Singletons poverty now highest in UK

[Chrysalis]

With the government concentrating on child poverty they have now been overtaken by single working age adults as the highest number in poverty.

Source below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4245208.stm

[Chris]

The charity spokesman is John Welfare - is that for real? :erm:

[Chrysalis]

Actually I highly glad this came to light, what many people dont realise is there is much attention going to pensioners and child poverty that single adults are easily ignored since they are a minority and considered able to look after themselves.

You also have to look at someone living on their own is going to have higher living costs as well since proportionally things for them will cost more, everything from the basic tv licence to council tax, and food costs more as they cant benefit from buying in bulk. If they fall into hardship they have no partner to rely on for help and so normally would only have their parents if they still alive or brothers and sister's if they have any.

[Chris]

Actually I highly glad this came to light, what many people dont realise is there is much attention going to pensioners and child poverty that single adults are easily ignored since they are a minority and considered able to look after themselves.

You also have to look at someone living on their own is going to have higher living costs as well since proportionally things for them will cost more, everything from the basic tv licence to council tax, and food costs more as they cant benefit from buying in bulk. If they fall into hardship they have no partner to rely on for help and so normally would only have their parents if they still alive or brothers and sister's if they have any.

You get a council tax reduction for a house with single occupancy. The TV licence is not expensive (about £10 a month I think) so I don't think it's a particularly significant economic drain for a single person compared to a couple of similar financial circumstances.

As for the rest ... I don't know if you have kids, but try having to buy new shoes every three months. How on earth is it that they cost almost as much as adult shoes, even though they're a quarter of the size and don't attract VAT? :erm:

I don't doubt that there are single people in poverty, but the Government is quite right IMO to concentrate funds on those who are bearing the cost of bringing up the next generation, and those who have done their bit for the country and are now surviving on a meagre fixed income. Don't forget, unlike pensioners and families with young children, singletons are relatively free from the ties that might prevent them bettering their own circumstances by getting more education or training, or looking for a better-paid job.

[Jules]

While the figures are to be believed they are in a better position than most to find work as they can afford to take lower paid jobs in the short term as they only have them selves to consider and they do not have to worry about child care costs and hours etc

[orangebird]

You get a council tax reduction for a house with single occupancy. <snip>

You get a 25% discount for single occupancy - so I fork that out by myself (£75), while the two adults next door go halfs on the full whack - only £50 each..... It's better than nothing I suppose, but still not in proportion....

As for the rest ... I don't know if you have kids, but try having to buy new shoes every three months. How on earth is it that they cost almost as much as adult shoes, even though they're a quarter of the size and don't attract VAT? :erm:

Yep, that gets me too... :mad:
__________________

While the figures are to be believed they are in a better position than most to find work as they can afford to take lower paid jobs in the short term as they only have them selves to consider and they do not have to worry about child care costs and hours etc

They may only have themselves to consider, but they also only have themselves for financial support. If you're single, with no dependants, you get nothing from the state if you should ever need help. :tu: :rolleyes:

[Escapee]

While the figures are to be believed they are in a better position than most to find work as they can afford to take lower paid jobs in the short term as they only have them selves to consider and they do not have to worry about child care costs and hours etc

Are they in a better position?

Single people cannot often afford to take low paid jobs, because the wage they see is the wage they get. People with kids and rented accomodation will have money thrown at them from the government if they accept one of these positions.

I noticed this when I became redundant a few years ago, there were technical jobs advertised at around a third of the market rate. The jobcentre suggested that I should apply, I pointed out the salary and they said "Oh thats not a problem... Do you have children? Do you live in rented accommodation?

My answer was no to both, and they said "Oh" sorry cant help you.

Some companies take advantage of this and end up with the majority of its workers subsidised by the government, we have three wiremen in work who have come from such a company to work with us. They said however the company experienced problems when they need people to work overtime, because everyone will refuse due to the affect it has on their benefits.

[Chrysalis]

You get a council tax reduction for a house with single occupancy. The TV licence is not expensive (about £10 a month I think) so I don't think it's a particularly significant economic drain for a single person compared to a couple of similar financial circumstances.

