To be claiming some benefits.....

(161 Posts)
CardyMow Fri 22-Oct-10 23:33:01

When DP works FT? DP earns £16K before tax. We get : £140 a week Child tax credits. £76 a week Working tax credit. £46 a week child benefit. £ 122 a week Housing benefit. We have 3 dc. I am a SAHM because no-one will emloy me due to my epilepsy, but I no longer get any disability benefits in respect of this. What I can't work out from all the hoo-ha on MN lately about benefits 'scroungers' is whether DP and I are unreasonable to claim what's available?

Soooo. Are we benefits scroungers because we get £384 a week in benefits. Or are we not benefits scroungers because DP works FT and pays tax? Where does the collective wisdom of MN stand on that?

LordVolAuVent Fri 22-Oct-10 23:35:20

your husband works, you claim what you're entitled to, you'd be a fool not to. YANBU

CardyMow Fri 22-Oct-10 23:45:34

But why is it OK for me to be a SAHM and us claim benefits to top up DP's wages, but it isn't OK for a single mum to be a SAHM and live on benefits while bringing up her dc? Just curious?

CardyMow Fri 22-Oct-10 23:49:11

It's just that seems to be the sentiment on MN at the moment, that single SAHM's on benefits are the scum of the earth, no matter what the reason they are single mums, even if they are escaping DV etc, yet we aren't benefits scroungers because DP works and pays tax. I'm struggling to see why there is so much venom being directed at people out of work and claiming benefits, when there's hardly any jobs, what jobs there are are hardly secure, and have crappy pay, yet people are being castigated on here for chosing to stay at home with their dc like I do. Most of the time it is not the single parents' fault that they are a single parent.....

LordVolAuVent Fri 22-Oct-10 23:52:28

personally i have no issues with single parents staying at home with young kids and claiming benefits, providing they haven't deliberately put themselves in that position. so am perhaps the wrong person to be answering your query loudlass, sorry!

usualsuspect Fri 22-Oct-10 23:52:46

I hear you Loudass ..I work ..dp works ..we are vilified on MN because ds gets EMA ..what do you do? tell me because I'm fucked if I know anymore

Mimile Fri 22-Oct-10 23:52:58

The system is really unfair to single parents, so doesn't bother me for single mothers to draw benefits if finding work is too difficult (although some manage).
Your DH works FT, and according to your OP, your epilepsy makes it difficult for you to work / find work.
So YANBU.

scottishmummy Fri 22-Oct-10 23:53:19

grow a thicker skin.stop fretting about strangers opinions.mn is a discussion site,nowt more nowt less.you will be exposed to a myriad of opinion.but only you know your individual circs etc

it would be a cold day in hell when i benchmark my life against mn opinion

cerealqueen Sat 23-Oct-10 00:18:31

well said scottishmummy.

RainbowRainbow Sat 23-Oct-10 00:29:39

OP, YANBU, and I don't see why you would think that you are.

CardyMow Sat 23-Oct-10 00:31:50

I'm not so much bothered for me, as I am bothered for some of the people that are getting a hard time on here atm.

I may not be in this position myself, but I can still sympathise with the fact that it is incredibly unfair that with regards to the benefits cap, DP and I will have a 'cap' of £500 a week, yet a single parent who probably has to pay crippling childcare costs will have a cap of only £350 a week.

MN has always been a quite supportive place to be, but just lately it seems that every grou of people is 'ganging up' on other groups of people. I want to know what has happened to everyone's empathy. To people on MN trying to understand what it would be like to be in the OP's situation, and offering them help rather than castigating them for getting benefits.

Why is the issue of benefits so divisive? While I agree that they should never be a permanent measure for anyone to live their entire life on, how many people that post on MN are on benefits and fully intend to do so forever? Because I've yet to come across many of them. All the posters on MN at least that are out of work are either retraining or looking for work, or are planning to go back to work at a certain point in the future.

So why are any/all posters on MN that get benefits being hounded at the moment?

gaelicsheep Sat 23-Oct-10 00:37:37

I'll tell you why Loudlass. We've had a Tory govt for all of 5 mins and the "I'm alright Jack" mentality is already rubbing off on everybody.

CardyMow Sat 23-Oct-10 00:42:53

blush. The worst of it is that I was stupid enough to vote for the bastards. And believe their pre-election policies. In my defence, I was 14yo when labour got in in 1997, and I was more interested in whether I'd still be in the same foster placement in 6 weeks time than I was in politics. I was in homeless accommodation for the following elections, this was the first election I was able to vote in. I will NEVER vote Tory again. And lib-dem are just a bunch of lily-livered power-hungry bastards, so even though I disagreed with some things labour did, I'll always be a bloody labour voter from now on!!

kayah Sat 23-Oct-10 00:43:52

why is it that employers aren't prepared to employ you?

expatinscotland Sat 23-Oct-10 00:48:13

A lot of people fell for their shower of shite.

As a first time voter, I nearly did, but at the very last minute, switched my vote to SNP whilst DH was voting at the same time (postal).

expatinscotland Sat 23-Oct-10 00:49:25

Because they don't want an employee, kayah. They want a widget, a cog in the machine who can and will work when they want, for how long they want, for whatever pay they want.

CardyMow Sat 23-Oct-10 00:50:53

Because I had to declare my epilepsy on the application form (have found out yesterday that I no longer have to), and out of over 200 jobs applied for in 3 years...I have not been offered even one interview. And anyway, for every job in my town that I could apply for, there are 400-600 applicants. Most of whom wont require time off for seizures, or need to occasionally be rushed to hosital halfway through a shift, leaving their workmates to do their job for them....Would you employ MEor someone totally healthy if you were the employer?

gaelicsheep Sat 23-Oct-10 00:57:51

I nearly voted for them too Loudlass. If we weren't in Scotland (making it a wasted vote), I probably would have done. I voted Lib Dem and around the time the coalition was formed I was congratulating myself on my terrific wisdom and foresight. Now I'm kicking myself. But then I don't know who else I'd have voted for - still couldn't have brought myself to vote Labour.

My feeling is that the Tories know that whatever they do, even if they handle the economic crisis in the fairest possible way, they still won't be voted in again for a decade at least because people won't be able to stomach the cuts. So they've just said sod it, let's take this golden opportunity to push through all kinds of ideological crap in the name of the deficit.

Has anyone read the book The Shock Doctrine? It's very telling.

DooinMeCleanin Sat 23-Oct-10 00:59:14

Loudlass DH has never declared his epilepsy, afaik, until he has been offered the job.

It puts them on very shaky ground taking that job offer back.

He still finds it harder to get work, because there is so much he cannot do i.e. driving, heavy machinery, anything that requires him to work unsupervised, sitting at a computer screen with out extra breaks etc.

When you do find work, make sure you apply for the disability element of WTC. They don't tell you you are entitled to it, but you are. And you still get free prescriptions and dental treatment, as does your partner. Just incase you didn't know smile

Oh and YANBU.

gaelicsheep Sat 23-Oct-10 01:00:24

Really Loudlass, that's terrible. Where I work (public sector) if someone declares a disability they have to be interviewed if they meet the essential criteria. It did make me hmm a little bit when we were told we had to interview someone on the basis of them declaring dyslexia. (Not intending to insult people with dyslexia - please don't flame me - but it's hardly the same thing as Loudlass's situation).

homeboys Sat 23-Oct-10 09:45:17

Message withdrawn

CardyMow Sat 23-Oct-10 10:10:17

Well I did feel a bit shock when I realised last night that in order for us to survive at the same level as we are right now, DP would have to earn £15.90 an hour! Who the hell earns that?

