Lone-parent allowance may be cut, says Hanafin

sold

Finally the penny has dropped. The allowance should never have been introduced in the 1st place. Personally I think the biggest is are with the girls who become "lone Parents" to get the allowance and housing.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1230/1224261408872.html

Lone parent allowance is currently €1128 a month. So if you also get social housing then its not a bad amount. (3 times the average wage in eastern Europe)

And please don't honestly tell me that the 86,040 mothers getting the payment a really lone parents.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pushtrak

It should have been cut to 18. That is the legal definition of a child, and it is for the childs benefit that this was created.

sold

Italy used not to pay lone parents much. Lo and behold, there were very few lone parents.

If you give the allowances you allow them to be abused.


In Italy, the figure is only 0.5 per cent. Ireland has 18 per cent. It seems like our social system has caused the problem. Italy does not offer the allowance and has 17% less lone parents.

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/povertyinireland/oneparentfamilies.htm

Pushtrak

It is a bad idea to look at things going on in another country and make assumptions like that. Generally, they tend to be fallacious.

97i9y3941

Pushtrak wrote: »

It is a bad idea to look at things going on in another country and make assumptions like that. Generally, they tend to be fallacious.

giving to them until their in their 20s was crazy idea,the goverment is basically tying to undo all the golden goose allowances we have created over the years...

Pushtrak

I already pointed out their 20s is crazy. I think 18 is more realistic. And, if I am to be honest, I don't think there should be a set amount. There should be proof of what is needed so as not to exceed a certain amount. Failure to prove needing the maximum results in only obtaining the maximum they can prove.

Single parents are in a horrible boat, so I can imagine it would be easy for them to prove why they need the maximum. I think it'd go some way towards alleviating the worries sold has brought up.

97i9y3941

wont be surprised if i hear fine gael jumping on the bandwagon and giving us hitting the vunerable with this lark :rolleyes:

Joey the lips

I have to be honest I was expecting something like this. I really dont blame the govt. The people that are abuseing the system were takeing the p1ss at all our expense.

It will be an interesting stat now to see if the full effects gives the govt propper stats on house sizes.

btw. For all you genuine loan parents. I am sorry this is happening to you. My mom was genuine and it was hard growing up. If you looking for someone to blame it must be obvious to you,

Pushtrak

Fred83 wrote: »

giving to them until their in their 20s was crazy idea,the goverment is basically tying to undo all the golden goose allowances we have created over the years...

Fred83 wrote: »

wont be surprised if i hear fine gael jumping on the bandwagon and giving us hitting the vunerable with this lark :rolleyes:

Just curious, what age do you think would be fair?

97i9y3941

18,least then they are adults and should be able to seek some form of work?..

zootroid

Just out of curiosity, if someone is entitled to the lone parent allowance, are they also entitled to the children's allowance?

Pushtrak

zootroid wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, if someone is entitled to the lone parent allowance, are they also entitled to the children's allowance?

I'd imagine they would. A single parent, by definition is going to have to get by without any support from a partner who could be in employment. Why? Do you think that they should only get one or the other?

Eliot Rosewater

The lone parent allowance should be totally removed, and should never have been instituted, in my opinion.

Bringing up children is a matter of personal responsibility and the onus is on the parents to ensure that their offspring are bought into a secure family. Yes, I realize all too well that things can turn sour afterwards. However the parents should be making the effort to stay with the family, and offering them money if they don't is only an incentive to leave. Secondly the children should be provided for by the two parents if they are living separately, by means of the Courts if necessary.

Fundamentally, people respond to financial incentives, and the welfare state offers far too many rewards for irresponsible behavior.

Joey the lips

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The lone parent allowance should be totally removed, and should never have been instituted, in my opinion.

Bringing up children is a matter of personal responsibility and the onus is on the parents to ensure that their offspring are bought into a secure family. Yes, I realize all too well that things can turn sour afterwards. However the parents should be making the effort to stay with the family, and offering them money if they don't is only an incentive to leave. Secondly the children should be provided for by the two parents if they are living separately, by means of the Courts if necessary.

Fundamentally, people respond to financial incentives, and the welfare state offers far too many rewards for irresponsible behavior.

A little bit harsh to the genuine cases. Try one where couple living in social housing and meanstested etc etc. Bearly getting by then the father or mother dies which is not an impossability.

They will need more than this.

but haveing said that. Its the abusers that brought the govt to this point.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

zootroid

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'd imagine they would. A single parent, by definition is going to have to get by without any support from a partner who could be in employment. Why? Do you think that they should only get one or the other?

No, I think it should be scrapped altogether. By leaving it there, it just removes the incentive for people to work, and gives a disincentive for people to bring up children in a stable family environment.

And at the end of the day it's the taxpayer who picks up the tab. I think there are plenty of areas more deserving of taxpayers money than single parents.

As an aside, I don't agree with the children's allowance either. Having children is a choice, why should the state subsidize it? As far as I'm aware, it was brought in to help alleviate poverty. I think things have somewhat improved in that regard since it was brought in.

miec

No, I think it should be scrapped altogether. By leaving it there, it just removes the incentive for people to work, and gives a disincentive for people to bring up children in a stable family environment.

What if there is no work or very little work? What if someone did have a stable family environment and one of them moves to another country leaving the other to care for the children with no support. Sometimes the best homes go belly up.

And at the end of the day it's the taxpayer who picks up the tab. I think there are plenty of areas more deserving of taxpayers money than single parents.

Such as?

As an aside, I don't agree with the children's allowance either. Having children is a choice, why should the state subsidize it? As far as I'm aware, it was brought in to help alleviate poverty. I think things have somewhat improved in that regard since it was brought in.

True, nowadays having children is a choice and more and more people are choosing not to have children, however, for us to continue we need children to support the next generation.

I think a blanket ban on lone parent payment is wrong and unfair to those who genuinely need it. However, I am in favour of the government phasing it out when children turn 13, I think if someone is on lone parent until then it should be immediately switched to unemployment assistance and then they have to look for work and be means tested. It is ludicrous for someone to be on lone parent for so long and I agree that it fosters dependency. Sadly I believe that those who don't want to work will just keep on having more children until they are too old to have anymore and by then they will be close to retirement age when their children reach 13, but I believe if they make this cut it will have some positive effect.

I think the Minister's judgement in this instance is fair and balanced, she is aware that it creates dependency and by cutting it when children go to secondary school is the best all round solution, however, she is aware that cutting it at the age of seven or getting rid of it completely will harm those who find themselves needing lone parents, and yes there are people who genuinely need it otherwise they and their children will starve and we will go back to poverty stricken times. Sometimes there is an abundance of work and sometimes there is a recession, sometimes people make the best plans by marrying well, saving, having a home and it can all go horribly wrong, that is why a welfare system was initially created, to help those in need. The abuses that occur now are down to the way its managed and I think cutting lone parent when children are 13 is one way of tackling that abuse.

sold

zootroid wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, if someone is entitled to the lone parent allowance, are they also entitled to the children's allowance?

yes

sold

zootroid wrote: »

As an aside, I don't agree with the children's allowance either. Having children is a choice, why should the state subsidize it? As far as I'm aware, it was brought in to help alleviate poverty. I think things have somewhat improved in that regard since it was brought in.

As it stands Childrens allowance its a tax return, if they scrapped it they would have to review the tax system as families currently don't have any tax reliefs because we already have the childrens allowance which is a form a tax return,

sold

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly!!, I have also seem this, There is no incentive for the children to do better in life, their only aspiration is to get the same benefits their parents have, so they are shown how to work the system.

My personal experience was of a Lone mother with 3 children living next door to the father of the kids!. She was getting the allowance while the father was working and had purchased the house next door.

irish_bob

Fred83 wrote: »

wont be surprised if i hear fine gael jumping on the bandwagon and giving us hitting the vunerable with this lark :rolleyes:[/QUOTE

courteosy for thier populist waffler in chief , george lee

gurramok

As I said on the 'Single Mothers and Housing' thread, it pays to have kids paid for by the state. Let the facts speak for thmseleves PC brigade.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1230/welfare.html

rte wrote:

She said there are about 90,000 people, mostly young women, who are getting the one family parent payment.

Lone parents get an annual payment of around €12,000, but could also get rent supplement and family income supplement, according to the minister.

As i asked on the other thread..."Tell me, why should a single mother who is milking the system for that free house and all the welfare entitlements stop having kids?"

