Mumsnet Talk

I know there have been hundreds of these posts recently, but is this case study typical? Linky is here.

My first thought was that the difference to the household budget, before and after the £26k cap, is going to be roughly the cost of her 200 fags per week habit - a habit which, I reckon costs around £70 per week, I couldn't justify financially.

My second thought was that, if you took away our two cars (needed to get us to work) and their additional associated costs, and the factor in that we pay a moderate mortgage rather than rent in massively subsidised social housing, their outgoings - or crucially, disposable income - look uncannily similar to our own.

I pay income tax in the middle rate and I'm middle class. It's taken me fourteen years of working very hard to get to the level I'm at in my career and my wife and I decided to wait until our careers were firmly established before starting our family and yet, I can still look at this family and think that I'd be better off if I was in their shoes. How can that be right?

What really grates though, is the emotive language used "If they do cut our benefit we are going to have to choose between eating and heating the house properly." Am I right in interpreting that statement as meaning "My wife could quit smoking but she'd rather our kids went unfed or cold"?

It's nice to know that my family is forced, through taxation (backed up with all the threats and force that the state can muster), to go without stuff just so that some unemployed family, who will never thank me for my hard work, generosity and sacrifices, can sit on their arses all day smoking themselves into an early grave.

Get rid of the Sky TV, lager and fags.

That bloke has skills a'plenty; shame he's not willing to do additional training.

This really pissed me off, it's not the fact that the family are on benefits I have no issue with that they are there for the people who need them, it was the quote directly at the end "I see eight people here having to choose between eating or heating." Um no you do not have to choose! you spend £100 per week on fags and booze.

Giving up smoking is incredibly hard. Even with the best evidenced-based support, the sucess rate at 6 weeks is less than 20%.

But anyway, that's by the by. MrPants - do you expect your hard work to pay off in the long term? Can you see your life improving, and that of your family? Do you expect to continue to do well in your job, maybe get promoted and make more money?

You are in a better position than them, and at the end of your life you almost certainly (bar the sort of curve balls that life sometimes throws and could see any of us surviving on benefits, no matter how hard we work) will have more to show for it.

I really don't know why people envy people on benefits. Really, I don't.

I just read that too. The way I'm looking at it is this:

200 fags per week = £62

24 cans of lager = £18

Sky TV = £15 a week!?!?! Why can they not have basic package for £21 a month? You still get many of the music, documentary & premium channels.

Mobile phones per WEEK = £38!?!! You are on benefits. Go PAYG. I have four mobiles in our family and our bill is about £40 a month!

Sorry but in just one short article I can see they can still live inside the benefit cap without sacrificing any basic needs. Fags, alcohol, full Sky and multiple mobiles are luxuries.

And as for the fact his wife is still smoking because the course kicked her off for missing one lesson is just pathetic. If she really wanted to give up, she'd find a way. It's not like there isn't any help out there!

Sigh!
Other than the tobacco , and i cant argue with that one , 200 fags and the large pouch of tobacco is going to cost about £70 a week if they are buying them legit .So if the cap is brought in they could save £3640 a year by stopping smoking. So they would only be worse off by £12.40 a week . If they then gave up sky tv , and swapped to freeview , they would actually be better off by £2.60 a week .

Suzi, I know it's not easy. But if it were the choice between heating the house and smoking 200 fags a week, I know what I'd choose.

It's not envying people on benefits. There is no envy at all. What we're annoyed about is those (such as this example) who appear to be making no effort to find employment, living a fairly comfortable life whilst complaining the state should do more and they'll freeze/starve if they are given less.

Be aware that if she suffers Bipolar disorder then working might be difficult for him. It all comes down to how well controlled her illness is and if poorly controlled then he might well be main carer for his wife and children. It's not a black & white one. Most people don't get 26k in benefits and once my job ends (in a few weeks) I will be on benefits too. I din't earn £26k in work and won't get it on benefits either. If the family in question ARE on this amount I would bet some is in Incapacity Benefit/ESA.

I get what you are saying but the wife is bipolar with anxiety. "just turning up" may be very hard.