And it's not as if we are rolling in it at the moment. My dc's have never had a holiday, We don't run a car, we make do with our (supermarket mostly) clothes, I live and die in two pairs of trousers and 3 tops, the DC's have about 4 sets of clothes after their school uniform, We take the dc on days out twice a year, after saving up for 6 months, we don't have takeaways, our furniture is bought second hand from charity shops, etc etc. Yet to cover the money we get in benefits, DP would have to earn nearly £16 an hour. Just to keep our lifestyle at that point.

Anyone think minimum wage is too low??

Janos Sat 23-Oct-10 10:13:35

"it would be a cold day in hell when i benchmark my life against mn opinion"

Abso-bloody-lutely scottishmummy.

When I see people posting this stuff I think stop fretting about what strangers on the internet think FGS! (In the nicest possible way).

Saying that Loudlass you sound like a thoughtful and compassionate person and understand where you are coming from. Certain people just see this as sort of thing green light to have a go unfortunately.

shimmerysilverghosty Sat 23-Oct-10 10:19:49

Thank you Loudlass.

I am one of those SAHM Single Parents and I have wondered this.

However I do have a SN child so I suppose I could be mitigated by this, by a few anyway as sometimes the attitudes to SN is not much better on MN.

I wouldn't mind having a thread where we can put what we get and some of the clever clogs (mean that in a good way) on here could tell us how we will be affected after all the cuts in our own particular circumstances but I suspect it would end up with posters being roasted beyond all recognition if we did. Now that would be a useful thread.

wotnochocs Sat 23-Oct-10 10:21:07

look, a democratically elected government has decided you are entitled to these benefits.How much 'fairer' can you be than that?

SoloBlackWidowSpidersWebSite Sat 23-Oct-10 10:31:27

I too am at home taking a career break; still employed, but on nil pay so I claim benefits. I'm a single Mum.

I can't go back to work right now because I'd earn too much to get any help with anything other than CB and (with current stuff) £545 per year WTC. I might get the smallest amount of help with childcare, but it wouldn't help enough at the moment to make it viable to go back to work.

I worked for 27+ years (ie a tax payer) before going into the benefits system for the very first time after Dd was born and I still managed to feel guilty about it. Now, I don't feel guilty, I feel embarrassed because people automatically give you the scum or scrounger label.

OP, you are right, but I don't see it changing sadly.

GypsyMoth Sat 23-Oct-10 10:47:17

A single parent who is fully dependent on benefits and is sahm, may have an ex p, father of the dc, who works and pays tax?

The old way, with his maintenence going back in the pot, was fairer

kayah Sat 23-Oct-10 22:31:48

I have aunty who successfully worked in the sam job as a Health Inspector for 30 years with her epilepsy, that's why I would employ someone with this illness.

I guess she was lucky that her medication used to help her a lot, but shesometimes was sent home when she wasn't feeling well.

Lougle Sat 23-Oct-10 22:52:49

shimmerysilverghosty if you wanted to PM me, I could run through it for you smile

I would need:

Details of income source and amount
How many children
Whether any disability
CT bill per year
Rent per month
How many hours worked or if on IS/JSA etc.
Either Postcode or town or city

Obviously, though, there is a lot of personal info there.

keepingupwiththejoneses Sat 23-Oct-10 22:58:24

Well done loudlass for speaking up. I know how you feel, I am not brave enough to let other MNer's how much benefit's we get, what I will say is DH is a self employed plasterer and can work up to 50-60 hours a week but only brought home 6.5k after tax last year, we have 2 special needs ds's, I have been a sahm since having ds3 as he has been backwards and forwards to the hospital ever since. I find myself having to explain why I don't work.

epilepsy is a shit of a thing, I hate it
dh finds it so hard to get work cos he can't bloody drive and in his trade driving is often one of the things asked for , so op yanbu,
I am so glad that there are people on mn who talk about this as it helps me. (I have 2 in my family with epilepsy, dd and dh)
(oh and we are on benefits at the moment)

earwicga Sat 23-Oct-10 23:05:32

Loudlass - you are quite right about not having to state you have epilepsy now. It's in the Equality Act 2010 which came into force on October 1st.

I like your points about SAH single and married/partnered mothers. Where did you get your information about differentiated rates of benefit caps? I've not heard of that before.

Firawla Sat 23-Oct-10 23:09:27

yanbu of course you should take what you are entitled to, i think most people would have an issue more with people who lie/cheat the system etc. i dont have a problem with single mum on benefits either, but do have a problem with 2 parents both on benefits sat @ home IF they could work. If genuinely cant find work its different but people making a decision to be on benefits cos they are lazy, that's the one people have an issue with, not people such as yourself or single mums that need to be at home with their young kids

CardyMow Sun 24-Oct-10 00:19:19

I got the info about the differentiated caps a) Off MN and then b) off a friend who will now have to give up work (she's a SP working 22.5 hrs a week), as she won't be able to afford her childcare and her rent, only one or the other.

That's the thing with being an 'unwaged dependant' of someone working FT, I am not even allowed to talk to anyone in the local jobcentre anymore, if it wasn't for MN, I wouldn't have had a clue about this new equality act and the fact that I no longer have to declare my epilepsy to an employer, which might make it hugely more likely that I can at least get something PT.

lowrib Fri 29-Oct-10 00:20:28

"MN has always been a quite supportive place to be, but just lately it seems that every grou of people is 'ganging up' on other groups of people. I want to know what has happened to everyone's empathy."

The tories got in, that's what sad

It's divide and rule. It;s a tried and tested method - they did it last time round too: get us blaming each other for societies ills - or better still blaming the vulnerable or people who don't have a voice, so that we're too busy arguing to pay too much attention to what they're really up to, which is pushing through a right-wing agenda.

It's not about cuts or benefit cheats, it's ideological.

DioneTheDiabolist Fri 29-Oct-10 00:32:49

I think it's part of the Big Society, you know, blame, badger and castigate those on benefits in the hope that they will get off their workshy asses and get one of those job things that the government are doing away with.

Take your benefits you are entitled to them. I am a SAH single mum on benefits. It is not a lifestyle choice, and will not be forever and I'll be fucked before I feel bad about anything that is said about it. I live in a deprived area full of benefits recipients and still haven't met one for whom it is a lifestyle choice. The govt and media have hyped stories of extreme scrounging in order to get otherwise sane, smart people to fall behind cuts that hit the poorest worst.angry

Unfortunately it has worked.sad

Mumcentreplus Fri 29-Oct-10 00:37:30

<<sighs>>...never be ashamed to claim benefits...its what I pay tax for..to help people who need it no matter what an opinion or a newspaper says...

Joolyjoolyjoo Fri 29-Oct-10 00:53:43

I don't think YABU. Your DP works, you are prepared to work. I wince a bit at some threads when I see how much some people seem to get on benefits, but I do agree that benefits should be given to people earning a relatively low wage. Ideally, workers would be better paid, but until that day people in your situation should get benefits to ensure a decent standard of living.

Fwiw, I have no problem with single mums staying at home to look after small children and receiving benefits either. What does frustrate me is the system which seems to actively discourage people working if they could/ want to.

