why is it a taboo to ‘ benefit bash ‘ on mn ?. See below for context.

YANBU, same as tax evasion when MN'ers seem to think it's fine for tradesmen to do "cash in hand" work and not declare it "because of Starbucks", likewise they condone pop stars, footballers, and other slebs who play the system by using tax avoidance schemes, "living" in tax havens, etc "because of Amazon".

because as you said, the people like that are vanishingly few, and massively outweighed by those of us who are here because of the hand life has dealt us.. like in my case, i'm a single mom with a disabled child/teen who i am a paid carer for (PiP/Carers Allowance & Tax credits)

I think it's because they're so few. Majority of benefit claimants being people who work that get lumped in with them

It never stays about just bashing those people though does it, everyone ventured out into slagging off those who don’t manage to get higher paid jobs or dare to have children without being high earners. So it’s bound to result in people wanting to shut it down because it never sticks to what you are talking about.

Because it perpetuates unhelpful stereotypes and leads to people lumping all benefit claimants into a group and calling them scroungers.

Why do you feel the need to do this anyway, what's lacking in your life?

ArtixLynx is right. There are a few people for whom benefits are a "lifestyle choice", but they are few and far between. There will always be people who abuse any system. Tax dodges, MPs and expenses etc., etc.

But benefit bashing is always good for a bit of scapegoating, which is usually the context on MN.

The only thing that annoys me is people who choose to claim UC so they can work part time! Shouldn’t even be an option

You also don't know that the people you judge to be those types are actually those types.

This is exactly what I’m talking about @Aprilborne it invited loads of posters who don’t bash the unemployed by choice, and then it creeps up to everyone on UC that does work too because people just like to hate those on benefits.

I agree with this! Have you ever seen a thread on MN stay on topic and only see comments relating to the original post? Rarely because that’s how discussions work.

It can start off being about topic A but give it 20/30mins and you’re already on topic F. So yes people can have an opinion on those that just don’t want to work and claim benefits but that really is a small minority of people.

When these threads are started, does the OP (and the people commenting) even know more than 3 people that claims ‘just for the sake of it?’ I strongly doubt it. These threads always go left and all of a sudden, people are talking about why Jane down the road has had her third child when she’s a single parent just to get money for that child. When UC only pay towards two children now!! Those threads are goady because usually people are chatting out of their arse

So you would prefer they didn't work at all? Because many people work part time for legitimate reasons.

I don't think it is much of a taboo.
Every time someone posts for advice aout benefits a whole lot of people jump in with their opinion: not on what the OP is entitled to (which was usually the question) but on what pp think they deserve.
Its hard to think of another financial issue which would prompt this response.

I think it's also because there are working people getting benefits, who "choose" not to work more hours because their benefits will be cut or they'll lose free prescriptions, etc., even though they "could" work more, take promotions, etc.

That's not blaming the benefit claimant, it's the system that's at fault, especially when there are thresholds over which you can lose the majority (80% or so I think) of the earnings for those extra hours when you bear in mind loss of benefit plus income tax and NIC on those potential additional earnings.

I think it's a fair point. Housing benefit is one of those elements that needs to be considered. It's subsiding landlords and those who can't be bothered to work in line with their abilities. It's not based on need imo

"Subsidizing"...

See this is literally what I mean!

I’m a single parent to two children (I have two under two). My youngest has a rare genetic disorder which is an intellectual disability. He’s under the care of physio, OT, paediatrician, neurologist, dietician, ophthalmology and is currently waiting to start SALT and portage.

I’m his career so technically don’t have to work. I work three days a week to bring more money into the household because we simply can’t survive on UC. Is that okay with you? Or should we just struggle because you don’t think someone should be able to work PT and claim UC? Not everyone can work full time due to responsibilities. My son has up to three appointments a week and no job would allow me to constantly take time off for his appointments.

And this is a perfect example of why these threads never work. You, OP have spoken about people who take advantage of the system. Another poster comes along putting their two pence in speaking about people who work part time and claim UC. Do you see what I mean? These threads never stay on topic and people who mind their business just end up getting dragged down for no reason

To be clear -I am only talking about those who abuse the system, make it a ‘ my benefits’ way of being .

How do they achieve this @Aprilborne ?

@ItsBritneyBitchhhh i clearly meant when it’s a lifestyle choice rather than caring or being disabled

There's an active thread now about this by someone nobly not claiming benefits. Turns out they wouldn't be entitled to benefits anyway! It's not normally acceptable to work part time and claim uc unless you have young children.

Like what?

We all want to be the one to pick our kids up from school, have time to catch up on housework, have a bit of ‘me’ time. But if we all went part time and relied on UC then the whole system would blow up

Why would you want to bash someone? There is a group of people who in this modern age are basically unemployable. There is massive tax fraud which costs many times benefit fraud why would you choose to bash people who basically have a pretty small and sad lives limited by poverty. What does it achieve?

@Coffeeandbourbons quite clearly said those who choose to work part-time. Those with cering responsibilities are obviously not choosing to do so. They're talking about people who do it for no reason other than preferring PT work.

You didn’t clearly communicate that though did you? You said that it shouldn’t be a choice to work part time and claim UC.

So what about single parents who have no help when it comes to childcare? Should they not be able to work three or four days worth of 10-2 shifts so that they can drop and pick up their child from school? I’m sure if someone chose to remain unemployed you’d also have an opinion on that

I think a lot of it is the bleeding heart liberals that tend to populate MN, who actually live in very MC bubbles and not next door to the types you mean.

For example my neighbour with six children who never intends to work, and who pops out a new kid with whichever local drug dealer will shag her about once a year. Her children all have varying degrees of disability so she does actually rake it in. The older children look after the younger ones while she focuses on the new boyf/baby.

These types absolutely exist, but we’re supposed to pretend they don’t.

HOWEVER I know that her life isn’t one to envy (obviously) and it doesn’t happen in a vacuum, her own mother did the same and there is a poverty of aspirations cycle going on.