I presume he has become her Carer?

I think this example is probably so far from the truth for so many families that it is just Tory propaganda being spouted by the BBC.

If she has bipolar then the stats for her giving up smoking are much worse actually.

niceguy - I was responding to mrpants assertion that he would be "better off" if he was in their position. Yes, in the short term maybe, but part of the benefit of working is that you can look at the long term and I would expect the pants family to be better off in the long term than the family on long term benefits.

Yep! This is a red herring case but if it's based on fact then perhaps be grateful you are not in the same position. I have seen what mental illness can do to families and it's not easy for them to cope.

I don't know what people expect you to do really, if you have some one who is ill within your family and cannot cope or function day to day and you have children, and have no other family support what are you supposed to do if you take into account how expensive care is to pay for

Can I just point out that giving up booze and cigs as a Bi polar sufferer is way harder than it is for Joe public! Dependency is a huge factor in bipolar. Admittedly I've not read the whole report just the comments on here but sometimes it's not as cut and dry as "just give up"

What i dont understand is why he hasnt retrained at any point in the last ten years ? i accept his point that there may be no jobs in his field of expertise , but surely some of those skills are transferable to other areas of IT ?
It's possible that if his wifes MH issues are or have been acute then he has spent extended periods as the main carer for her and the children .
I work and pay my taxes like you OP , i dont recieve any benefits ,unless you wish to count child benefit which you are also recieving . I have in the past had the misfortune to have been a benfits recipient and it was no fun at all .

Whilst i see your point suzikettles...i would question whether or not the pants household would indeed be better off longterm, simply for the fact, that come retirement, and the need for any care, the family in the article will get their needs paid for by the state, and mrpants will have to sell any assets he has to pay for his. Of course i do think that people should pay their way where they can, put i can also see that it really does make a mockery out of anyone who earns anything like an average wage.
I would like to see a cradle to grave costing of family of 4 on benefits for their whole lives, compared to that mr average with a family of 4 over a whole life....including all costs paid to/by state, just so we can all see whether or not the extra work is worth it!

It's not the illness which bothers me although I do note it says they get JSA which seems to suggest he is supposed to be looking for work.

But more the fact they're drinking and smoking a lot. In addition, they are spending way more than they need to on TV & mobiles.

It's not that I begrudge them having anything because they are on benefits but they need to understand that many working families are struggling whilst they can afford top packages on Sky and '...meet up with my mates in the pub and have three or four pints.'

So it's only fair that if the working families must tighten their belts, so should families such as his.

Fags & booze are not essentials, they're luxuries. If they want them, go work for them like the rest of us.

Goes to show that the 26k figure isn't always about inflated rents.

That is a disgusting amount on booze, fags, sky and mobiles.

It's hardly going on the kids is it? And their rent is a pittance.

That's not a 'typical' family on benefits though is it? They have 6 children living with theml, they smoke (a lot) and drink (a lot). The choices they make are rediculous, such as the mobile phone bill. Surely the vast majority of families are more careful then this with their income?

Have you read ANY of the posts re smoking and mental illness?

And as someone who has lots of contact with families I can tell you right now they are buying tobacco and paper and rolling them thin.

The chances of the family on benefits (heavy smokers being one factor, alcohol consumption being another, mental health problems being a third) living long enough to need that sort of care are much lower than mrpants' family - assuming that they're non smokers.

So the pants may not get to pass on their house to the pantalettes, but hey, as the people on long term benefits don't own a property anyway, that's fairly moot surely?

I am sure the cigarette reference in the article is just a smoke screen for the organic ham they are buying and their dirty little kettle chips habit

They haven't exactly selected a good case study to prove hardship, have they? As everyone else says, cut out the booze, fags, sky TV. I'd like to say I could do their shopping for less than 240 quid a week as well, although with teenagers that might be tough.

I think this scenario has been deliberately picked to further entrench the public's opinion that all benefit scroungers are scum who waste their money on booze and fags etc.



I certainly don't doubt that there are families like this out there but it's by no means a typical family is it?

[slow handclap]