A Poll about Families

[Lord Bracknell]

two votes but only one household. Would that make the poll invalid?

Sssshhh.

I think that's how the electoral system worked before 1832. One vote per male householder.

There are some people in the Tory party who would no doubt like to return to those days.

 

[Beach Hut]

I just love this anti-Toryism.

Keep the red flag flying high hidden behind blue policies

 

[Gully]

LB, are you referring to rotten boroughs, if so...wasn't Bramber one?

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Divorced. 2 kids who spend time between their Mum (whom I'm on very good terms with) and myself so LB don't fall into one of your categories other than the " other" I suppose!

I don't think it's any business of the state to "reward" the nucelar family and actually it's missing the point. People will not stay together for the sake of a few extra quid in a tax break. I don't know anyone who's stayed together for the sake of the marriage persons tax allowance in the past and it isn't going to help in future. If any politicians are really serious about helping children (and that's what this is really all about) then there are no easy quick fixes; longer working hours; the huge costs of child care, poor transport and the fact that we're not a child friendly society all make this a hard place to bring up kids and have a good work -life balance.

And why must people be married for a start? Can't couples who live together be just as good. I just don't like the Tory bias towards marriage, it's insulting.

There is a problem with the benefit system and the celebrated example of paying some couples more money if they live apart is nonsense. Everyone knows that cannot possibly be right. So yes, let's have a look at it but make no mistake, tax breaks for married couples is a gimmick by Cameron to pull in votes but it's no real answer to our changing society or what the Tory's like to call "family breakdown."

 

[Gully]

Surely it would be better to concentrate on removing children from poverty, regardless of the type of family they belong to, if that means providing cheaper daycare so that single parents can get back into the workplace it would be a good start. I have always believed that society should take greater care of the most vulnerable, be they children, the aged or those with mental health issues...I am not sure how cutting taxes can help achieve that, unless of course they don't really matter after all.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Known Mrs Leekbrook,for about 25 years and have two teen boys. Not married,like a few ? Have felt like walking out and away,however. YOU DONT walk away from your kids,THEY need you. Plus i like her.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Seeing as how my kids are married with kids of their own - then I'm the sole one vote in

No kids - One or both of us used to be married to someone else

Kids = have had children regardless of their age and status now.

 

[Trotster]

Support the single people who work.

Were the ones that arent a drain on society yet get penalised for the fact that we havent got pregnant, requested a council house or benefits. Unforuntatley - its people like us that get screwed over on housing and the rest of it yet pay our taxes and our way.

 

[Trotster]

And before you ask - no, i have never claimed uneployment benefit or any other benefit - have worked since i was 12. The one time I did get made redundant (because the firm went bust) I packed boxes to cover my bills until i got another 'real' job.

There is no excuse for unemployment - there are jobs out there, people are just LAZY and would rather claim benefit

 

[rbridd]

Fair enough.

Unfortunately, we don't live in such a warm and fluffy environment.

I have been married for 12 years and we have 4 fantastic children. To get to this however, I have had 2 previous marriages, my wife has one. Our eldest is mine from one of my previous and our next eldest is my wife's from her previous. We have two children together.

We all live together and life is great. You could argue that we had to go through all the previous grief to get to where we are now. Certainly, if I hadn't behaved so badly around 15 years ago it is possible that I wouldn't be married to Justine and other things that happened since then have definitely influenced our decision to have children together.

It's a funny old World.

Hah!
I don't thnk it's a warm and fluffy environment.
Marriage is hard work. It takes effort, commitment, and compromise.
The last thing you need is the ruling "elite" taking you for mugs and making it even more difficult.

I have no problem with individuals escaping violent partners.
I DO think however, that for some, divorce is just a little too easy.

This is what I think Mr. Cameron is getting at. Our current society makes it too easy to walk away from your commitments, and financially punishes those who chose to be together. Not just married, but cohabitting too.

I have a friend, (really... it's not me), who is living with his partner and 3 kids, but in the full knowledge that if they lived apart, they would be circa 20% better off under the benefits system.
This is madness! And who could blame the couple if they chose to "break" their family unit in order to claim the cash.

I'm not trying to bash single parents. I just think that bringing kids up in a stable 2 parent environment should not be punished.

 

[BensGrandad]

Hah!
I have a friend, (really... it's not me), who is living with his partner and 3 kids, but in the full knowledge that if they lived apart, they would be circa 20% better off under the benefits system.
This is madness! And who could blame the couple if they chose to "break" their family unit in order to claim the cash.

.

If unmarried and living in rented accomodation i.e housing association /council this is often the case as it means no rent, no council tax. A girl I know a friend of a relative is seperated from the father of her 2 children but is living in a council house with a fellow and has just chucked up her job as she says she will get more money and pay less if she doesnt work. There must be something wrong with the system that allows that to happen legally.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Support the single people who work.

Were the ones that arent a drain on society yet get penalised for the fact that we havent got pregnant, requested a council house or benefits. Unforuntatley - its people like us that get screwed over on housing and the rest of it yet pay our taxes and our way.

Exactamundo, Trotster. I know a fair amount of people that are unhappy in relationships and disappear off the social scene. I am not willing to have a relationship just for the sake of it. It is not easy paying rent or saving up for a deposit when you are on your own. It makes me mad that this government has made it easy for those to choose not to work and live of benefits. THat is not right. I detest that my tax goes towards paying for people to be LAZY.

Slugging your guts out to keep someone at home is not my idea of a fair society.

 

[Yorkie]

Kids = have had children regardless of their age and status now.

