Single mothers better off


——————————————————-

27 November 2006

Single mothers get £100 more in tax credits a week than working couple

Single parents on the poverty line are getting over £100 a week more in state benefits than couples facing the same difficulties, a new report says.

The huge difference in the treatment of single parents and married couples is plunging millions of children into poverty and encouraging couples to live apart or break up, it said.

..

The report, produced by the family charity CARE, comes at a time of growing concern about the built-in bias towards single mothers in the benefits system.

Lone mothers qualify for special rights to get housing, extra payments in benefits like Income Support, and are targeted by schemes like Sure Start that provide help, advice and childcare

The government has blatantly been encouraging divorce and out-of-wedlock births. They know that a family headed by a man is independent, unlike a “family” consisting of a woman and her kids, which is invariably dependent on the government and thus easy to push around. Plus, of course, feminism’s primary aim was to push men out of families (but to ensure they are still financially responsible – whether directly through Child Support or indirectly through taxes – for women and children) and they have certainly succeeded.

My best mate is married to one of the few good women around. They both work full-time and are lucky enough to have parents living nearby who look after their baby son, meaning they don’t have big childcare costs. Yet, because they are not high-earners (she’s a shop assistant, he works in a factory) even working full-time means they can only just stay afloat and cover the mortgage payments. They want another child but it will be a while before they can afford to support a second kid.

In contrast, a 19-year-old girl at work got pregnant solely to get a free house and benefits (which worked) and now has apparantly said she wants at least another couple of children as soon as possible. She doesn’t have to worry about covering the costs because the taxpayers will cover that. More kids means more money.

A lot of this is thanks to the removal of Married Man’s Tax Allowance by Labour. A non-working wife’s tax allowance passed on to her husband, often reducing his annual tax bill by more than a thousand pounds. Now that’s gone, thanks to fucking Labour.

So you have more bastards being whelped than proper legitimate children with fathers.

Children from single parent families are much more likely than those with two parents to suffer poor health, do badly at school, fall into drug abuse and crime, and become jobless or single parents themselves.

Damn right.

It’s good that more people – including a lot of married women – are become more infuriated by the government throwing cash at single mothers, and it’s good that more anger is directed at the single mothers themselves.

Expect there to be a furious rebuke though, from fembots in government and single mother “groups”. A couple of years ago a judge in Wales pointed out that most juvenile criminals that came before him were from single mother households and was pretty much bullied into retracting his statement by a bunch of fembots running single mother charities and support groups.

Single mothers whine that they’re somehow picked on, but not only do they deserve picking on – especially Single Mothers By Choice, who are guilty of Child Abuse as much as they are guilty of being a drain on society – but in actual fact it’s rare for anyone to dare criticise them. Any politician having a go at single mothers virtually puts his/her career on the line and will invariably have to apologise or be forced to resign. Well fuck it, people are getting sick of it all, and socialism/feminism and their drive to return us to a feral Matriarchy.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:21 PM
——————————————————-

At 8:24 PM, Field Marshall Watkins said…

Yeah, I’ve been reading about this earlier today. Selfish system abusing skanks. I put a similar article on my blog about it. I’ll edit it to link this article to that one mate. They compliment each other.

——————————————————-

At 9:22 PM, Anonymous said…

There’s a decent old fashioned type bloke I know at work who’s about 55. Got married in his early 20’s, got a house, had 3 kids (2 daughters, 1 son) worked hard, never cheated etc, etc.

2 years ago his wife suddenly got fed up with marriage and wanted out. He tried to keep it going but no deal. So, she got the house and the kids stayed with her as you would expect. He had no option but to move back into his 80 year old mothers place because he just wasn’t earning as much as he used to.

As soon as the divorce was finalised, his ex-wife suddenly announced she’d ‘found’ a new boy friend. A widowed professional who owned 2 houses. How amazing and lucky for her, eh?

Both of his daughters are now single mums who got the baby via a fling with a thug, and have nice council flats courtesy of us taxpayers. They only seem to be interested in seeing dad though when they cant get anyone else to baby sit or want some decorating done. From my point of view I’d say he’s been utterly screwed over and treated like dirt.

But here is the funny bit. This guy is still adamant that women should be treated with good old fashioned respect but his divorce was just one of those things that happens. Also, it was the ‘thug’ boy friends who did the ‘dirty’ on his daughters. It’s like he’s totally blinkered to how selfish, manipulative, cunning and crafty women are.

Mind you, I suppose if he really faced the truth he’d end up another of the many male suicide statistics no-one cares about.