The answer, they can continue to enjoy generous subsidised living until that last kid reaches age 22.

There is nothing to stop a girl having a kid at 16 and continue to have them until her natural cycle is up at around 40 years of age, never get married, continue to be 'single' and yet never ever do a days work while enjoying free housing and all those benefits.

And to add, I say the above is not of Kevin Myers ilk but of working class ilk as its the genuine working class who have been suffering in this recession and sick to death of the freeloaders who make more money by not working as a career.

Eliot Rosewater

I realize that totally removing lone parent benefit would result in negative effects for the people who genuinely need it. One has to realize though that charities such as SVP work with such families providing support. If lone parent benefit was abolished, and people felt it was having a negative effect, then getting involved with a charity time-wise or financially is always an option. Private charities will not spend their social welfare money on buying votes, or pandering to special interests, which governments do. They will help out those who they see need it. And if they waste the money people voluntarily give to them the donations will dry up.

I think in many ways private charity is better than social security.

The discussion on social welfare in this country is completely disheartening. Any attempts to rationalize it using reasoning, economic or otherwise, are met with howls of hurting the "vulnerable" (which is undoubtedly the cliche of Ireland 2009). The conservatism always impedes creating the best system, and the idealists always shout louder than the pragmatists.

bmaxi

At my last address I lived across from a young lady who had four children by four different men. To my knowledge, not one of these men ever paid a single penny towards the maintenance of his child, indeed, such was the reputation of the young lady that it was quite possible they didn't know of them, or that she didn't know who the fathers were.
This, in my opinion, is the nub of the matter, no one is made to take responsibility for their actions. The result is, a few vodkas on a weekend and the taxpayer is saddled with another burden caused by not being able to keep it in your pants. I can forgive anyone one mistake but unfortunately the system is such, it allows them, even rewards them, for making the same mistake over again..

sold

bmaxi wrote: »

a few vodkas on a weekend and the taxpayer is saddled with another burden caused by not being able to keep it in your pants.

Very crude, but true,

AlekSmart

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/CorporatePublications/Finance/Pages/opfpreview.aspx

It`s very interesting that minister Hanifin appears to be referring to the above study carried out almost a decade ago by the Department itself.

Thankfully the reality of our situation is sinking in at some level.

However ,I feel the proposed age related restriction is merely window dressing as it can be easily circumvented as at the moment by getting pregnant at a strategic time in order to ensure a "new" 13 year rolling period of benefit.

Minister Hanifin really does need to get down n dirty here and perhaps do some research amongst teachers of teenage Girls firstly,followed by teachers of young Males.

If the Minister were to organize some form of structured feedback,particularly from teachers of "Transition Year" students she might just recognize the level of urgency which surrounds this thorny subject.

It is not at all unusual in some larger schools for the family planning process to have begun in reverse,as girls calculate the best time TO get pregnant.

This can be important when it comes to those who plan on completing a Leaving Certificate (Not all elective Lone Parents are Low IQ,slappers as some people believe) as it allows them to plan their childbearing and birth around the 6th Year timetable.

The really important piece of calculation,however,is the length of the Local Authority Housing List in their particular area allied to any actions which can be taken to move further up that list.

Thus one has a significant number of young girls who are as well versed in following the Housing Priority League Tables as their young menfolk are with the Premier League equivalent.

The effect of peer-pressure cannot be understated in all of this and any parents of 14-16 year old girls really do need to watch and be aware of the nuances which their daughters present with in terms of Friends,Pastimes and Attitudes.

What is happening increasingly in the larger schools is a form of social elevation of those Girls who have successfully gone through the process and who may well still be "Seniors"in their schools .
These "successful" Girls will usually have no difficulty in consulting on the mechanics of the benefit and housing process.

One all to often ignored part of this process is the sheer amount of pressure placed upon young girls who do NOT wish to go down this road and who persevere with the traditional virtues of study and application in order to secure a good exam result to use in accquiring a career.

Sadly,in the past decade,in many areas of the country,this grouping have almost become derided for their "old-fashionedness" and further held up to ridicule as they strive to improve their lot by working part-time or menial jobs whilst their former classmates settle down to the business of being a Lone(ish) Parent provided with substantial resources by the State.