We both work and pay tax, and I am happy for that money to be used for benefits for people, especially if they are keen to help themselves as well. I try to zone out the stories about the "scroungers" (I have an uncle who is one, I would happily take his benefits away and give them to people like you, OP and to single mums!) because I believe in the Welfare State. I do worry sometimes about the way it is run, but I don't agree with blanket cuts to it either. Although I suppose assessing each case would cost a fortune too...no easy answers!

But I honestly can't believe that anyone is surprised that a tory govt would hit the poorest. I have friends on a low income who get top-up benefits and I was flabbergasted to discover that they had voted tory because "we needed a change!" Change isn't necessarily always for the better!

theywillgrowup Fri 29-Oct-10 00:59:12

a good thread started loudlass

im always amazed at how different peoples opinions vary on subjects like this,at the moment most seem in agrement with your views and you make some very valid points

was a similar thread started the other day and quite a few started the classic benefit bash,seems depending when you post as to what reaction you get

anyway im a SAHM on benefit and each case has its own dynamics,my case on benefits but i have no morgage (all payed of 19mths ago)so i suppose i could say that the benefit money i get approx £900 a month isnt really draining the system so much as im saving Goverment £900 a month if they had to pay my rent,so no i dont feel bad anymore about claimimg benefit,you shouldnt either but how refreshing to read a post like yours with compassion and thought

Really hope things go well for you and your family

midlandsmumof4 Fri 29-Oct-10 01:25:24

I don't think you are being unreasonable, you are claiming your entitlement. Pity these benefits weren't around year when my children were growing up........

SofaKitten Fri 29-Oct-10 09:24:41

YANBU you are claiming the benefits you are entitled to.

I do feel a bit envious though as I work 50+ hour weeks to bring home less than you get in benefits... and I'm apparently entitled to diddly squat. But that is not your fault - it's the system's...

pastyeater Fri 29-Oct-10 10:47:30

I think the problem is too many people are working hard for to little or ending up with little after housing costs.The frustration at the seemingly easy ride of others is understandable.The govt. and media are playing on it to make scapegoats out of benefit claimants.I am pissed of reading these threads and all the predictable propaganda that gets spouted.
Maybe you don't have as much as as someone on benefit,but maybe you haven't escaped DV,are mentally ill, disabled had a shit education or grew up in care.All these things disproportionatley apply to benefit claimants.Comparisons are pointless as everyones circumstances are so individual. Some of those getting wound up about how much people get in benefit could do with counting their own blessings.Reminding themselves there by the grace of god go I. Then minding their own fucking business.

By the way I think you desrve every penny, I hope you win the lottery too. wink

lowrib Fri 29-Oct-10 11:40:47

Well said pastyeater.

LynLiesNomoreZombieFest Fri 29-Oct-10 11:59:02

You are not benefit scroungers because you do all that you can do.

If someone could work, but chooses not to and claims benefit, or works and does not declare their income then they are benefit scroungers.

I can understand why some are upset, your income and benefits means that you are better off than many of those earning £35000 who have worked incredibly hard to get where they are, but that is not your fault.

The only positive thing I can think of about this situation is to those worried about losing their jobs in this economic climate, having to claim benefit may not be as bad as you fear.

lowrib Fri 29-Oct-10 12:04:14

"those worried about losing their jobs in this economic climate, having to claim benefit may not be as bad as you fear."

Um ... have you not noticed the round of cuts that's happening? By the time the next wave of recession hits, I'd be very surprised if the benefits you get are at all generous. Which strikes me as very unfair. You pay into the pot through your hard earned wages, so why shouldn't you expect to get something back in times of hardship?

But with possible economic disaster looming, the government seems hell-bent on taking the safety nets away. Great stuff hmm

olderandwider Fri 29-Oct-10 12:04:32

Slightly off topic but,I resent how the benefits and tax credit system props up employers who pay very low wages.

Imagine enforcing a living wage. Employers would find more people willing to work for them for higher pay, the Government would save money because the amounts of benefits paid to working people would/should shrink, and the Government could pass on these savings in the form of business tax cuts to companies to encourage them to expand.

That way the direct link between income and earnings would be re-established and remove the complexity of people having to make calculations about whether they are better off on benefits or not.

Now, what's a living wage, anyone?

umf Fri 29-Oct-10 12:08:00

YANBU. And I agree with you that the underlying problem is that wages are too low: most families in which one or even both (if lucky enough to have two) parents work fulltime can't fully support a family without tax credits and other benefits. We need a much flatter wage structure, as in Scandinavia, where even the lowest paid workers receive a living wage.

fluffyblanket Fri 29-Oct-10 12:15:23

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TotsDaddy Fri 29-Oct-10 12:35:26

YANBU if benefits are something you are claiming to tide you over a rough patch and organise your affairs untill you can stand on your own two feet, and if this is the case, good luck.

YABU if this is your financial plan from here on in....

onceamai Fri 29-Oct-10 12:39:49

No I don't think you're scrounging. Your DP works for a pittance, full time, you would like to work and you have 3 children. That's very different from the circumstances on another thread. I take my hat off to you and I hope things get better for you.

sarah293 Fri 29-Oct-10 13:04:01

Message withdrawn

Onlyjoking Fri 29-Oct-10 15:01:46

YNBU
A higher minimum wage would help and often cheaper childcare, if you can get childcare.
I'm on benefits and have been for years ( back injury)
I also have 3 children who have autism and my husbands died over two years ago, my mortgage was paid off when he died so I don't get any housing benefit but I do get DLA times 3 plus a high rate of CTC and my pension and DHs pension and my in capacity benefit, I can't see this ever changing to be honest as for me to get childcare for my three it's £24 per hour, I worked it out the other day, if I were able to work full time and with travelling time I would need to earn over 60k just to cover the childcare shock
It's the system that is wrong.

40deniertights Fri 29-Oct-10 15:14:44

Agree with everyone else. YANBU. Your DP works and you would like to but it is difficult enough with young children without also having a condition that can be debilitating. I hope the new legislation helps you when you are ready (not having to declare conditions). You are also clearly not thoughtless about the issue either which is great.

Rachyandmeg Fri 29-Oct-10 15:15:59

I think the benefit topic is a very touchy subject. Everybody has different views so it will always lead to disagreements.
I think the reason many people get annoyed when the B word is mentioned is because of what they read in the papers. There are probably far less cases of real scroungers and people who make a living from claiming / fraud etc than what is said in the paper and news. People home in on the stories eg women with ten kids in paper other week who makes a living out of having more and more kids on benefits and both parents perfectly well and sit at home all day. People tend to lump anyone on benefits into same category which isn't right. With the economic climate and people losing jobs I think people get angrier. What I think is funny is how many people claim child benefits in this country and that is a benefit but they don't say there claiming benefits . These are working people who claim them too.however I don't think anyone should rely on a forever plan and expect our government to pay for them though 4 life as people should take responsibility for their own lives. Obviously there are people in genuine need of assistance from the government and forever in some cases but in many cases I don't think people should be entitled to money and forever being propped up.

The sense of entitlement in many cases is wrong . I think some working people who earn a living and work v hard don't get any help from government so why is it fair tht many who can just as easily work get money that working people pay for
. What is a working persons reward?

redflag Fri 29-Oct-10 15:25:10

I don't have an issue with anyone who is entitled to them claiming. I do have issue with the current government vilifying everyone who does! Especially as they basically do too

Rachyandmeg Fri 29-Oct-10 15:29:25

Hi do u think they vilify evryone or is it more like the papers or news? I heard cameron say in his speech they want to help the disabled and sick etc and want to give them the benefits assistance tht they need.

redflag Fri 29-Oct-10 16:13:20

That's disabled and sick, not the poor. This government i feel have completely waged a war on the poor. They have also spurred on a culture of " they have this and that....Why should i not have it...."