——————————————————-

At 10:52 PM, HAWKEYE said…

my wife hates them ,you can see them any day of the week strolling along not a care in the world ,very common to see a single female with a whole tribe following her ,some black some brown,some white .they are nothing more than a meal ticket for these sluts,
meanwhile ill be off to work paying my taxes ,(which keep on going up up up ) to pay for this shit ,
it makes me mad

——————————————————-

At 10:58 PM, Anonymous said…

Mind you, I suppose if he really faced the truth he’d end up another of the many male suicide statistics no-one cares about.

Haha, I wanted to write that until I saw it at the end of your post.

Never underestimate the power of denial.

——————————————————-

At 11:18 PM, Anonymous said…

A sad story but nonetheless it’s “men” like him who ALLOWED feminism to take over. I’m inclined to say at least some of them get what they deserve. And it fills me with a bit of gratification I gotta say.

——————————————————-

At 2:49 AM, khankrumthebulgar said…

What’s utterly scary is that the Survival instincts of some of our people, perhaps as many as half is defective. They cannot see cause and effect. The Answer is simple. Stop Subsidizing the creation of Bastard Children. No payments to Single Moms. Women would become much more careful in their selection of Sex Partners.

Future criminals will not be created, a future permanent underclass will not happen. But that is too much common sense. And the truth is that Socialists want a Dependency Class. It keeps them in power. Its just that simple.

——————————————————-

At 3:05 AM, Masculist Man said…

But here is the funny bit. This guy is still adamant that women should be treated with good old fashioned respect but his divorce was just one of those things that happens. Also, it was the ‘thug’ boy friends who did the ‘dirty’ on his daughters. It’s like he’s totally blinkered to how selfish, manipulative, cunning and crafty women are.

It sounds like your friend is a fool and nobody respects a fool.

——————————————————-

At 3:07 AM, Masculist Man said…

A sad story but nonetheless it’s “men” like him who ALLOWED feminism to take over. I’m inclined to say at least some of them get what they deserve. And it fills me with a bit of gratification I gotta say.

You’re right. They are fools and they deserve it.

——————————————————-

At 4:31 AM, Anonymous said…

Until welfare reform hit the States 10 years ago this year, the US had gone down much the same path as Britain finds itself. Under the old system girls at least as young as 15 were getting their own apartments—subsidized by us American taxpayers, of course. The monthly checks didn’t end until the recipient’s oldest child turned 18, meaning that women in their 50s often still received money—and had done so for 40 years. Sometimes three generations of recipients lived in the same subsidized apartment.

The reformed system now allows benefits for only two years at a time and a lifetime maximum of five years; underage girls have been largely cut off from receiving money directly (must generally go through a parent or guardian); and recipients must generally show that they are actively seeking a job as a condition of getting the money. Even schooling won’t do; it must be a j-o-b. The welfare system thus functions much like unemployment compensation here, which is also temporary (six months normally) and likewise conditioned on the recipient looking for work.

Part of the impetus for change was the mounting evidence in honest academic studies that more and more unmarried girls and younger women were deliberately acting in ways to ensure they would receive welfare money and benefits such as apartments. Read: getting preggers by bums and thugs. Also, it had become common in many parts of the US for girls to get pregnant with the idea that their mother would bring up the baby while teen “mom” would get the welfare checks to spend on herself. As these issues became common knowledge and the welfare lobbies resisted common-sense change, voters elected people to Congress who finally “reformed” the old welfare system with a sledgehammer in 1996.

It appears that Britain needs a few good men with sledgehammers. The situation there sounds even worse than the American system of the mid-1990s.

——————————————————-

At 10:36 AM, NYMOM said…

“…a lifetime maximum of five years…”

But many of the liberal states, where the problem is the worse, pick up the tab after 5 years. It’s only federal money that has the 5 year mandate. States can (and do) fund payments after the 5 year mandated period.

——————————————————-

At 4:30 PM, Bryce said…

Even though this is considered horrendously un-PC, I can’t help but notice that the people who are having kids early and often are those people who are the least able to give those kids a healthful environment to grow up in. I also can’t help but think that this is not a good thing.

It all comes down to one word: incentives. We need more incentives for people who can raise kids properly to have more kids, and more disincentives for things like single mothering by choice.

For example, schools should not have built-in daycare centers. Also, it has been suggested that for every child that a college-educated, married, hetero couple has or adopts, 1/3 of their student loan debt should be forgiven. It also is a good idea to eliminate the “marriage penalty” and provide other financial incentives for traditional families.

We also need to bring back the stigma associated with poor parenting. After all, we created stigmas against smoking, fat, and guns from out of nowhere. There used to be a stigma against single mothering by choice and shacking up with bad boys.

In short, we should make single mothering by choice downright difficult, so difficult that women won’t want to make that choice. At the same time, we should make healthful parenting by married couples much easier than it is now.

——————————————————-

At 12:47 AM, VoodooJock said…

The old saying went: “Rich people make money, poor people make babies”

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: