What single mothers will do!!

Not so long ago a thread went on and on and on about single mothers being forced onto the dole when their kids started school.

We heard a lot of ranting from the extremists.

So I'll tell you what many of those mothers will do when they are faced with that situation.

They will have a new kid.

So every 5 years the underpriviledged class will multiply.

So the cost savings are obviously totally doomed,
And the lower classes will multiply causing much strain on the social fabric of society.

Can any extremist tell me why this won't happen?? :eek: :eek:

Jings Bob, just when I thought I wasn't going to get myself into any more trouble this week!!

So the cynic in me says, supporting mother's benefit = dole plus benefits.

Where's the difference?

Like you can only have unemployment benefits for a couple of months... then they put you on Job-Search Benefits, then NewStart benefits then......

It's all about managing the statistics, not about saving money or costing money!

Cheers,

P :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

So I'll tell you what many of those mothers will do when they are faced with that situation.

They will have a new kid.

So every 5 years the underpriviledged class will multiply.

So the cost savings are obviously totally doomed,
And the lower classes will multiply causing much strain on the social fabric of society.

Can any extremist tell me why this won't happen?? :eek: :eek:

---

Sorry Bob, went off half cocked & I reckon Mick was right and I interpreted it from the wrong angle, certainly seems so on 2nd read anyway......I really hope I have, cause the term "lower class" always makes the red mist cloud my judgement.

:o

Bruce,
I think (or at least I hope) that you've misinterpreted Bob's post. I believe that the point that he was trying to make is that the government policy of forcing single mums back to work/on the dole in order to save money will simply backfire. The mums will, for whatever reason, (being better mums and staying home for the kids rather than having "latchkey" kids being one of them) choose to have more kids rather than perhaps studying or joining the workforce.

Like the Midge says, it's all a cynical government figure juggling exercise.

Mick

I asked a single mum in Playgroup what she is going to do about the Single mum getting back to work scheme. She said that she is ready to go back to work when here youngest currently about 3 goes to school. When I asked but what about now. Quote " But Im not ready".

What I want to know is will the government wait and make it like the "Work for the dole" or will they inforce it????.

the more poor we have the more soldiers we can recruithttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...cons/icon8.gif
g.

I dont veiw myself as an extremist.

I grew up in a single parent household with my brother and sister.My mum worked during school hours, picked us up from school till we were old enough to walk home and then went to work as a barmaid in the evening.
She worked, even tho the govt assistance was comparable with today(her opinion) yet my father never paid child support.

Perhaps we were "latchkey" kids, but my bro + sister are both university educated and i run what i like to think is a pretty successful business.
Sure, we could have gone the other way, but who is to say that a stay at home parent makes for a better child?

The case im trying to make is that for every person that has another child in a bid to thwart the system, there may be a couple of others who will seek work or study in a bid to better themselves or give their kids every possible opportunity.
Im sure that there are plenty of women like this now.
From what i can gather, the govt isnt planning on forcing single mums into "full-time" work but trying to encourage them to do a total of 15 hours per week.
What is wrong with somebody working whilst their child/children are at school, and as for the naysayers who imply that a single mother simply doesnt have enough time in the day to complete household chores, let alone go to work......i wonder how other families manage whilst both parents work.

Just my opinion.....or perhaps i missed the point echidna was trying to make entirely.

Steve

WARNING - GRIPE TO TAKE PLACE HERE RIGHT NOW.

Im going to be the bad guy here.

I was raised by my father (middle kid of 5). He go NO government support at all. He had to work full time, pay the mortage, food, etc, etc plus for the first 4 years after my mum died he had to hire, and pay for himself a live-in housekeeper because of my younger brothers. We then had a cleaner for the next few years but as we go older that stopped.

My sister is a single mother and has worked the whole time with no government pension - just family allowance.

I can not see why for a start men do not get the same free money and why single mums can't work full time? Why are they singled out for such good treatment?

GRIPE OVER.

Thanks for listening.
:)

Single Dads get the same as single mums but they can't have another kid to stay on the pension.

Sorry about the term Lower Class but that is what the Government is likely to create.

BTW "Work for the dole is enforced" or at least down my way it is.
I have supervised several WFTD programs and there are good points and bad points.

Echineda:

Never mind about single mums. Married mums can now have 12 months paid maternity leave in the U.K.
I reckon some of those superdads will be able to keep their wives at home for the next 20 years. :D

NEWSFLASH

I just finished talking to a guy who works for me.

His girlfriend with 3 children gets $1050 a fortnight+ allowances:eek:

If i could get that, i wouldnt want to work either.

Perhaps you businessmen out there would like to have a look at your operation and tell us how many people you will employ between the hours of nine o'clock and three o'clock. My research suggests 'not many'.
Then the single parents (because it isn't just wimmen), will lose two thirds of their wage because that's the rate at which the pension is reduced (I'm pretty sure it's 2/3, it might be half). Make them work outside of school hours, and you immediately add child care to that and, as all working parents know, it's expensive and places can be hard to get. Thank goodness for Out of School Hours Care though even there, places can be limited.

Then consider that these parents are going onto the newstart program where they will lose (I think) $65 a week. That's a huge chunk out of a payment that's already below the poverty line.

And all to save the govt a bit of money, and the cynic in me asks how much money will be saved because all of a sudden, you will have to pay public servants to try to find non-existent jobs for all these people ... which is why the govt is trying to push that down onto the employment services and why a large number of those are threatening to pull out of the business.

The majority of single parents don't stay on the benefit long term anyway (poverty tends to force them off it). The stereotype teenage girl dropping litters is out there, but they aren't the norm by any means.

Then there are people like myself.
I left a profession to raise my son a couple of years after my first marriage failed. I wasn't doing too bad and then was stupid enough to marry my ex. It seemed ideal for me to stay at home and raise our kids (hers, mine and then later, ours) and, seeing her business was going to keep us solvent, and seeing I was putting a lot into that business in the form of time and effort, and seeing I was trying to develop my writing career, and seeing I (like everyone else in my profession) was required to undergo ongoing training to keep my professional qualifications, we decided to let my professional license lapse. Eight years after that, she leaves me for another bloke. I'm now on that pension you all decry, looking after my son full time and my daughter half time. I can't go back into my profession because I would need extensive training to regain my licence (required training) and would be trying to re-enter a field that is stuffed to the gills with professionals anyway - ie, there aren't jobs for those with current experience, let alone blokes like me coming from behind. Plus I'm now 48, an age at which it becomes damned near impossible to get work anyway.

So am I out there chasing **** work so that I've got something to do but which won't actually improve my lot in life?
No. I'm working bloody hard to become a successful writer. It's a profession where you are basically unpaid until you are 'publishable', a standard that most writers agree takes over a million polished words and typically ten years or more. I'm at that standard now. The signs are there in the feedback I'm getting from publishers. That doesn't mean that the money will now start to flow in. It's starting to trickle in - I sold a story this week to a pro mag in America - I'll get $25 when it's published ... in december. Not a good way to support a family, but if I can get some novels published, that will start to turn around. But those novels don't write themselves and I can't rely on what I have in the locker now. I need to keep writing and keep putting it out there in the hope that sooner or later someone will pick it up. Few writers make a single break through - for most it's a slow pickup of momentum over a number of years, once they reach the point I'm at now.

So where do my options lie? Full time work - no chance of getting back into my profession I'm afraid, not seriously, so it's basically labourer standard and, being a single parent, that WILL affect my kids as it's not like a dual family where there is always the other parent to help out if your kids need something. Now, I'm not averse to that route and if I have to, I will take it.

But I've also got my writing. I am good enough to make it. It will happen if I put in the effort. So I'm using my time on the pension to fund that. The price I'm paying is lack of long term security (no super, medical, etc) but I think it's worth it for the possible prize - not riches, that isn't likely to happen, but in having my work read around the world. Okay, not everyone values the arts but next time you read something, think about the poor bastard who wrote it.

And remember, until my marriage failed, I wasn't taking a thing from the govt., nor did it look like I was going to have to in the future.

Judging from posts on this forum, there will be those among you who will condemn me for a parasite. Well, I fed up with sitting here and taking that ****. Regard me as you will, perhaps one day we'll meet over a beer and you'll realise how wrong you are.

But how about we forget stereotyping single parents. There are those who are abusing the system, just like the thousands of people with full time jobs who aren't earning the money (and don't deny they are out there, there are probably more of them than single parents, and yes, they are in private industry as well as the public service). Everyone's story is different and few of us choose to be in the position we find ourselves. Those of you who haven't tried being a single parent have no idea of the workload, because you've always got someone else there to lean on - most of the stress is emotional because it's not that hard to clean a house or cook a meal. But people like me are working damned hard to raise our kids and to ensure that they have their heads screwed on straight (hard when you've got someone trying to unscrew them) and who will become valuable members of the community, regardless of their jobs.

Arrrr Dammit. I've either convinced you or I haven't

Richard

Having many tears experience as an employer I dont want my workers to be unhappy as they will produce crap results.
So its unlikely I would ever employ someone who is being forced off the dole.
I don't want people who begrudge working.
If someone wants to leave the dole because they want to work, thats a totally different matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daddles

The majority of single parents don't stay on the benefit long term anyway (poverty tends to force them off it). The stereotype teenage girl dropping litters is out there, but they aren't the norm by any means.

