General Chat

Hi Guys, I too am a single parent, or was until he grew up and left home. I also paid National Insurance all my working life only to find out now that the Government has nothing left in the kitty. I wondered whether the problem is that these days the Govt is expected to provide far more support than in previous times. If Grandma lives with the Family she only needs her Pension. If she lives away from the family she needs Housing as well, plus possibly a Care Package. It seems unfair that the burden falls on those in Nuclear Families who are looking after their elderly AND helping to support the parents of others. Wendy, I do not suggest that single parents should pay more tax than couple families.

I have a friend who is a single parent and is on family tax credit, she picks up just under 1000 per month. she pays very little tax, i on the other hand have nearly £300 taken out each month, so by the time all my deductions have been taken out, my friend on the family tax credit earns more than me and has a better life than me. So does my other friend who has 3 children , is a single parent and works 16 hours a week and gets family tax credit, earns more than me. So i work full time and cant afford much and i have never had children as i cant really afford them nor if i did could i ever give up my job. So yes, people should pay the same amount of tax regardless, if you fall into that band then you pay that amount single parent etc has nothing to do with it. Single parents who claim income support do not get taxed as they claim its not enough to live on. If you have paid into the system then you should be able to make a claim. I have the problem who spend their whole lives on income support, not the ones who use it when needed. :-)

Well in that case it wouldn't work would it because they don't pay tax! Debby

hi jim, good debate,but i dont see your logic. when i became a single dad,my girls were roughly 8/12yrs,and to survive,i had to carry on working,luckily my aunt helped by looking after the girls,until i got home...she would'nt take any money,but i received £30 a week child benefit,and i forced her to take it,as a token of our gratitude. my girls,needed clothes,school uniforms,toiletries,my youngest needed 'special' clarkes shoes,every three/four months,at treble the normal price. their mother went back home to live in india,no way could i force her to pay anything towards the childrens upkeep.it's only now that they are over 18yrs,does she want contact with them...my clothes were bought from charity shops,and they still are today. if i had been taxed any extra,as a single parent,i would have had to leave work,and rely on claiming benefits...so the answer to your question is NO!!! best wishes...bryan.

I'm a single parent of 3 wonderful kids and I didnt chose to be on my own with them. I separated from their dad just over two years ago and I certainly dont expect them to look after me in my old age - I hope I will still be able to do that for myself!! And if I can't then I would take the burden off them and chose to go into some sort of Old Age Home of whatever sort there may be come that time.... I am also on benefits (unfortunately) but am studying so that I can get back out into the world and not have to rely on 'handouts' or state help. I agree wholeheartedly with Paul (Cheeky monkey)'s comment regarding paying less. Thankfully I am in a position where I dont have to worry about my parents (yet) but if I had to then I would gladly help them out as they brought me up and cared for me etc....It is hard enough living on what I receive weekly/monthly without any extra worry of having taxes to pay......

NO WAY!!why should single parents be taxed more,??? if anything less!!

Most benefits ARE taxed, but 'at source' and the benefit is paid net of tax. I have twice been a single parent, the second time after 15 years of marriage when my husband decided he would prefer something a little younger. I worked seven days a week in cr*p jobs (having been out of the job market for 15 years) and my youngest daughter and I bounced along on the bottom for years. Eventually I found out about Family Credit and received quite a sizeable weekly amount. However, this was adjusted every three months according to what I had earned in the previous three months and I could never dare rely on getting it.I also paid Income Tax and again, because I had several part-time jobs, always paid 'Emergency Tax' at the full rate. I got it back eventually (the over-payment, that is) but it was always the year after I'd earned it! I really don't understand the question - I now have three grown up daughters who all work and pay Tax. Should I need State Care in my old age, then presumably I will have to sell my house and when that has gone, my kids will have to pay for me. If I drop off my perch before I can avail myself of Care, then my THREE children will be paying towards someone else's care, indirectly. Its called the Welfare State - help for ALL, not just the worthy. I do agree that the Benefits System needs a massive rethink - but what Politician would dare suggest such a thing? Olde Crone

I know how some people who obviously scrounge off the state get away with it - Incapacity Benefit. Before you all jump on me, I'm not referring to everyone who claims it, but I can think of two examples just off the top of my head - my next door neighbours don't work, she allegedly has Rheumatoid (spelling?) arthritis and I assume he is just her carer? Thing is she can carry a number of heavy carrier bags in her hands and manages to hold a dog lead etc. etc. so I'm pretty sure she makes out that it's a lot worse than it is. The thing is their house is rented off the Housing Asoc. and they must pay a pitance in rent, if anything? They get a brand new car every 3-4 years and clearly have no money worries what so ever. Our house is identical to theirs and we pay a £700 a month Mortgage before anything else even - yeah it puts my nose out of joint, when we struggle so much and they get it handed to them on a plate! I know of another person with Angina who has had a special chair lift put on her stairs and a shower put it all at no cost to herself - yet I know that she does not need these things. I don't have objection to helping those who need it, but this system needs a shake-up. Kaye x