I think the papers are hand and hand with the government, but it seems like a slur campaign to me.

There are people on this very site saying they are basically jealous of people on benifits. Because they have nice homes and rent the best properties, Not realising the amount of land lords willing to take dss is minuscule.

The poor are being blamed for everything.

Just my opinion though

amothersplaceisinthewrong Fri 29-Oct-10 16:19:08

YANBU. £16K is a very low wage, so you are entitled to the benefits.

pastyeater Fri 29-Oct-10 17:32:25

People who are jealous of those on benefits need to stop reading the The Daily Mail and find out what really goes on.I only got my place because I had a guarantor.The vast majority of landlords won't take HB without one.Some that will are slum landlords.If the tenant complains about damp or disrepair they get two months leave.It's a landlords right to give you two months notice to quit with no reason.Why isn't this a national scandal? Because it does't suit the political agenda of the newspapers.Thats why.
If Cameron really cares about the sick and disabled why are they moving so many onto Jobseekers allowance.Then cutting their HB after 12 months if they fail to find work.In theory some of these people can work but face extra barriers to employment on top of scace jobs.Just look at the website of the citizens advice bureau if you want to know more.They are concerned the fit for work assesments are unfair.
The recurrent themes of the posters on benefit are lack of affordable housing,no living wage,lack of affordable childcare,disabilities and general lack of jobs.All this lifestyle choice spiel is just a crock of shit.angry angry angry

I an never in my life going to vote Tory and will turn in my paupers grave if any of my descendents do.

ccpccp Fri 29-Oct-10 17:51:05

Is anyone on this thread NOT on benefits? Goes to show that workshy turkeys dont vote for Christmas wink

Benefits are too high and are rightly being trimmed back to affordable levels. And not because the DM says so FFS.

Just to set the record straight - it is our 'fuking business' pastyeater, as its our tax money you are being given. There is a transaction going on, leaving you beholden to the taxpayer.

OP - YANBU, so long as you are constantly striving to better your financial position and have a plan to get OFF benefits. The only people who should be on benefits for life are the disabled.

loudlass you make a good point that people are happy for women to be SAHMs if they have a man in the house, bringing in a wage, but spit vitriol if the same woman becomes a single Mum/her hubby is made redundant/gets sick.

I am surprised you get so much HB though. We are in simialr circs but have a mortgage so no help with housing costs, maybe we should sell and rent wink

Mumcentreplus Fri 29-Oct-10 19:15:22

<<puts hand up>>...nice of you to assume everyone on benefits are work-shy <ha>

pastyeater Fri 29-Oct-10 19:52:03

Oh my goodness! And I didn't know the taxpayer funded benefits!ccpccp.Bad luck is what I paid my tax for.When I get back on my feet I will not begrudge anyone else the same.Trying to discern deserving and undeserving poor is too complex.I would much rather taxes go to a few 'scroungers' if it ensures all the needy get help.If someone makes a valid claim then it is nobodys fucking business to label them.The OP wanted to know if she was classed a scrounger.I don't think she needs to give people her medical history and justify to anyone but the DWP why she can't work.It's not your fucking business just because you pay tax.

umf Fri 29-Oct-10 21:48:10

ccpccp we don't get any benefits. No tax credits, no nuffin'. (If I were in prison, DH would get some childcare tax credits. But since I'm a fulltime student, he doesn't.)

But I certainly want to live in a society where people in OP's position are supported. I don't want to live in one where only the highest earners can afford to have children. I'd rather that wage inequality and the excessive cost of housing were addressed, so that everyone could earn a living wage,
rather than the state subsidizing working parents through benefits. But New Labour did nothing to improve this situation and the Coalition certainly won't be helping.

ENormaSnob Fri 29-Oct-10 23:05:03

Yanbu

I am seriously shocked at the amount you get though.

DioneTheDiabolist Fri 29-Oct-10 23:28:33

For 17years I didn't receive benefits. I contributed and didn't begrudge one penny. Having lived abroad, I was proud and pleased at what I got for my tax contribution (and for that matter the BBC License Fee).

Then the shit hit the fan. My life was ruined and I am now on benefits. I do not feel guilty for this. In two years time I hope to be off all benefits and contributing at a higher rate.

CCPCCP, I kind of get where you are coming from but you are at best naive and ignorant, at worst, just stirring.

thesecondcoming Fri 29-Oct-10 23:52:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Rachyandmeg Sat 30-Oct-10 00:12:47

Times are difficult to try and seek work but the recession has only been recent. What happened b4 then? Also their are jobs just not maybe jobs people want to do! Maybe people could consider taking a lesser role if fit and healthy. True those who have been hit on hard times like dione could be helped but it should be temporary. Not taken to such an extreme. The sick and disabled fair enough but many disabled people can and do want to work and get great satisfaction from it.x

RumourOfAHurricane Sat 30-Oct-10 00:52:04

Message withdrawn

midlandsmumof4 Sat 30-Oct-10 01:31:40

Thing is....Most of these benefits weren't available when my 4 were growing up. Only got child beneifit. If OH didn't earn a enough--TOUGH. We cut our cloth as the saying goes. I'm sorry....but familys these days have a really easy ride. Wish I was 30years younger.

midlandsmumof4 Sat 30-Oct-10 01:48:03

But......fair play if you're entitled. It's the system thats at fault.......envy

Rachyandmeg Sat 30-Oct-10 04:00:50

Hi midland, yeh I agree with you if they say you are entitled then that's what you can get I guess
. its the government that needs to sort this out. In your day there were nt benefits I guess it was very tough . I don't have much hope for any political party but why would anyone on here ever choose labour again when they have created this benefit culture and not encouraged people to sort their own lives out . Not a good example at all. Like have ten kids and u get more and more each child. Eventually they get so much money that they can't get out of the rut as getting a job would not then pay the lifestyle they now have on benefits. Thus a life on benefits and future generations . That's what labour has done they don't encourage work which they should from poor all the way upto the wealthy! It is a complex situation to sort out because everybody has their own individual circumstances. For the country it is going to get tougher but it needs sorting. But will the conservatives be the one to do it?hmmmm not optimistic but we shall see.
X

secondcoming - you should be getting more tax credits than that. Are they assessing you on current year income? the only way it should be that low is if you are repaying an overpayment. If that is the reason you can ask them to suspend repayments as it is causing you hardship. It's not that hard to do this.

EvilEyeButterPie Sat 30-Oct-10 13:36:05

Those of you who think that you might not be getting what you should, have a look at www.entitledto.co.uk, where you will find a calculator.

Loads of people don't claim what they should, and struggle on in life, I personally think that it is one of the greatest things about this country that we look after our disadvantaged, and I think that it is actually a good investment to give people a bit of support with rent etc- it would be a lot more expensive to keep them in prison or hospital, which is what will happen if you are asking both parents of three children to work 48 hour weeks with no childcare or rent help on minimum wage.

I don't get what people think people on benefits would do without them- quietly starve in a corner? Suddenly develop a better background and history and become cured of all illnesses? Live in one room with their family?

Or do we only give outside relief to the deserving poor now?