Oh well I'm in the wrong category in the poll then

 

[Gully]

And before you ask - no, i have never claimed uneployment benefit or any other benefit - have worked since i was 12. The one time I did get made redundant (because the firm went bust) I packed boxes to cover my bills until i got another 'real' job.

There is no excuse for unemployment - there are jobs out there, people are just LAZY and would rather claim benefit

It appears to me that single people have absolutely no voice in modern Britain, perhaps it is time that we were more vociferous. I left school in 84 and have only had 2 weeks of complete unemployment in that time, during the winter of 84/85 when I was laid off from my job on the day before New Years Eve. I signed on for benefits, have to say that I was ashamed to do so and at that time considered it was for layabouts and the terminally bone idle, despite there being 4 million on the dole (My attitude has mellowed somewhat since then). I did however spend my time off going between the job centres in Horsham and Worthing, also trawling companies in the area where I lived, trying to find work...I had little money and no transport of my own, other that my bike, so I just hitched everywhere. I am sure that there are people on the dole who could take a more pro-active attitude to finding work. The other point I would make is that often those in a couple have two incomes, if one is lost then there is the other to fall back or survive on, if a single person loses their job then they really can be in trouble.

My only real complaint with the taxation system is that I only get a quarter off my Council Tax for being a single household, surely it would be fairer to make that a half. Each week, because I recycle, I put one small bin bag in my bin for collection. Most of my neighbours seem to put out wheelie bins that are burst to overflowing...how can it be justified to give us just a quarter off. I know that Council Tax pays for far more than just rubbish collection, just wanted to illustrate my point.

 

[Yorkie]

Why do people assume that singles work harder? I left school in 1964 and have only claimed unemployment benefit for 4 weeks in the whole of that time. That was in 2002 when I was made redundant after 25 years working for an electricity company.
I did have some time off full time work when my children were babies but worked for 4 hours in the evening when my husband came home from work.
Most married couples work now as nursery/childminders are more available.

 

[Simster]

If unmarried and living in rented accomodation i.e housing association /council this is often the case as it means no rent, no council tax. A girl I know a friend of a relative is seperated from the father of her 2 children but is living in a council house with a fellow and has just chucked up her job as she says she will get more money and pay less if she doesnt work. There must be something wrong with the system that allows that to happen legally.

Totally agree with that. I too know somebody in a similar situation and it pisses me off.

But the fact is that no government has ever bothered tackling the problem. You hear all this bluster from Tories in particular but they've never ever done anything about it. I'd have more respect for them if they actually came out with some policies designed to tackle the problem. Fat chance.

 

[Simster]

Why do people assume that singles work harder?

Trotster was merely pointing out that single workers are not taking anything out of the system but contributing an awful lot. Personally, I can see that point of view. I must have missed the bit where anybody on this thread suggested that singles work harder.

 

[Gwylan]

But the fact is that no government has ever bothered tackling the problem. You hear all this bluster from Tories in particular but they've never ever done anything about it. I'd have more respect for them if they actually came out with some policies designed to tackle the problem. Fat chance.

It's because it's absolute nonsense to say that no-one needs to be unemployed and there are jobs a-plenty. For a start, the number of vacancies rarely exceeds the number of unemployed and secondly, the vacancies are in specialised skills or in particular regions - there are lots of jobs going in London for example but they'd be little use to people in Tyneside,, or the West Midlands or the Rhondda. There are plenty of people in those areas who are long-term unemployed who would love to work. When ever a new employer moves into one of these areas, they are deluged with job applicants: that doesn't suggest a great unwillingness to work to me.

So the reason that no government will tacke the shirkers and feckless (and I don't deny they exist) is that it's not easy to separate the idle from those who want to work. They could try: but that would a massive increase in form-filling and bureaucrats to adminster and I thought the Tories' big idea was looking to cut red tape.

 

[Nibble]

It's because it's absolute nonsense to say that no-one needs to be unemployed and there are jobs a-plenty. For a start, the number of vacancies rarely exceeds the number of unemployed and secondly, the vacancies are in specialised skills or in particular regions - there are lots of jobs going in London for example but they'd be little use to people in Tyneside,, or the West Midlands or the Rhondda. There are plenty of people in those areas who are long-term unemployed who would love to work. When ever a new employer moves into one of these areas, they are deluged with job applicants: that doesn't suggest a great unwillingness to work to me.

So the reason that no government will tacke the shirkers and feckless (and I don't deny they exist) is that it's not easy to separate the idle from those who want to work. They could try: but that would a massive increase in form-filling and bureaucrats to adminster and I thought the Tories' big idea was looking to cut red tape.

I worked in a jobcentre for a while a few years back and the staff there were so fed up and tired of continual abuse from a small minority of the unemployed that they no longer cared who was serious about finding a job or who was idle. They just went through the motions, asked them if they were looking for work, ticked a box, gave them their money and sent them away til next time. If you have that pattern occuring in the thousands of jobcentres across the country it is very easy to see why people get away with being idle for so long and equally frustrating for people who genuinley want to find work because the help they get really is substandard. The blame is, in my opinion spread out across the field, from the government of the day to local MPS to jobcentre staff and their bosses.

Very frustrrating.

 

[Scoffers]

Why do people assume that singles work harder?
Most married couples work now as nursery/childminders are more available.

They do? That's news to me, do you have any idea how much childminders cost?. I have 3 young kids (4,4 and 1) and we have talked about my wife going back to work, but the cost of childminding makes that impossible until the older kids go to school