« Reclassifying Cannabis | Main | The Worst Social Evils »

July 19, 2007

Work for your Welfare


Single parents will be forced to start looking for a job once their youngest child turns seven, with those who cannot find work being placed on United States-style workfare schemes.

Why 7? If we're going to adopt US style welfare reform why aren't we actually adopting it fully? Why should a woman of average fertility (just under two kids per woman) get 14 years on the taxpayer? Why shouldn't it be strictly time limited, as over there, to 5 years per lifetime?

I'm not particularly suggesting that it should be, either, I'd just like to know what the justification is?

Actually, I'd be interested to know why there are any special single parent benefits at all. Why isn't the requirement to be seeking work as soon as the equivalent of statutory maternity leave has finished? Perfectly happy for there to be tax credit top ups (in the absence of a complete solution like a cbi) for those unable to earn enough....but why is there this different system at all?

July 19, 2007 in Your Tax Money at Work | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Work for your Welfare:


Surely it's because it is generally thought that mothers looking after their children is a good thing?

Posted by: Matthew | Jul 19, 2007 8:11:30 AM

Yes, well usually good things don't come for free; they involve tradeoffs against other good things. Too much of a good thing can mean less of some other good thing. Taking money off of one group of people, to fund another group's lifestyle choices is not a good thing.

Posted by: ChrisM | Jul 19, 2007 9:35:16 AM

I don't think children wanting to have a mother around can be called a 'lifestyle choice'.

If the mother does go out to work, then the child is going to have to have childcare. Only a few weeks ago on this site someone (probably Tim, but I don't recall) was rantnig about the absurdity of people getting paid childcare to work jobs that don't earn much more money than it costs.

So unless you're going to pay no benefits, its how you structure it.

Posted by: Matthew | Jul 19, 2007 10:26:13 AM


Taxing the middle class to poverty has meant both parents now work.

Taxing singles has meant they cannot afford houses.

Women should be lent the money, which they can pay back at a later date.

Posted by: AntiCitizenOne | Jul 19, 2007 2:14:21 PM

"I don't think children wanting to have a mother around can be called a 'lifestyle choice'. "

But having children most defintely is.

Posted by: ChrisM | Jul 19, 2007 2:44:10 PM