I have long held the belief that nobody should plan children they cannot afford. This isn't because of people using children as a salary, but because it's not right to simply hope someone else will fund the raising of your child.
But things don't work out that way. In a stereotypical family, the woman looks after the children while the man earns the income. With very small children, many women choose not to work full time. Childcare may be taken on by family members, or by a nursery or childminder.
If the parents separate, the onus is usually on the mother to have residential care of the children. The father continues to work full time, and a percentage of his income routinely goes to his ex for the upkeep of his children. The father would have to be an exceptionally high earner for this percentage to pay for all the costs of caring for children.
The mother is left in something of a quandary. It can be difficult to go from a part time role to a full time role in a job. It is even more difficult to get child friendly, flexible working hours, as single parents often have nobody else to call on if a child is sick or injured. If suitable hours can be found, childcare is excruciatingly expensive. Family childcare can be cost effective, but it is tricky to find a family member willing to look after a child full time for nothing. Then there is the tradeoff between working and seeing your children. The children may spend every weekend, or every other weekend, with their father. Once preschool and primary school come into play, a mother may end up seeing the children the least, despite having the residential and financial burden.
Benefits act as a safety net, to empower single parents (male and female) in deciding how to look after their children when things go wrong. But there is no right answer. Staying at home means you're sponging off the state. Part time work often means crappy jobs with no upward progression, and low wages. Full time work means less dependence on benefits, but less time with children.
I hate needing benefits to raise my children.
I hate knowing so many people think I am subhuman, by association. I hate knowing that George Osborne thinks I've 'gone wrong' to end up on benefits in the first place. I hate that I conceived my sons in good faith that I would be able to raise them without financial assistance. I hate not knowing if the government are going to change things and make life more difficult. I hate having to justify my unemployment by saying I'm a student, instead of saying that I'm a full time mother of two small children.
But I also am grateful that we have a welfare system that allows us to be caught. The welfare system in this country fails many people, but it has kept me afloat for nearly three years. Without it, I don't know where I'd be now - homeless, sacked, and financially wrecked forever, I expect. Thankfully, I am coming to the end of being on income support, after 18 months, and I sincerely hope I never have to be on it again.
I believe benefits act as that crucial safety net for when life goes pear-shaped; it should be irrelevant whether that pear shape lasts a few months or a few decades as life never goes the way you expect.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has ever had to scrape by on such a basic income knows how tough it is, there can't be many who would genuinely choose benefits over a week's wages.
But as far as George Osborne? Anyone who has had his affluent, austerity-free upbringing (and doubtless never even known someone on benefits) wouldn't be a person whose opinion should be given much creedence when it comes to the subject of financial hardship.