This debate should not be about imposing "hardship" on some 90,000 recipients,as many of these are fully entitled to whatever supports can be realistically provided.

The debate should really be about providing our young people with the level of Social Awareness,Motivation and Self Confidence which turns the present situation on it`s head.

There is little to be gained from demonizing those who currently recieve the LFA as that is the human reality which WE have constructed.

The reality is that we as a country simply cannot to fund this system for much longer...the money is running out fast.

The era from which the Unmarried Mothers Allowance came from was an Ireland almost extinct now.
It was a dark and evil Ireland in which young Girls were often regarded (even by Family) as possessions to be used,abused and discarded on a whim.

The Unmarried Mothers Allowance DID fulfill its primary objective as it finally demonstrated to all who previously had been cowed into silence that young Girls were no longer the playthings of a male dominated society.

The young Girl of 21st Century Ireland has changed beyond all recognition too as they can assert their rights and confidence at a level not believed possible 3 decades ago.

Part of that realization now has to be a dismantling of the current benefit system in order to perform a balancing trick between support for personal enterprise and encouragement to remain as a compliant recipient...we have NO choice but to support those who will be productive in the broadest sense rather than those who believe the State will provide for EVERYTHING,come what may.

bog master

Steady on here folks. Some good points made and some very misinformed. The payment continues to 22 if the child is in full time education. I am self employed and have suffered hugely the last two years, where I was advised to seek One Parent Family Allowance as my income last year was less than Social Welfare and have two children in college. The costs for having a child in college is huge, even with the grant they get. In 08/09 my two both had part time jobs, this year this is nothing out there for them. Add in they cannot qualify for dole during the summer months, and it can be quite a drain on the finances.

However, I also believe, a culture has grown up to abuse the system.

randylonghorn

sold wrote: »

Italy used not to pay lone parents much. Lo and behold, there were very few lone parents.

If you give the allowances you allow them to be abused.


In Italy, the figure is only 0.5 per cent. Ireland has 18 per cent. It seems like our social system has caused the problem. Italy does not offer the allowance and has 17% less lone parents.

You don't think cultural factors might play a role? ... a baby out of wedlock is a source of great shame to most Italian families.

Ireland used to have a similar culture and very few lone parents. We did, however, have Kerry babies, the Magdalene laundries, miscarriages induced by amateurs, a stream of girls going on 'holiday' to England, babies passed off as being their grandmothers' progeny, etc., etc.

I have no interest in getting into a debate as the level of payment which is appropriate for lone parents, but I certainly wouldn't want us to revert to that era.

xardoxify

Will expectant mothers have access to abortions if they can't afford to keep a child?
Will gay couples be allowed to adopt if more children are given up for adoption?
Who next will FF exploit so they can save a few quid to give to the banksters?

johngalway

:mad:

Going on what I heard on the news last night, it's disgusting.

I'm not one, and I pay my tax, before I get jumped on. I'm also not a left wing loony.

The minister seems to expect lone parents to have gained a qualification while minding the kids, which isn't attainable for the majority I would say. Then when they reach secondary school age apparently they can fend for themselves/go down the mines (get a job).

One wonders if there'll be work then either.

Why not go the whole hog and kick the blind again, go and show some grit and take the medical cards off the pensioners too, might as well have a go at the carers as well.

None of these people can strike, easy political targets.

Sickening.

Foxytocin

johngalway wrote: »

:mad:

Going on what I heard on the news last night, it's disgusting.

I'm not one, and I pay my tax, before I get jumped on. I'm also not a left wing loony.

The minister seems to expect lone parents to have gained a qualification while minding the kids, which isn't attainable for the majority I would say. Then when they reach secondary school age apparently they can fend for themselves/go down the mines (get a job).

One wonders if there'll be work then either.

Why not go the whole hog and kick the blind again, go and show some grit and take the medical cards off the pensioners too, might as well have a go at the carers as well.

None of these people can strike, easy political targets.

Sickening.

It's good to know some ordinary people (ie, in a couple, employed) feel like you do. I'm a single parent and some how, I've got to raise, feed, educate and care for (when they're not at school) two children, and I WAS utterly determined that my status as a lowly single parent wouldn't disadvantage them. It hasn't been easy. Their father won't contribute, so that's a pointless avenue. Up 'til now I was believing that eventually it would all become possible and do-able. I am really worried about their futures now. Maybe it will turn out that even by spending what little money i have extremely cautiously and sensibly, that I am in fact UNable to protect them from the reality that they are children from a single parent family.