If any of you have read about the poor laws and the history of the welfare state, have a look at what this government are saying. The scariest sentence I have ever heard:

"We will reward people who make the right choices in life"

Not "we will make sure every person has a decent (as in the opposite of indecent) standard living". Not "we will help those who find themselves in need of help". Definitely not "to each according to his need"

They want to reward people who have the good taste to be born rich, and if they aren't, then they must work every single hour for employers who can get away with anything (we ARE all aware that the unions are going to get wrecked, aren't we?) and they will be grateful for every penny we deign to give them. Any independant media will be attacked, art and knowledge for the masses will be curtailed. Women need to get themselves a good husband and shut up. The disabled better had have a lovely picturesque disability and be satisfied with basket weaving.

How are people not rioting in the fucking streets?

babylann Sat 30-Oct-10 13:50:07

I personally feel like the people who are quick to judge about the cushy lifestyle of anyone who dares to get benefits to increase the quality of life of their family are people who've never been in the position of needing to claim, or who have, like someone whos given up smoking, decided they're "above that" and can now go around judging others.

We were in a very unfortunate position to have both been made unemployed through no fault of our own when I first became pregnant, and having to go through all the JSA bullshit (like going to for an interview as to 'why I can't get a job' when I was 26 weeks pregnant) and having to try and find a house where the landlord would accept DSS. Luckily my partner got a job before it ever mattered and everything came together at just the right time.

People who say things like "there are jobs, maybe not jobs people want, but anyone can find work" I find this very naive and very offensive. Me and my partner applied for every job going which wouldn't have involved moving to a different city, we are both hard workers and knew that, although we could survive on benefits, we didn't want to.

I don't judge anyone for living on benefits, despite the fact that our household pays a lot more tax than we can really afford to. I'm not going to sit on some high horse and say, "But those are my wages the poor and vulnerable are spending!"

ccpccp Sat 30-Oct-10 16:33:22

So many straw man arguments. Where to start?

Look - its very simple. Benefits have never been so generous as they are now, thanks to a dire labour govenment buying votes hand over fist for the last 10 years.

For some people life on benefits is hard, but for others it is easy. The government cant target the latter without also hitting the former, and so all people on benefits are being asked to cut back a little.

At the same time, the government are also limiting some of the disgraceful inbalances that Labour allowed to creep in. People on longterm benefits living in nice areas while those working have to move out because they cant afford the rent. Single parents with a clutch of kids being paid more than than a family in full time work.

They were spending money we didnt have, and nurturing a sense of entitlement that manifests now in threads like these.

There really is no argument. Benefits need to be cut and thankfully they are being cut.

PortOutStarboardHome Sat 30-Oct-10 16:46:09

Loudlass is getting nearly 20k in benefts. To get that you would have to earn about 27K (is that right?).

Then add on her husbands income of 16K = 43K. How can that be fair to people that work? There is no incentive to get people to work when benefits are that high. It is the system at fault here.

redflag Sat 30-Oct-10 17:13:46

Benefits have never been higher, because the price of things have never been higher, and we have a duty to make sure people in Britain don't starve to death!

For god sake do you want to live in a country where more people are homeless and starving to death on the streets!

I bloody don't! I want to live in a place where people are looked after and not everyone out for themselves.

Well done Tory's, As a mums netter said the other day " Pull the ladder up Dave, we are all alright"

ccpccp Sat 30-Oct-10 21:42:06

"For god sake do you want to live in a country where more people are homeless and starving to death on the streets! "

So 20k housing benefit limit is now 'homeless and starving to death on the streets'? Ha ha!

Food has gone up in price, and so have housing costs. Wages havent gone up in line though have they? So when the earners in this country have to start going without and cant live in rich areas, then the entitled non-earners sure as shit need to tighten their belts too.

"Well done Tory's, As a mums netter said the other day " Pull the ladder up Dave, we are all alright""

Brilliant stuff. Are we going to get 4+ years more of this from the MN left? Loving it. Dont worry - you'll get used to being ignored in opposition, just as the Tories did. It gets easier

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 30-Oct-10 23:12:57

Paying somebody £20k a year from tax payers money so that they can stay home is wrong. Before you had children if you could support them, bar child benefit, then labour came along and threw money at people to buy votes. This enabled people to have children without financially supporting them, live in expensive areas as somebody else was paying the rent etc.

Thankfully the Tories want to go back to the old way and believe those that work should never be worse off than those that dont. Benefits should be a last resort, either short term inbetween jobs or there for those physically disabled where they cant support themselves in any job.

I wish they would just scrap tax credits and raise the personal allowance. That way people cant choose to work the bare min hours in order to gain the most benefits and those that want to be SAHM/D's do so only if the family income and not the state can afford that. The childcare element could be re-named or free nursery places given instead.

thesecondcoming Sun 31-Oct-10 00:06:24

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ccpccp Sun 31-Oct-10 08:53:48

thesecondcoming - its ccpccp. On computers you can cut and paste. Want me to post instuctions up for you? wink

I never to throw the first 'nasty'. It normally some muppet class warrior stooge who starts with the 'fuck the tories' kneejerk rubbish when they dont like the facts of life.

You know they need to have some kind of Godwins law for DM comments, they really do.

thesecondcoming Sun 31-Oct-10 09:27:05

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ccpccp Sun 31-Oct-10 10:06:38

You talk as though they are cutting benefits completely thesecondcoming. And that its all happening overnight, rather than over a couple of years.

If mortgage rates go up then a lot of people are going to be fucked. But unfortunately thats what mortgage rates do - they go up and down. You either take this into account when making buying decisions, or you get burnt.

Benefits arent there to bail out poor financial planning, any more then they should be there to bail out poor family planning.

Of course plans dont always work, unexpected shocks happen. The benefits are still there in those cases, just a bit lower than the are today. Labour made benefits too generous.

thesecondcoming Sun 31-Oct-10 10:22:17

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

rodformyownback Sun 31-Oct-10 10:28:24

Thanks Loudlass for starting this thread. The voice of reason. Can't bear to read the entire thing as I know there are so many Tory voices taking over that will make me feel small.

After reading previous threads I've come away feeling like a dreadful scrounger for claiming what is available, even though DH and I are both employed!

Ccp - I don't claim HB because I own my home and pay a mortgage. DH and I bought our home last year and can only afford the mortgage due to low interest rates and falling house prices. Do you think we should have stayed in rented accommodation (in which case we would receive partial HB now) or taken the chance? Or perhaps you think we should both be sterilised for the crime of not being rich?

ccpccp Sun 31-Oct-10 11:48:09

"cut the amount paid NOT TO THE BENEFIT CLAIMER BUT THE BUY TO LET LANDLORD"

Which is exactly what they are trying to do. Do you think all these poorly maintained houses, priced at the maximum allowed under HB rules, will get the same money from someone who isnt on benefits?

Of course not. And so landlords will be forced drop their prices or improve their properties. This is good for everyone.

In areas where prices dont fall, HB claimants will have to move to more realistic properties.

"DH and I bought our home last year and can only afford the mortgage due to low interest rates and falling house prices"

If you can only afford a mortgage when interest rates are low, then you shouldnt have bought the house. Why? Because you cant afford it if rates go up. And they will go up at some point.

pastyeater Sun 31-Oct-10 13:40:26

So 20k housing benefit limit is now 'homeless and starving to death on the streets'? Ha ha

No a 20k limit isn't homeless and starving on the streets.They are going to cut HB by 10% if a jobseeker fails to find work.Considering Jobseekers allowance is only is only £64.30 per week making up the difference could lead to struggling to eat and to pay rent.I know some people think you can easily find a job within 12 months,but for some this won't be realistic.Some will have multiple barriers to employment,like I have already explained.Call me a muppet class warrior if you like but I don't think this is a 'straw man' argument.I don't deny some benefits are too high but why also cut the ones that are too low.?

Anyhow, this 'workshy turkey' is to lazy to continue clucking about christmas.grin
Though I don't know how you call someone workshy without knowing their employment history or current cicumstances.

Anyhow my original post still stands.OP you are not a scrounger. You are doing your best to get a job against all odds.Therefore you deserve every penny.wink Best of luck with the job hunting.smile

thesecondcoming Sun 31-Oct-10 15:46:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheGhostlyPirate Sun 31-Oct-10 16:07:52

But HappyMumofOne - if they cut tax credits I would be on my knees financially. I work the bare bones of 16 hours a week which allows me to meet the needs of my son who is disabled. Without the tax credits I could not do this and would end up NOT working.

The way things are have enabled me to meet my son's needs while continuing to work - it's not easy and there are times when I wish I could be a SAHM but I don't do so because I want to continue supporting myself enough to pay the rent and council tax. Tax credits are the only benefit I receive at the moment.

Is it so impossible to understand that some of us do NOT work the bare minimum just so we can live off of everybody else? Many of us have valid reasons for doing the hours we do.

broughthimroundtotheidea Sun 31-Oct-10 16:11:00

This subject really get under my skin. £384 a week for staying at home ?!?!?! I drag my arse to work for £240, that is so unfair!! and to the people talking about how they could afford to live in their means when they were both working and earning 70k between them, I ask this .....if you could have your time again would you have saved some of that money for hard times or spent it all and then claimed benefits? We save £400 quid a month for our emergency fund just in case the worst happens, rather than fall back on "what we are entitled to".

thesecondcoming Sun 31-Oct-10 16:41:12

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ccpccp Sun 31-Oct-10 16:54:29

Why wasnt your house covered thesecondcoming? Thats surely candidate for a buildings insurance claim.

If my family was hit by reduncancy or illness then we would have to rely on savings then benefits till we found our feet again. No-one is taking benefits away - simply pinning them back to more realistic and fair levels.

thesecondcoming Sun 31-Oct-10 17:15:35

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

broughthimroundtotheidea Sun 31-Oct-10 18:08:55

I'm not preaching "love" I asked a question to which you gave a valid answer that your savings have unfortunately been swallowed up. Which is shite and I wouldn't have been able to pay that much had the same thing happened to me.

thesecondcoming Sun 31-Oct-10 19:13:17

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 19:34:12

But if you'd lost your house, you'd be able to rent - you wouldn't be homeless.

We've never been able to afford to buy.

sarah293 Sun 31-Oct-10 19:44:02

Message withdrawn

TethHearseEnd Sun 31-Oct-10 19:44:24

Well I for one am sick and tired of people claiming what they're entitled to having such a sense of entitlement.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 19:44:29

Am astonished by amount that loudlass claims monthly - my DH is a higher-rate taxpayer so we stand to lose our only benefit - child benefit - shortly. I also work, and always have done, the second my maternity pay finished, I had no choice. I'd love not to, or to work less, but we couldn't afford for me not to work.

Yet, on the figures that lodlass has posted, our monthly take-home pay, after housing costs have been deducted, is virtually identical, £ for £, to what loudlass receives.

Yetshe doesn't work - an is viewed as 'poor' - whilst I work from home, every nght, long after kids are in bed - and are viwed as 'rich' and not in need of our child benefit.
It's all bollocks - incl loudlass claiming she can't afford a holiday on her meagre benefits. We have a holiday every year - nothing pricey, camping etc . But I guess she must have a pricey smoking and/or drinking habit if she can't afford one at all.

As I said - our incomes match hers more or less exactly - though I work damn hard to earn mine, and appreciate it's harder for her to earn hers. We also have 3 dcs.

If I can afford a holiday, so can she.

Given my taxes pay for benefits, I don't mind her claiming if that is what the state says she is 'entitled to', but I would really, really like her to stop moaning about the fact that some people view those amounts as high.

I'm so, so tired of the hours we have to work - maybe loudlass could try some old-fashioned gratitude that those like me who work every minute of the day are paying for her and the hours she gets to spend with her dcs/posting on mumsnet. sad

sarah293 Sun 31-Oct-10 19:47:37

Message withdrawn

MumNWLondon Sun 31-Oct-10 19:49:49

OP, its not your fault but its too expensive to live in this country. Benefits are required to top up the minimum wage, because as you have pointed out, its impossible to bring up a family on the minimum wage.

There are lots of reasons for this, one of them is that house prices are too high meaning that housing benefit is required. And yes perhaps the minimum wage is too low. However if it was much higher I'd have to give up my job as I wouldn't be able to afford childcare and the cost of nurseries etc would become much more expensive.

To answer your question about the difference between you and a single SAHM is that your DH earns and pays tax so another way to look at some of the benefits is him getting the tax back, the same result could be achieved if benefits were reduced but everyone could earn £16k per year tax free.

thesecondcoming Sun 31-Oct-10 19:52:01

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

spikeycow Sun 31-Oct-10 19:54:03

That's just great TSC. I can't imagine going from being a homeowner to filling a landlords pockets sad. Hope it never gets to that stage

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 19:54:32

No, Riven, I'd like them to stop moaning that they can't afford a holiday and are so hard done by. When they earn as mucg as I do, but without actually working for it!

I'm happy for my taxes to support those who can't work - but she has epilepsy not the plague.

I work from home and am largey self-employed - it's not been easy, but I accept that I have to create work that fits in with my lim,ited availability. Just giving up and saying 'no-one will give me a job' is all very well - maybe she needs to try to lokm at what she can do and not at what she can't.

sarah293 Sun 31-Oct-10 19:58:17

Message withdrawn

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 19:58:35

Lucky you, spikeycow - lots of us are unable to graduate from 'filling a landlord's pockets' - we just get on with it and make the best of it.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 20:01:42

Whycan't she go on holiday?

Her take-home after housing costs is identical to mine.

If I can afford a holiday, so can she.

Ad yes, I agree, epilepsy must be v hard, and it must make it much harder to get a job.

But then, so does having 3 small dcs - I managed to slowly get part-time home-based work, through self-employment. It wasn't and isn't easy and I certainly don't make a lot. But epilepsy wouldn't stp her doing what I do - just lack of initiative and frankly need -why work when the state will give you what we earn anyway?

spikeycow Sun 31-Oct-10 20:02:04

I'm on a low wage paying 1250 a month to my landlord. It makes me sick that I have nothing left over

spikeycow Sun 31-Oct-10 20:03:50

I meant can't imagine because I'd much rather be secure as a homeowner, once I got to that it would be awful to lose it

TethHearseEnd Sun 31-Oct-10 20:03:53

granted, did you just equate epilepsy to motherhood?

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 20:04:41

Sympathies, then. Similar here.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 20:05:30

TethHearseEnd -no, I didn't.

TethHearseEnd Sun 31-Oct-10 20:06:42

"Ad yes, I agree, epilepsy must be v hard, and it must make it much harder to get a job.

But then, so does having 3 small dcs[...]"

Oh, right, OK then.

I must have misread.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 20:10:05

Yes, you did.

Epilepsy is an illness. Motherhood isn't.