As for the rest ... I don't know if you have kids, but try having to buy new shoes every three months. How on earth is it that they cost almost as much as adult shoes, even though they're a quarter of the size and don't attract VAT? :erm:

I don't doubt that there are single people in poverty, but the Government is quite right IMO to concentrate funds on those who are bearing the cost of bringing up the next generation, and those who have done their bit for the country and are now surviving on a meagre fixed income. Don't forget, unlike pensioners and families with young children, singletons are relatively free from the ties that might prevent them bettering their own circumstances by getting more education or training, or looking for a better-paid job.

Council tax is far from a 50% reduction tho which is what it would take to even it out, as I said living costs are proportionally higher, example council tax is £80 a month for couple, they split up then its maybe around £60 for the single person so £60 is higher then half of £40.

£13 a month on a tv licence is a pretty steep cost when you on £55 a week benefit, for someone working its less of an issue tho.

of course this £13 month is the same if you got 2 parents and 2 kids so proportionally again they pay less.

For the clothing costs, I would expect the benefits that get thrown at children would cover that, with a bit left over.

There are singletons who might have poor circumstances due to bad luck/health or living in a deprived area and the law says they need £55 a week to live on. I would like to see how many can survive on that.

Without a doubt when I was living with my sister things were a lot easier, bills split 3 ways, much lower rent costs, plus more.

So you think the government is right to reward those who were irresponsible and had kids when they were not capable of supporting them without big help?

[greencreeper]

The range of support, both government and charity, for families is vast compared to the range available for single people. The system is very much in favour of the married, but I think that's probably nature for you - favouring those who continue the species.

A lad at work, who has now left for this reason, was denied a full pay rise in line with his colleagues because he was single - no family to support so it wasn't fair giving him the full rise, went the argument. It's not illegal to discriminate on marital status. Also, think of the low paid, low skill jobs - the people who typically do them are single, not married.

[chocky909]

it's probably got something to do with the insane amount of credit young adults are allowed to rack up...

[Seti]

I'm a singleton and skint. Mind you I do have to pay extra costs. The thing that really gets me is couples get all the help they need when they are ill. The neighbours across the road from me have Disability Living Allowance and the hubby works full time. They pay £216.87 for care. I know cos I asked them. This does not come out of the DLA component the lady gets.

I am extremely lucky (note the sarcasm) I get to pay £280 a month which leaves me with nothing ot live on. I have had to refuse my care package because I can not afford it. This will get taken out of my benefits because I have no one else living with me and am unlikely too in the future.

I find this unfair because I struggle enough on the pittance I get in benefits now. Why should i have to give up my hobbies, pets and TV to pay for my care ? No one seems interested in the "single disabled no kids" plight though so I guess I should go and lobby my MP. (any advice on that welcome in a different thread.)

Sian

[Chrysalis]

it's probably got something to do with the insane amount of credit young adults are allowed to rack up...

Easy to blame it on something like that, adults single or as a couple will both rack up debts but its about who gets more help.

Loads of points made which I can concur with, low paid jobs my colleagues came out with more then me because of tax cuts they had for been married and having children.

More as well, try getting council accomodation when you have no children again almost impossible so forced to live in more expensive accomodation. A typical 1 room flat around here will rent for around 250 to 400 a month whilst a 2 room house will go for around 350-500 a month, again you could pay half of 500 and still be equal with the bottom of the range for flat prices. But typically you are paying more if alone.

Couples also can be together but unofficially I dont know if thats the case in the above post, but a old friend of mine eg. moved in with a single mother and he didnt change his address so she carried on getting her £700 a month benefits whilst he worked full time.

Sorry but I feel this country promotes child producing too far which is why we have an expensive social bill and the highest teenage pregnancy rate in europe. I also forgot to mention if you 18-24 you only get £45 instead of £55. You generally get looked up on different if you ill and more likely to be turned down for benefits to do with health problems as well.

Its very easy to imagine a singleton as someone who is living with friends or with their parents and having an easy life and I think what this is about is those who live alone with noone else, they are alone.

[Chris]

Council tax is far from a 50% reduction tho which is what it would take to even it out, as I said living costs are proportionally higher, example council tax is £80 a month for couple, they split up then its maybe around £60 for the single person so £60 is higher then half of £40.

Agreed. It's not a 50% reduction but still far better than nothing.

£13 a month on a tv licence is a pretty steep cost when you on £55 a week benefit, for someone working its less of an issue tho.

of course this £13 month is the same if you got 2 parents and 2 kids so proportionally again they pay less.