I hardly ever post on this board but it was just really nice to see your post.

btw, I emailed mary hanafin to ask for a job. i probably ruined my chances though as I told her i would love the opportunity to become "attached" to a nice job working for the government.

Thanks........ it's nice to know that not everybody thinks that single parents are lower life forms.

bmaxi

randylonghorn wrote: »

You don't think cultural factors might play a role? ... a baby out of wedlock is a source of great shame to most Italian families.

Ireland used to have a similar culture and very few lone parents. We did, however, have Kerry babies, the Magdalene laundries, miscarriages induced by amateurs, a stream of girls going on 'holiday' to England, babies passed off as being their grandmothers' progeny, etc., etc.

I have no interest in getting into a debate as the level of payment which is appropriate for lone parents, but I certainly wouldn't want us to revert to that era.

One major difference between then and now is the availability of contraception. There is no excuse today for not availing of whatever form of contraception suits you but unfortunately the drink culture of our young people, plus the knowledge that someone else will pick up the tab, takes the fear of unwanted pregnancy out of the equation.

johngalway

Foxy,

I've seen the sacrifices lone parents have to make, not just to "get by" which is a relatively comfortable term, but just to "survive". I don't think I could do it, to be honest about it. Hat off to you and all other lone parents doing their best.

I'm not going to have a go at anyone else at all, no other sector or anything. I didn't think I could hate this Government any more than I did until I started hearing rumours about them "adjusting" LP. The foggy PC lingo, the pie in the sky crap that somehow by tightening the noose on people living on or ever so slightly above the bread line will somehow "improve" their lot.

My blood is boiling over it.

sold

randylonghorn wrote: »

You don't think cultural factors might play a role? ... a baby out of wedlock is a source of great shame to most Italian families.

Ireland used to have a similar culture and very few lone parents. We did, however, have Kerry babies, the Magdalene laundries, miscarriages induced by amateurs, a stream of girls going on 'holiday' to England, babies passed off as being their grandmothers' progeny, etc., etc.

I have no interest in getting into a debate as the level of payment which is appropriate for lone parents, but I certainly wouldn't want us to revert to that era.

I also don't want Ireland to revert to that era. But there are better ways to support lone parents than dishing out Money, Food Stamps, Cloths Stamps, Childcare, training, bi-weekly job seeker interviews, would target the needs better. As it stands I see too many girls on "lone parent" allowance who spend 3 nights a week drinking with their boyfriend AKA father of the child. I am 100% in favour of supporting a lone parent, but the support should be targeted, money is not the way to support and there is no trail as to where it really goes.

sold

see this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055782497

yellowlabrador

I was a single parent and always worked when I could. when my children were very small it was at times possible to find good childminders but very often I would have to give up my job because I wasn't happy with what happened to my children, even with registered child minders. Funny enough I had more problems when my children were teenagers. It seemed even more important to be available at home time and evenings. You need to be around and people forget that you are an only parent, there is no one else. I was a widow and my inlaws and close family weren't close by. It seems that as a single parent you just can't win, you are always to blame, yet we have to manage on one wage with no help. If you stay at home you're a scrounger, if you go out to work, you're selfish.
When times were good, up till last year, most single parents I know had little jobs and could retain their benefits, but those jobs have gone.
What is going to happen to the unemployment figures when they all sign on?

johngalway

sold wrote: »

see this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055782497

Just saw that 5 mins ago. Had a read, to be honest, I'd rather not read it again. I hope it stays fine for some who've made comments on it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ynotdu

sold wrote: »

Finally the penny has dropped. The allowance should never have been introduced in the 1st place. Personally I think the biggest is are with the girls who become "lone Parents" to get the allowance and housing.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1230/1224261408872.html

Lone parent allowance is currently €1128 a month. So if you also get social housing then its not a bad amount. (3 times the average wage in eastern Europe)

And please don't honestly tell me that the 86,040 mothers getting the payment a really lone parents.

Yes She was all over the Media about that yesterday,radio as well,It could'nt be that Mary Hannifin thinks the present Minister for finance may have to step down during his treatment and she's making a pitch for the job could it?

No She could'nt be that ruthless and cruel..................could She?

Tipsy Mac

There's a big difference in the category of single parent, you have the couple with say 3 kids who split up and the mother becomes a single parent, fine I see nothing at all wrong with her getting the full payment. Then you see a mother who has kids for purely commercial reasons with different fathers, this is where people have the problem, one could be an accident, four can be a goldmine.

johngalway

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure just throw the out on the street and be done with them.

Happy Christmas and New Year.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

johngalway wrote: »

Sure just throw the out on the street and be done with them.

Happy Christmas and New Year.

Emotive nonsense. This post is exactly what is wrong with the social welfare debate. It it impossible to have a frank and reasonable discussion without someone coming on and talking in strained tones about the (cliche of the year) "vulnerable" and how we are out to get them. Then they stick in some sentence such as "Happy Christmas" - irrelevant to the topic on hand and only designed to make them look morally superior.

What appears to be lost in this debate is the idea of personal responsibility: that a person has to deal themselves with the consequences of their own actions.

johngalway

Ah the cost of living rubbish. It's fallen for "some" people, it's fallen for "some" things. You'd swear we all buy exactly the same things.

It should be left as it is.

Just like I said earlier on, this is another kick from the Government into people who are easy targets.

saol alainn

Someone here came out with the very good idea that the lone-parent payment be replaced by jobseekers benefit (or allowance as I always confuse the two) when the child turns 13. At least then something will be coming in until they find a job. Although it must be said that the law must be stricter when the times are good, not during a recession. Finding jobs at the moment are difficult for qualified graduates, let alone for a returning to work mother. I should know!

There are a couple of things I would suggest, though. In the case of an unmarried mother, the lone-parent allowance stops with the one child. If she has another child, she does not get the allowance again. No way, jose. Getting caught out once is unfortunate, any more than that is gross irresponsibility. One takes precautions when married if one cannot afford/doesn't want more kids, let alone when one's single.

As for housing, is it true that single mothers jump the queue? I'd heard that bandied about, but don't know if it's true or not. If it is, I disagree. Anyone who applies for housing has their own pressing reason. I wouldn't put having a child high up on the priority list, unless they were proven to have been thrown out of the family home and have, therefore, no contact with their family.

But it's important that the genuine cases are not lumped in with the abusers. If someone is known to be doing their utmost to help themselves get out of the rut they found themselves in, there must be the assistance they desperately need.

johngalway

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

that a person has to deal themselves with the consequences of their own actions.

Nonsense yourself. The reason I didn't like the other thread on this subject is the same faces are on it getting the dig into people who aren't in a position to push back. Peoples actions don't always lead in the direction they expected in the long term, you're away there happily tarring every lone parent as a scrounger.

Eliot Rosewater

johngalway wrote: »

Ah the cost of living rubbish.

I think with that kind of attitude, theres just no point in engaging in a debate with you on this. Perhaps you should start dealing with reality around you, and the nature of decision making and how government handouts influence those decisions.

ntlbell

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

johngalway wrote: »

Nonsense yourself. The reason I didn't like the other thread on this subject is the same faces are on it getting the dig into people who aren't in a position to push back. Peoples actions don't always lead in the direction they expected in the long term, you're away there happily tarring every lone parent as a scrounger.

Since you want to continue the discussion, why don't you take some time and respond to the questions put to you and less of the low level news of the world emotional responses?

sold

johngalway wrote: »

Nonsense yourself. The reason I didn't like the other thread on this subject is the same faces are on it getting the dig into people who aren't in a position to push back. Peoples actions don't always lead in the direction they expected in the long term, you're away there happily tarring every lone parent as a scrounger.

I am totally in favour of supporting lone parents, The last thing we need as a state are children growing up without oportunities and means to advance. But the current system does not provide the support that is needed and is open to abuse, shelling out money is not the answer, food & Cloths stamps, Childcare and training would target better the needs than money, as it stands the support has become a the end of the road and you have parents who are on this benefit for years without trying to look for a job, Its a fine line between giving support and allowing being to depend totally on it removing iniciative to move on to better things.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.