However, both situations make it harder to get jobs - I certainly know of several jobs I've not got because they didn't want someone with childcare responsibilities.

That doesan't mean that motherhood is an illness.

It does mean that people who are viewed negatively by employers for whatever reason have to try that bit harder.

Unless they're on benefts of course.

TethHearseEnd Sun 31-Oct-10 20:11:29

Can I ask then why you didn't just claim benefits? You seem to resent working so hard...

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 20:13:08

Because I'm not a lazy cow?

Because it would never have occured to me in a million yearso live off benefits?

And before you get up in arms, no I don't think the OP is a lazy cow - I know well enough that even in perfect health, parenting 3 dcs is bloody hard work.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 20:15:32

All I ask is not that she ceases to claim the benefits - she seems as reasonable a claimant as any - just that she stops complaining about it!

That is the only bit that is really annoying me about this thread.

She gets benefits. Good.

Can't she just be happy with the luxury of that, insteasd of syarting a thread to demand that everyone agree how justified she is???

TethHearseEnd Sun 31-Oct-10 20:18:25

Well it seems odd that you wouldn't claim what you were entitled to just to make a point when it is making you so resentful.

So you are not a lazy cow because you don't claim benefits but people who claim benefits are not lazy cows?

I'm sorry, you've lost me a bit.

Perhaps you could do with a rest. Have you thought of giving up work and claiming benefits? I hear people are living the life of Riley off the back of taxpayers' hard work. Maybe you should give it a go?

prettyfly1 Sun 31-Oct-10 20:19:58

Oh granted that is a horrible attitude - because I am not a lazy cow. You can try and say you arent aiming that at the op but you clearly are from everything else you said. Work from home jobs are limited - I say that as someone who built a business after working full time as a single parent and doing a degree to get there. Sometimes it is just ridiculously hard to get a job - the worst recession in sixty years for instance and judgemental snotty attitudes from people who find it easy in their shoes doesnt help. Yuck. If you feel so strongly why dont you offer some practical advice.

OP I find it difficult to hear how much you get in benefits, as it takes you to the same level of income as me, when I work ft HOWEVER that doesnt make you a lazy cow - it just suggests that something is very wrong in the system right now - and by that I mean income levels, not the right to a semi decent standard of living for a family.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 20:24:11

I would claim what I was entitled to.

But i'm not entitled to anything other than child benefit - which will shortly be removed because we're too 'rich' - even though we will then be worse off than the OP who doesn't work and whose OH earns 16K a year.

Nowhere have I suggested that the OP should not claim what the system allows them to - though I personallythink the benefits system provides peverse inentives. But not the OP's fault.

As I said, I would never choose to give up all work and live on benefits, because I believe that would set a terrible example to my dcs and because I firmly believe that all those who can contribute should contribute.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 20:27:27

prettyfly - no, I definitely don't view the OP as aazy cow - as I said, bringing up 3 dcs is and should be a full-time job in itself.

I do view the OP's need ti start a thread demanding respect for her financial position extremely irritating, though.

Incl all the phoney stuff about not being able to afford a holiday.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 20:30:17

prettyfly1 - totally agree with you that "it just suggests that something is very wrong in the system right now".

Not the OP's fault, I agree.

imgonnaliveforever Sun 31-Oct-10 20:42:43

YANBU to claim benefits which you are entitled to. "benefit cheats" are people who claim fraudulently. Regarding single SAHMs, obviously they are no less entitled to claim benefits than anyone else. That said, I think it's good that single SAHMs have benefits reduced once younges childr reaches school age. I can see why people get annoyed at benefits funding SAHMs until youngest child is 16, as most mothers don't have the luxury of remaining as SAHMs til children are 16.

broughthimroundtotheidea Sun 31-Oct-10 20:43:28

Here is another question to throw into the pot...........what would everyones opinion be if the op had another child when already needing benefits to pay for the ones she currently has?....discuss

thesecondcoming Sun 31-Oct-10 20:48:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 20:52:52

Well, everyone has the right to breed.

But the reality is that only the rich - or those on benefits - the have the right to eat. wink

broughthimroundtotheidea Sun 31-Oct-10 21:06:31

No I don't mean only the rich have the right to breed, take for example the op's situation, 3 children already, family income supplementented by wtc tc and housing benefit. Should they get an increase in benefits if they choose to have another child?

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 21:09:22

Tricky one - in terms of incentives,no they clearly shouldn't - in terms of 'choosing' - not everyone chooses, sometimesit just happens, and is it then fair to punish the child?

Fact is, the govt cares not for 'should' they're going to cut benefits whether or not they should...

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 21:22:55

Am I right that the OP is expecting another? - as jusy seen on another thread?

If so, her earnings through benefits will soon shoot up way over what us poor higher-rate taxpeyers could dream of earning.

broughthimroundtotheidea Sun 31-Oct-10 21:38:52

Indeed, and that is not the system that is flawed, it is abuse of it. You are right in what you say that not everyone chooses and sometimes things just happen, but I thoroughly believe less would "just happen" if the cut off for increasing benefits was capped at 2 children from now on. I am not saying that in the case of families that are already larger than that their money should go down, as, as you rightly say that would harm the child but from now on if you choose to have more than 2 children they need to take into account that they would not get an increase in money. I made sure we didn't try for more children when we were in a redundancy situation.

granted Sun 31-Oct-10 21:47:24

Well, that is what is happening in terms of the 26K cap.

I agree - there is one law for those who pay their own way and one for those who rely on benefits. Those of uswho pay our own way have to live where we can afford - none of the hoohah about thosewho work being 'socially cleansed' from London as there is currently about those who depend on LHA. Our children have no minimum room numbers or sizes. And we can only have as many childen as we can afford - or accept that all of our quality of life goes down if we have more.

That seems wrong to me. If we accept that all children have the same rights, then we should top up everyone's income to live where they choose, pay for everyone to have unlimited children, in suficiently large accomodation.

But of course the country would be broke in 5 minutes.

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 31-Oct-10 22:18:34

"Here is another question to throw into the pot...........what would everyones opinion be if the op had another child when already needing benefits to pay for the ones she currently has?....discuss"

It would be wrong but thousands do it. Whilst some families have to ensure that they can afford a child/children, have the room etc other families dont give it a second thought and know that the state will increase their benefits due to an extra child.

newwave Sun 31-Oct-10 22:30:12

The Tories will always denigrate the poor and needy, they always have and always will. Even looking at Osborne you are aware that he does not have a decent bone in his body.

As for the LD puppets, it makes me feel like vomiting that i vote for those back stabbing scum bags, I expect the Tories to screw all but the rich but not the LD's.

ccpccp Mon 01-Nov-10 07:39:49

Getting your benes cut, newwave?

sarah293 Mon 01-Nov-10 08:10:17

Message withdrawn

huddspur Mon 01-Nov-10 08:20:59

"Here is another question to throw into the pot...........what would everyones opinion be if the op had another child when already needing benefits to pay for the ones she currently has?....discuss"

This would be very wrong in my opinion, to have another child knowing already that you are dependent on the state is just taking everyone else for a ride.

I do think some people are being very harsh on the OP epilepsy can be extremely debilitating.

sarah293 Mon 01-Nov-10 08:30:59

Message withdrawn

huddspur Mon 01-Nov-10 08:33:26

I don't think that Riven but the OP already has children that she knows she will have to rely on welfare to pay for so having more would be irresponsible IMO.

granted Mon 01-Nov-10 09:01:42

Agree, Riven - "vile thread" - no idea why the OP felt the need to start it.

granted Mon 01-Nov-10 09:24:07

"by your reckoning then, someone who can never work shouldn't have children? Bit harsh that."