£13 a month would be steep for anyone on benefits, single or not. And I think for someone working it's not less of an issue so much as not an issue at all. £13 a month is just over £3 a week. And your maths is faulty - you can only spread £13 a month across the whole family if the whole family is earning. In a family with two young children and a single breadwinner, £13 a month is proportionately exactly the same as £13 a month for a singleton.

For the clothing costs, I would expect the benefits that get thrown at children would cover that, with a bit left over.

You are kidding, aren't you? You're not? Right. Well, suffice it to say you are so wide of the mark that I don't know where to begin refuting this. Child benefit and child tax credit don't come close to paying the full cost of feeding and clothing children.

There are singletons who might have poor circumstances due to bad luck/health or living in a deprived area and the law says they need £55 a week to live on. I would like to see how many can survive on that.

And there are families in the same circumstances. The benefits may be higher, but the costs of living are higher also.

Without a doubt when I was living with my sister things were a lot easier, bills split 3 ways, much lower rent costs, plus more.

This is unsurprising. Two people, both earning, sharing the costs of living and costs and having relatively little expenditure. But the article originally linked to did not use DINKYs (Double Income, No Kids Yet) as an example. The point is that families with children, and OAPs who have a low, fixed income, have been getting the focus and the extra benefit. The example of you and your sister doesn't really prove anything.

So you think the government is right to reward those who were irresponsible and had kids when they were not capable of supporting them without big help?

No. But I am not in that postion. I'm a lone breadwinner supporting a wife who works full-time bringing up our two young children. The government recognises our contribution to the future prosperity of UK plc by helping pick up some of the costs.

[basa]

You are kidding, aren't you? You're not? Right. Well, suffice it to say you are so wide of the mark that I don't know where to begin refuting this. Child benefit and child tax credit don't come close to paying the full cost of feeding and clothing children.


LOL !! The benefits barely cover the payg and magazine costs !!! :rolleyes:
__________________

...........I'm a lone breadwinner supporting a wife who works full-time bringing up our two young children. The government recognises our contribution to the future prosperity of UK plc by helping pick up some of the costs.

Same as m8 .... but my kids won't be contributing to UK plc !! ;)

[orangebird]

Easy to blame it on something like that, adults single or as a couple will both rack up debts but its about who gets more help.

Loads of points made which I can concur with, low paid jobs my colleagues came out with more then me because of tax cuts they had for been married and having children.

More as well, try getting council accomodation when you have no children again almost impossible so forced to live in more expensive accomodation. A typical 1 room flat around here will rent for around 250 to 400 a month whilst a 2 room house will go for around 350-500 a month, again you could pay half of 500 and still be equal with the bottom of the range for flat prices. But typically you are paying more if alone.

Couples also can be together but unofficially I dont know if thats the case in the above post, but a old friend of mine eg. moved in with a single mother and he didnt change his address so she carried on getting her £700 a month benefits whilst he worked full time.

Sorry but I feel this country promotes child producing too far which is why we have an expensive social bill and the highest teenage pregnancy rate in europe. I also forgot to mention if you 18-24 you only get £45 instead of £55. You generally get looked up on different if you ill and more likely to be turned down for benefits to do with health problems as well.

Its very easy to imagine a singleton as someone who is living with friends or with their parents and having an easy life and I think what this is about is those who live alone with noone else, they are alone.


Whilst (surprisingly,) I agree with most of your post, child benefit is not that great. £17 for the first child and £11 for subsequent per week. In infancy, you'll spend that in a couple of days on nappys alone.... Still, just like the crappy single persons c/tax discount, every little helps...

[basa]

..................ÂÃâ₠¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚£17 for the first child and £11 for subsequent per week. In infancy, you'll spend that in a couple of days on nappys alone.....

And in a couple of hours in New Look or Next when they are teenagers. :D

[orangebird]

And in a couple of hours in New Look or Next when they are teenagers. :D

?? I never saw any child benefit from my parents when I got to my teens. I got a job and bought my own clothes....

[basa]

?? I never saw any child benefit from my parents when I got to my teens. I got a job and bought my own clothes....

