abusive partner?

What about a single parent who left because their partner had an affair?

What about a single parent whose partner left because they had an affair?

What about the thirty year old who finds herself accidentally pregnant?

What about the sixteen year old who finds herself accidentally pregnant?

What about the sixteen year old who deliberately gets pregnant because she can see no prospect of a future and all she ever wanted to be was a mum?

Lumping all sixteen year olds as 'bad' is just the same as lumping all single parents as 'bad'. At sixteen you're at the age where you take stupid risks, make mistakes and with a bit of luck come out of it without any permanent ill-effects. Even those in the very last category - your 'council-estate pram pushers' are a result of the raw deal society has dealt them. If you read the Daily Mail, you'd be forgiven for believing that these girls are a huge problem. Actually they're not. They are a tiny proportion of benefit claimants, and if anything, need and deserve extra help to get their lives back on track and get a sense of self worth.

You're not female by any chance are you?

[mudskipper]

A system that encourages families to split up for financial gain can't be right.

Does the system really do that? Yes - you are entitled to more benefits as two single people than a married couple - but (usually) have two lots of mortgage/rent, bills, council tax etc. The number of people who split up in order to improve their finances must be tiny (I'm sure there are examples which are well publicised!) What wouldn't be right is a system that forces people to stay in miserable relationships because they can't afford to leave.

[mudskipper]

You're not female by any chance are you?

Yep. I'm sure men are capable of empathy too though!

[Pogle]

Yep. I'm sure men are capable of empathy too though!

Nice to meet you anyway

[threaded]

Does the system really do that? Yes - you are entitled to more benefits as two single people than a married couple - but (usually) have two lots of mortgage/rent, bills, council tax etc. The number of people who split up in order to improve their finances must be tiny (I'm sure there are examples which are well publicised!) What wouldn't be right is a system that forces people to stay in miserable relationships because they can't afford to leave.

Actually, it is the major reason for divorces in the lower income bracket.

Some get married again when one or the other achieves a new job.

And divorced again when they lose it.

HTH

[gingerjedi]

Does the system really do that? Yes - you are entitled to more benefits as two single people than a married couple - but (usually) have two lots of mortgage/rent, bills, council tax etc. The number of people who split up in order to improve their finances must be tiny (I'm sure there are examples which are well publicised!) What wouldn't be right is a system that forces people to stay in miserable relationships because they can't afford to leave.

You'd be surprised, a single mother with kids will get every assistance and rightly so for the sake of the kids but is dad really gone? If dad gets a job they'd lose all those freebies wouldn't they... maybe he should move out and stay somewhere else for a bit.

[mudskipper]

You'd be surprised, a single mother with kids will get every assistance and rightly so for the sake of the kids but is dad really gone? If dad gets a job they'd lose all those freebies wouldn't they... maybe he should move out and stay somewhere else for a bit.

So what is wrong is that people who are working can be no better off than people on benefits. That one does need sorting.