The OP already has 3 children - I'm not aware of anyone who has objected to this. So her not having children at all isn't the issue. The reality is that life is harsh for those not on benefits too - we all have to cut our coat according to our cloth, sadly.

I'd love to live in a society where every woman could have as many cildren as they wanted and be paid by the state to look after them until they were of school age. I think that would be ideal.

BUT it's not going to happen any time soon. With the economic situtation as it is.

That being the case, we have to decide whether it's fair that taxpayers who work and maybe don't feel they can afford more than 1 child, say, or no children, should have to pay for the OP to have 4? Isn't that rather harsh on them?

sarah293 Mon 01-Nov-10 10:52:28

Message withdrawn

granted Mon 01-Nov-10 13:39:48

No, I'm not. I work far too hard!
Of course I'm envious of those who get what I have but don't work.

But I wouldn'y have started a thread on the subject - the OP, however, did - because she wasn't happy with what she was getting, in terms of respect. Or cash.

If the OP is going to see fit to complain on a public forum that her tiny benefits won't even buy her a holiday, she has to expect to be picked up on that by others whose 'huge' earnings are identical to hers in cash terms and who manage to have a holiday out of it.

I'm not the one who started a thread to complain I was hard-done by, remember.

broughthimroundtotheidea Mon 01-Nov-10 14:55:51

I am not envious ! I have self respect and the knowledge that everything myself and my family has is what we have earned.

granted Mon 01-Nov-10 15:35:45

Well, you're a better woman than I am then.

When it's 11 at night and my OH is asking me to stop working so he can ge to sleep, night after night, and when I've just spent all half-term working and not with my dcs, because we need the cash, then yes, I admit to envy of those who don't hav to work to keep their head above water. Esp when paid for out of my taxes.

Maybe that makes me a deeply bad person. Or maybe just human. And very, very tired.

newwave Mon 01-Nov-10 16:31:38

ccpccp,

Getting your benes cut, newwave?

Not at all as I dont get any, kids to old and and my DP and I earn to much and the mortgage is paid off. Other than the VAT the cuts will not affect my family greatly however unlike some others I have a modicum of sympathy and concern for the needy and poor who will have their lived made even harder by the Tory scumbags.

Then again some posters dont understand what empathy means do they ccpccp.

sarah293 Mon 01-Nov-10 17:13:37

Message withdrawn

thesecondcoming Mon 01-Nov-10 17:29:42

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CardyMow Mon 01-Nov-10 17:40:18

So I don't want to work, and motherhood is no greater barrier than Epilepsy? After having my 3rd dc, I went back to FT work when he was 8 weeks old. I lost that job once I was diagnosed with Epilepsy as my job was one that I am barred from BY LAW if I have had even ONE seizure after the age of 5 yrs old! Never mind 50-odd seizures a year. I have also combined a PT job fitting it in around my DP's work shifts in the past - until the shop closed down 3 yrs ago. In the past 3 yrs, I have applied for over 200 jobs. Because (until Oct 1st this yr) I had to by law disclose that I had epilepsy, I didn't even get invited for ONE interview.

I think you can see by that that Epilepsy is a MUCH greater barrier to employment than motherhood. Now that I don't have to declare my epilepsy, I might stand a chance of getting a job.

Having another baby was NOT a choice. I have been asking to be sterilised since I was diagnosed with Epilepsy, but my PCT deemed that I was too young and refused me. Despite the fact that my epilepsy medication means that at best any hormonal contraception is only 85% effective. I have always had VERY strong views on abortion, it just wouldn't be something I could do, to me it is murder.

I have to say that NO I do not have an 'expensive cigarette or alcohol addiction'. I gave up smoking, and strangely enough, alcohol and epilepsy medications do not mix well, so I am teetotal! I also have 2 out of 3 of my dc with additional needs, my youngest has 2 different muscle problems, AND chronic asthma, and his school is 1.9 miles away. I have to pay bus fares to get him to school as he is physically unable to walk that distance. That alone costs me £44 a week, so no we can't afford a bloody holiday!

I wasn't posting this thread to 'crow'about my income, I was being honest as I feel that some of the sentiments on MN at the moment are, to be frank, pretty disgusting when it comes to people that claim any form of benefits. I was really asking where all the empathy had disappeared to on MN.

And I hasten to add, if I hadn't been diagnosed with epilepsy, then right now WE would be in the situation where I would be a HRT payer, DP wouldn't, and we would have lost our cb. If I was still in that position then I would feel a little aggrieved, but we would have managed OK without it (just). Right now, without the tax credits, and the housing benefits, we would a) be homeless as we wouldn't even be able to afford to rent a bedsit on DP's income alone, and b) wouldn't be able to afford to get the dc to school because I can't magic £44 a week out of thin air.

sarah293 Mon 01-Nov-10 17:51:46

Message withdrawn

ccpccp Mon 01-Nov-10 18:13:56

I have concern for taxpayers newwave, and they are being taken for fools. This gives me the moral high ground.

The left are going to need better arguments than 'Tories are scum' to win this one I think.

granted Mon 01-Nov-10 18:22:31

Feeling bad now - agree your epilepsy LL and Riven's situations are tough.

If it makes you feel any better, our children's school transport costs £75/week.

So still think you could find enough for a cheap holiday in there somewhere. And wasn't suggesting you were trying to crow about your benefits - would actually have minded that less. It was the fact that you didn't seem to appreciate them that annoyed me.

It's all bloody irritating.

Why is the cost of living so outrageously expensive????

ccpccp Mon 01-Nov-10 18:28:24

Why dont you get disability any longer, Loudlass?

sarah293 Mon 01-Nov-10 18:28:39

Message withdrawn

thesecondcoming Mon 01-Nov-10 19:18:35

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ccpccp Mon 01-Nov-10 20:32:31

You do talk shit thesecondcoming.

A bit less pompous? wink

usualsuspect Mon 01-Nov-10 20:39:18

I don't pay my taxes brigade out in force on this thread grin

tethersend Mon 01-Nov-10 20:47:01

Helloooo fucking moron number two grin

We meet again.

usualsuspect Mon 01-Nov-10 21:02:48

Nothing on my big TV to watch, Tethers grin

thought I would spot how many said 'I don't pay my taxes' ,kinda lost count though

Tigerbomb Mon 01-Nov-10 21:06:56

My two children are now grown up, I have just bought a house (cheaper because it is a fixer upper), my husband and I both work and earn 40K between us. We both work in the private sector so as far as I know we are not looking at redundancy at the moment and we do not get a single benefit. I will also add that I have a serious health problem that means my mortality could be seriously limited
BUT
I do not begrudge one single penny of my taxes being spent on those less fortunate then ourselves. Not even on the so called work shy.
Yes there are those that abuse the system, but there are far more out there that, through no fault of there own, are unable to or cant find work.
I would rather my taxes paid for all to have basic decent standard of living then to have one family suffer.

Yes I appreciate some cuts have to be made, but make them fair to all

tethersend Mon 01-Nov-10 21:39:29

Actually, on reflection, I think I want my taxes to be spent on flocking.

Yes, I'd like Britain to be flocked.

I don't pay my taxes so we can all sit here in unflocked housing.

Another example of Broken Britain if you ask me.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now