Exactly Ros. Anyone 'earning' either by work OR benefits should have to pay income tax if their earnings exceed their personal allowances. To add more fuel to the fire (I'm sure this will) I also believe that any person/couple on benefits should be restricted as to how many children they can claim for, ie if they have 5 children then they should be told that if they have anymore then they will have to 'fund' those children themselves. And before anyone jumps on me, I am from a very large family myself. My Dad had 2 jobs to keep us in food & clothes. Olde Crone, I don't know of any benefits 'taxed' at source. Some are taxable, but usually only if your income exceeds the personal allowance. There is no provision for taxing at source. :0) Joan

The answer is no they shouldn't be taxed more and the other is keep up with the times Grandpa Jim don't you take any notice of government policies and how social services throughout the land are closing homes for the elderly left right and centre and are also saying they can't afford to pay towards the cost of private homes Care in the communtiy is going to be the order of the day So where are the elderly going to be dumped? Or is it that you think you should get more in benfits/ pension etc. If and when either my husband or myself need care we will have to pay. and at the same time we will still have to pay taxes on our pensions. So is that fair? Bren

Blue - Can I do it annonymously (too late at night to care about spelling) - I've already had a run-in with these particular neighbours - they thought it was ok to build a massive lean-to on the back of their Housing Association House and block the sun from my garden - and I don't want any more aggro with them. Also can I report it as 'suspicious' and in need of checking? Two other cases I know of are kind of related so it puts me in a prediciment. I agree with Joan's comment about there being a roof on how many children the state will pay out for - it seems to me that it's the people on benefits (and I mean not working at all) who seem to have the most children, normal working couples can't usually afford that many? My Brother falls into that catagory I am sad to say - him and his wife have 8 children between them with 5 at home right now and the state supports them. Their argument is that they would be worse off if they went out to work! So now we seem to be penalised for wanting to make an honest living. An honest living is something most pensioners made for many years and to then tax their pension is just disgusting - they are the ones that deserve the help. I'll get off my soapbox for the night now! lol Kaye x

What an interesting debate! Tax and benefits issues aside though, it always saddens me to see single/lone/unmarried parents castigated in this way as one way or another the jibes are directed against women. Everyone seems to forget that for every child born to an unwed mother, there is an unwed - and often absent and therefore irresponsible - father. (I did say 'often' not 'always'.) It's just not right or reasonable to blame so many social ills any one group in society. And as to the people who don't want to fund education because they don't have children - I assume that they will be quite happy to do without all the services and facilities that other people's educated children provide for them. I can't say I know anyone who really wants to live in that kind of vacuum, much less can say how it could be done.

I'll probably get lambasted for this but I believe that you should get family allowance for two children then if you make the decision to have more children you should have to support them yourself. Perhaps those who appear to be making a career out of having kids might think twice about it. I have friends who work and have made the decision to have just one or two children simply because they are responsible and feel that they could not adequately support any more.

I admire anyone who brings up a child properly but especially someone who does it singlehandedly so no, they shouldn't be taxed more. This country is not short of public money - it just goes to all the wrong places and people.

'Responsible' child-bearing in terms of numbers a great idea - but not viable vor everyone. What about multiple births or religious objections to birth control or even birth control that fails? Choosing the number of children we have is a modern phenomenon and not foolproof. Irresponsibility has many faces, and we all object to our freedoms as we see them being erroded. However the idea of government support for a pre-determined number of children is much more enforceable and reasonable, if there is the political will to do it.

A friend of mine brought up her 3 children single handed!!NO HANDOUTS!!She had 3 jobs at one time, like someone else said theres afew 2 parent families where neither work!!

I agree with Ginny - as I've already said my Brother and his Wife have 8 kids between them and all are being/been brought up with the aid of benefits. I know for a fact that they are just plain irresponsible (in my eyes) and that religious morals or failed contraceptives don't come into it - can a woman really have 5 accidents and the pill fail 5 times? I don't like to speak badly of my Brother and his Wife as they do do a fantastic job of bringing up their children - they are all well mannered, bright, well behaved children who are always a pleasure to see - but I don't think it's fair that people like my Husband have to work 55 hours a week just to keep their heads above water, so that irresponsible people can have as many children as they like. I have nothing against lone parent families - I believe that one good parent is better than two bad ones. I just object to the number of families who claim benefits because they don't want to work to support their children. Kaye x

i have to add also that all her children are a credit to her, well manered, honest and doing well in their chosen fields, I really admire her so much, shes done alot better on her own than she would of with her waster Husband.

Thanks Forgetmenot - trouble is I'm not sure either of them work, one of them we are pretty sure was? The main issue I have with them is that they obviously claim some sort of incapacity benefit (hence the new cars) when she clearly doesn't have Rheumatoid Arthritis - not to the degree where she couldn't work anyway. I know how this is done though - they go to the Doctors and make it out to be far worse than it actually is and then they are free to claim all the benefits under the sun. I know of about 3 households that do this and have heard of others who make a living out of it. How you can you prove that someone is claiming incapacity unfairly when their Doctor has signed all the forms? The whole system needs an overhaul - the ones that really need the help rarely get it, because the dishonest ones have found a way to fiddle the system. Thanks for the numbers though - I will make a note of them. Kaye x