---

Golly Gosh Daddles where do you live - check out the rest of Australia - Sydney has suburbs of single parents (if that what you call it these days) living on the pension without bothering to work. As for living below the poverty line. Had married friends that worked out if he left, she could pull in over $1000 after paying the rent. If that the poverty line then im not even existing. Living in Govy housing, medical, transport plus all the extras. Living in luxury. I can not even get my kids checked at a Government run Dental Clinic because we do not receive any think from Centre clunk. If I was a single mum getting the government handout no probs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flea1607

Golly Gosh Daddles where do you live - check out the rest of Australia - Sydney has suburbs of single parents (if that what you call it these days) living on the pension without bothering to work. As for living below the poverty line. Had married friends that worked out if he left, she could pull in over $1000 after paying the rent. If that the poverty line then im not even existing. Living in Govy housing, medical, transport plus all the extras. Living in luxury. I can not even get my kids checked at a Government run Dental Clinic because we do not receive any think from Centre clunk. If I was a single mum getting the government handout no probs.

---

Sorry, but much of your post is pure drivel, though I've often had to listen to the current affairs programs sell just the very line you've produced.

This is the reality of my life.
I get $785 a fortnight from the govt.
I have to rent privately so lose $190 a WEEK from that.
Oh, I do get rent assistance, included in the above figure of $785, of $56 a fortnight.
Services - yes, I get some help, about 10%. That's all.
Medical? I'm lucky, my GP reduces her gap to what I can afford that week - bulk billing is non-existent where I live.
Transport? Yeah, I get a bit, but public transport is not a practical proposition for 90% of my travel. Of course, my son could give up his soccer - it's not as though he needs to play sport (despite him wanting find a career there), and I could move him from the school he's at with his best friend to another one that happens to lie on a bus route, but it's only a ten minute drive so I think his peer group support is probably worth the money.
Dental. Yes, it is free, with over a twelve month waiting list to see if that rotten tooth needs work - book again to get it fixed.
And I live in fear of needing major medical help having had family members have to rely on it - it's a case of, if you have to go to hospital, make sure it's an emergency.

As for the 'whole suburbs of single parents' bit - well, you can believe that if you want. I mean, A Current Affair never gets these things wrong does it.

Yes, the single parent's pension, or whatever name it goes under this week, is a generous payout, but it in no way sets a family up for comfortable living. Some people make a go of it, but the only way to live comfortably long term is to go without a lot - huge debt problems usually follow those with all the bits and pieces. Sure, the current affairs programs manage to make it sound rather cushy, but the truth of the matter is, young singles are not the norm. The typical single parent is a in their middle age and recently separated. Last I heard, 30% of them were fathers, but that was a long time ago - the figure is probably higher now and the gender bias within the family law court slowly disolves (and it's still got a long way to go so let's not buy into that fight).

Over the last twelve months, I have been steadily going backwards financially. We don't live flash - my sisters and mother are impressed by how well we do live, and I've had to sell stuff and will be selling more soon. At the moment, I'm in limbo while I try to get some sort of settlement out of the family court - I'm hoping my legal expenses come in below the settlement but already I've lost any hope of returning to home ownership at the level I enjoyed before my last marriage (that was having a small mortgage on a modest home).

I'm quite sure there are those that are sucking the system dry. I too watch current affairs programs. But please remember that most people in the system are doing it hard, and quite often, those that the programs laud as doing well, are only going to manage that for year or two.

The answers don't lie in forcing people to work when that will do little more than make life harder, even if they can find the jobs and if you own a business, ask yourself how many extra people you can afford to emply - most businessmen agree that it's hard, very hard but without those jobs, how can you penalise people for not working? Catch 22. The answers don't lie in throwing more money into the pot, though to be honest, I won't knock back anything the govt wants to give me. We could go the American route where people like myself live in true poverty, poverty of a level that only exists in this country in some aboriginal communities.

The real answers lie in the people of this country (and if you are reading this post, that means you) developing some compassion and understanding for others. I'm not saying this is absent now - quite clearly it is not and we are all lucky to live in a country as understanding and as compassionate as Australia is (please pause and give yourself a pat on the back because as a society, we deserve it). However, we need to go further. The ******** that is pushed on current affairs programs these days should be decried - sadly, the opposite is the case which is why we see this nonsense peddled as truth. Too few of us have the ability to look at another and truly understand what their difficulties are or to understand how to help them. What we as a people need to do, is to devalue 'money' and 'stuff'. People, other people, should be our prime concern in everything. Sure, the money is important - there is no value in the entire country going broke. But sadly, capitalism as a system has drifted to the point where the money is significantly more important than the people. We need to redress that. There will always be those who seek to rort the system, but while we value money rather than social responsibility, these people can not be condemned - they are doing nothing worse than the businessman who has fiddled his tax to the extent that he pays a fraction of his dues.

Look at your neighbour and try to live his life. Perhaps he is wrong. Perhaps his attitudes are inflexible or lack compassion. Rather than demonstrating that same inflexibility, rather than displaying that same lack of compassion, try to understand and to help. This could be finding work in your business for someone who can not work traditional hours. This could be minding your working neighbours kids while they have to work or by making sure that no children need to be latchkey kids by inviting your own kid's friends home after school. But condemning others only makes our community worse and in the end, we all suffer and pay ... and we encourage the rorters, at all levels.

Richard