OK .... maybe using a little writers license .. my kids are 13 and 10, so a bit young to be earning !! but they still cost a helluva lot more than babies. :shocked:

Generally though IMO finances for couples with one breadwinner and young children will always be a juggling act (one where I'm dropping more and more balls) :rolleyes:

[Chrysalis]

Well child benefit alone is low, and people who only claim that I agree that is a low amount, but their is a chain reaction in benefits that people can trigger onto which is what I am on about, eg. if you are ill and on income support you get child benefit, top up to income support, and top up to dla. Which is a benefit for 1 purpose 3 times. If you are working you can get child benefit and child tax credits? so a double benefit for having a child, this I am unsure off and what is the max salary cap for it compared to someone childless I think there is about a 20k gap. If you are on jobseekers allowance again you get child benefit and then a top up to the jsa payment as well so you getting a double benefit for the same thing, this is what I was reffering to. So 1 child usually gives more then £17 a week and some people are getting £70 a week or more especially when it comes to maintenance payments of the split husband I have seen obscene amounts paid. A ex colleage of mine who was on £160 a week got told he needs £54 pound to live on so was deducted £106 a week of his wages to support ONE child, the mother was also getting benefits on top of this, now if you tell me it costs more to upkeep a child then it does a fully grown adult who has to pay bills, travel costs to work, rent etc.

Of course a child can be expensive if you go around buying everything they want, fashion labels, tons of toys, holiday every year, sweets the list goes on but none of them are essential. I understand paying for things like childcare is a problem, but I am not talking about people who work and have children its more people who dont work and get pregnant then get £100's a month to support that child, these people are labeled better in society then singleton's.

[Florence]

What is harder is when you have teenagers they go to college and cost soar. they get a a little ema money but unless you are good at milking the system the child only gets £10 a week for full time education it costs them more than that to buy the books the college tel them to buy.

If like me one quits college and starts work all is ok for a while then they quit work without telling you they was having problems at work. Now you have problems, family allowence has already stopped as has family tax credit. He has no legal right to benefits as he quit and still no job over a month down the road.

These teenagers cost more to keep and you can't just kick them out so you get into debt to try and make ends meet..


EMA should be the same for all teenagers not means tested as it is the teenager who gets this money not the parents....

There should be some form of support for a teenager who found they had to quit there job.

The only people who are on a winner are the government you will never see any retired or teenager children of there on the pverty line...

[Angua]

There is the awful gap between 16 and 18 if your children do not opt for further education. No benefits for anyone unless the children are thrown out of home. Jobs are very hard to come by, as at 16 you don't have any experience so you are caught in the catch 22. Most agencies won't take you on until 17.
As I understand things job seekers allowance is based on NI contributions (you have to have paid NI for at least a year to get the allowance) at least when I was 16 you could get social security benefit, not even that now.
Only alternative would be to swap children with someone else and then claim Housing benefit (chavs lesson no 1). Not a way forward that should be encouraged.

[Florence]

There is the awful gap between 16 and 18 if your children do not opt for further education. No benefits for anyone unless the children are thrown out of home. Jobs are very hard to come by, as at 16 you don't have any experience so you are caught in the catch 22. Most agencies won't take you on until 17.
As I understand things job seekers allowance is based on NI contributions (you have to have paid NI for at least a year to get the allowance) at least when I was 16 you could get social security benefit, not even that now.
Only alternative would be to swap children with someone else and then claim Housing benefit (chavs lesson no 1). Not a way forward that should be encouraged.
Yes so now I have a 17 yr old hanging around the house day and night he never goes out as he has no money and I cant give him any as all the spare cash is keeping him....
he worked from February to 4th August so no chance of anything and quit as he was bing used as the dogs body.. I just wish he had spoken to us first we could have helped and perhaps saved his job which he liked.....

Anyone got a job for a 17yr old in Manchester building computers, servers or data inputting he has worked at both. One was work experience at the local RBScotland.

What a lot of ppl forget is these teenagers are the next generation and the example they are being shown is if you want something you find your own way to getting it..

Some do start to break the law to make ends meet.. I agree we had a time where they just didn't work and took all the benefits they could but most of todayââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s youth would work if they could so I feel if they had to do community service to get some funds. We would be helping both the community and the teenagers. They would have some work experience and also someone to give them references to move on into full working life.

A little compassion and understanding is needed, these teenagers are only starting to learn about adult life and the costs of being an adult after years of parents protecting them from day today lo day bills.

[Chrysalis]

Is there YTS schemes still running?