Cost of a Single mother

#1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-taxpayer-support-single-mother-benefits.html



A single broken family can cost the taxpayer more than £5million to keep, a devastating analysis of the benefits system shows.

The scale of spending on benefits, care and attempts to help a mother and her children would swallow a big lottery win, according to the figures drawn up by local authority chiefs.

The extreme case study - which would not apply to most lone-parent families but to a significant minority - suggests that ordinary people are paying a vast price for 'broken Britain' and its legion of families whose every requirement is paid for by the state.
mother with her two young children

A lifetime on welfare: 'Lizzie' and her three children would cost £5million to look after over their lives

The £5,782,894 price tag comes on a family led by an abused single mother - herself brought up in care - who has three children.

The case study assumes that neither the mother nor the three children ever work, and the children, like the mother, spend long periods living in state care.

It puts the cost of providing for the mother - who they called Lizzie - at £805,000 up to the age of 18.

Lizzie then costs almost £100,000 for the following two years, during which there are attempts to help her find a job.

She has three children, each of whom spends nine years of their childhood either in council-run homes or with foster parents.

The cost of supporting a workless Lizzie from the age of 20 to her retirement at 65, plus the three children, is calculated at just under £4.9million.

The total comes to roughly £5.8million.
p19graphic.


Leaders of Barnet Council in North London, who drew up the example, say - although extreme - it is an illustration of what the state spends on a family in total breakdown.

The analysis also makes the point that where the head of a family has never worked, there is a 'very high likelihood' that the children will not work either. The costs do not include the price to the taxpayer of education or health services.

They also do not take into account police and criminal justice costs of a family involved in antisocial behaviour and crime.

Mike Freer, former Tory leader of the borough, said: 'There are 300 families in Barnet who cost £ 16million a year in services, more than £53,000 a year for each family.

'That figure includes social care and housing, but it does not count Benefits Agency payments, or health and education, or police spending.

'This is the cost when things go wrong. We need to steer these families-back into health and back into jobs, and early intervention is the cheapest and most effective way.'

The £5million cost of a dysfunctional family was revealed in a paper produced for centre-right think-tank Centre for Policy Studies by three Tory council leaders.

Colin Barrow, of Westminster, Edward Lister, of Wandsworth, and Hammersmith's Stephen Greenhalgh said every council was familiar with cases such as Lizzie.

They said: 'The lifetime costs of welfare benefits can run into millions of pounds for one person.'

They called for powers to pay benefits, give help on employment, run social care services and carry out beat policing to be handed down from Whitehall to town halls.

The figures emerged as the two main parties prepare election campaigns around how to repair ' broken Britain'.

Labour has redoubled its pledge to eradicate child poverty by 2020 on the basis that family breakdown, worklessness and crime are a result of deprivation.

Tories have promised to give tax breaks to married couples in the belief that the collapse of the twoparent family is one of the central causes of anti- social behaviour, unemployment and crime.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ort-single-mother-benefits.html#ixzz0jjFKXEJI
 
#3
But that's not just a single mother, that's a very irresponsible single mother. Don't tar everyone with the same brush.
 

terroratthepicnic

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#4
I always thought the cost of a single mother was:

Cheap bottle of wine - £5
Condoms - £2
Take away - £15

The chance to rag a single mum around her flat - Priceless
 
#6
Ahhhhhhhh! The Daily Mail at its finest! (And should this be in Current Affairs?)

Is it not a hypothetical 'worst case scenario' of the family of a damaged human being who has been abused (maybe by a male relative?) and dependent on the care system? The article shows it is familiar with the term 'lone parent', but chooses the inflamatory 'single mother' for its title. (Much like these rags choose to write "The workers demanded ..... The bosses pleaded"; rather than "The bosses demanded ....... The workers pleaded ...... ")

My child was born out of wedlock. I never had any intention of asking the sire to contribute anything. When maternity pay finished, I was on miniscule benefits for 8 months, before returning to work. I worked (shift-work) to support myself and my child until she was independent.

My mother provided some childcare (and school runs) around my shifts until her death when my child was 10 years old. During the period when my child was aged 4 to 8, I had a live-in lover (a self-employed dentist, who didn't open his surgery until 9:30 am) who took on some of the childcare and school runs and contributed to my mortgage, food and other costs. During the period when my child was aged 5 to 13, she was able to spend time at my workplace outside school hours. Once my mother and lover had 'gone', my child slept at the home of a friend/colleague when I worked night-shifts.

My child is now a working mother (with a partner) and is law-abiding and well-adjusted ........ except for a fear of spiders.

So this hypothetical scenario seems to be more the result of being damaged in childhood than being a lone parent.
 
#7
In the Victorian times, single mothers were compelled to go on the game while their children either were put into the workhouse or into service at the big house. And they were happier times you know...bloody do-gooders!
 
#8
Thanks for starting a thread on single mothers, by the way. Is anyone else getting thirty ( yes, I've counted) pictures of lovely, dirty, filthy slappers at the bottom of their screen?
 
#9
filthyphil said:
Thanks for starting a thread on single mothers, by the way. Is anyone else getting thirty ( yes, I've counted) pictures of lovely, dirty, filthy slappers at the bottom of their screen?
No :( I keep getting adds for loans! Is there some sort of conspiracy or something?

If I take out a zillion pounds worth of loans can I then blame ARRSE, for all the advertising, as they're getting on my t1ts.
 
#11
stabradop said:
One question for the OP though, WTF do you care if you live in Thailand?
You can hate the Daily Mail anywhere in the world.

I'm hating it from France at the moment. :)
 
S

stabradop

Guest
#12
As good a place as any to hate the Daily Gestapo - my mother quotes from that like it was God's (wnaker) honest truth :lol:
 
#13
stabradop said:
One question for the OP though, WTF do you care if you live in Thailand?
That's the 'beauty' of the Daily Mail and similar rags.

Folks read it and have a Pavlovian outrage response.

My cousin buys the rag at the newsagent's. I can spot, instantly, when she has spent too long reading its arousing fascist venom.
 
#14
bovvy said:
<snip>being a lone mums is not the issue</snip>
IMHO you are articulate and self-motivated, that puts you in a minority of the entire population let alone the benefits brood bitches that flood out of our education system at 16 years of age.
 
#15
bovvy said:
Ahhhhhhhh! The Daily Mail at its finest! (And should this be in Current Affairs?)

Is it not a hypothetical 'worst case scenario' of the family of a damaged human being who has been abused (maybe by a male relative?) and dependent on the care system? The article shows it is familiar with the term 'lone parent', but chooses the inflamatory 'single mother' for its title. (Much like these rags choose to write "The workers demanded ..... The bosses pleaded"; rather than "The bosses demanded ....... The workers pleaded ...... ")

My child was born out of wedlock. I never had any intention of asking the sire to contribute anything. When maternity pay finished, I was on miniscule benefits for 8 months, before returning to work. I worked (shift-work) to support myself and my child until she was independent.

My mother provided some childcare (and school runs) around my shifts until her death when my child was 10 years old. During the period when my child was aged 4 to 8, I had a live-in lover (a self-employed dentist, who didn't open his surgery until 9:30 am) who took on some of the childcare and school runs and contributed to my mortgage, food and other costs. During the period when my child was aged 5 to 13, she was able to spend time at my workplace outside school hours. Once my mother and lover had 'gone', my child slept at the home of a friend/colleague when I worked night-shifts.

My child is now a working mother (with a partner) and is law-abiding and well-adjusted ........ except for a fear of spiders.

So this hypothetical scenario seems to be more the result of being damaged in childhood than being a lone parent.
Fine, great. Well done you but what exactly has your somewhat sordid life story got to do with how much it would cost to support someone who decides to claim every single penny of benefits possible and unlike you makes zero effort to be responsible for the children they produce?

Yes there are single mothers (and fathers) who work hard and sacrifice to ensure they and their offspring are not a burden on others but there are also parents who think that society owes them a living and this is what the story was about.

Is "lone parent" now the de rigueur term among the PC aware or something?
 
#16
GoodIdeaAtTheTime said:
bovvy said:
<snip>being a lone mums is not the issue</snip>
IMHO you are articulate and self-motivated, that puts you in a minority of the entire population let alone the benefits brood bitches that flood out of our education system at 16 years of age.
Well, thank you!!! You, obviously, don't know me. :oops:

I don't see it as a failing of the individuals, but as a tragic result of the oppressive, wicked capitalist system under which we are forced to live, especially since Thatcher. I'll stop there before I shatter your illusions about my ability to articulate. :oops:
 
#17
Well done Bovvy. I know others like you. Life's tough and they don't deserve the stigma which irresponsible articles promote, but there is an essential truth at the heart of the article which is that failing to exercise tough love in favour of fannying around demonstrates a lack of moral courage and helps no -one. Young mums like Lizzie can't help themselves and lose any opportunity they might have had the moment they give birth. Good, long term contraceptive advice would have prevented all of that and a fraction of what it now costs to maintain her and the children might have been used to turn her life around through education or work experience. There should be a scheme to get these kids overseas to assist with voluntary work in the third world. It would be a life changing experience for them. All the experts can come up with though, is to throw money at the problem and keep their fingers crossed. It doesn't work.
 
#18
Steven said:
Fine, great. Well done you but what exactly has your somewhat sordid life story got to do with how much it would cost to support someone who decides to claim every single penny of benefits possible and unlike you makes zero effort to be responsible for the children they produce?

Yes there are single mothers (and fathers) who work hard and sacrifice to ensure they and their offspring are not a burden on others but there are also parents who think that society owes them a living and this is what the story was about.

Is "lone parent" now the de rigueur term among the PC aware or something?
I understand the benefit system exists to pacify the proletariat under our captalist system. Are not all the future adults in society (those who will be producing and supplying our needs, once we are too old to do so) all entitled to and worthy of our investment?
 
#19
Mr_Deputy said:
Why don't single mums do work at home like sewing or something? I'm being serious as well. We're paying huge numbers of people, many in the same area as each other and so they would be good potential to get cottage industries going. It just takes some bloody organisation.
That sounds quite like a socialist co-operative to me. Perhaps the whole of society should be organised on those lines.
 
#20
mistersoft said:
stabradop said:
One question for the OP though, WTF do you care if you live in Thailand?
You can hate the Daily Mail anywhere in the world.

I'm hating it from France at the moment. :)
True enough and toi ghet an tu Vietnam, to boot!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads