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

*shouldn’t be an option sorry

@ItsBritneyBitchhhh it was obvious from what I wrote!

Because most of these posters who claim they know someone who "milks the system" doesn't know Jack Shit about the person they're talking about.

There's always an element of "Oh, but I don't mean you, when the reality is, you don't know me at all.

Why does being a single parent mean you need to pick your kids up from school? Most couples both work FT and use wrap around?

So you think somebody should be able to work part time (when they could absolutely work full time, no disability or caring duties) and the state should fund this as a lifestyle choice? And if I disagree that’s controversial?? Really??

Well yes, but unfortunately, certainly under the tax credit system, a fair number of people "gamed" the system by setting up "fake" self employments, to justify working the required number of hours (16 I think) despite not actually earning any income from it, such as market stalls, ebay and websites, etc. They set up the simplest possible "business" and engineered it so that they broke even or made just a small profit, and as long as they could "prove" the 16 hours, they got tax credits at the maximum amount due to the low profit/income!

I had a number of clients who did it and they were very upfront and honest with me as to why they were doing it. They had no interest in getting a "proper" job and working for people, having to work fixed hours, shifts, or whatever, and a part time "hobby" business was ideal for them. The most popular type of "business" was selling sweets at car boot sales or indoor market, i.e. buy large bags from the wholesaler and sell them in smaller bags - a very simple business, low upfront investment (less than a hundred pounds to buy enough large bags of sweets to give a decent range of products to sell), time consuming enough to "prove" 16 hours, make just enough "profit" to cover the market fees, travel, etc. Other people did similar, buying cheap "tat" from wholesalers to sell!

It's why we now have the "minimum income floor" where benefits are based "as if" a business earns the owner the minimum wage for the hours they claim to work, as a direct response to the abuse of the system.

Compared to the millions lost through legal and non legal tax evasion, claiming benefits that you’re not entitled to is pretty small fry so no, I don’t care enough to be bothered by anyone who does this.

There we have it. Benefit fraud is OK because tax fraud is bigger!

Two wrongs don't make a right you know!

A COUPLE has two incomes coming into the house no? There’s money to pay for wrap around care.

If you’re a single person who doesn’t work in a high paying job, you suggest that they work full time (don’t have UC top ups) and then use probably half or more of their wage for wrap around care? Ok😂

And your first comment literally proves my point. The OP asked why we can’t have conversations like this on MN. The OP spoke about people who claim for the sake of it. Here you come speaking about people who work part time and claim UC. This is why conversations can’t be had because someone always comes in with an opinion speaking about other types of people that claim benefits.

Just say you hate benefit claimants and go

Maybe because it's harder to fund wraparound childcare from a single income for a start?

What I have trouble with is people on Mumsnet who earn over £100k are always told to put the extra into their pension so they can still claim benefits such as the 30hours free childcare yet a single mum, working part time and on a UC top up is often subject to vitriol and told to up her hours and stop claiming benefits. It's ok only for high earners it seems.

Because for many single parents, working full time and paying for wrap around care it would make them worse off than if they work part time and claim universal credit.

Because it seems anecdotal, doesn't seem to happen too much anymore and given the low standards in public life and rampant corruption in the UK (eg Tories giving friends contracts for unusable PEP) not that many people really care.

If you want to give specific evidence and turn that into an AIBU that's one thing, but references to 'knowing' people like this is just too vague for a constructive discussion.

That's always the assumption though. I can honestly say most people I know don't claim UC in any capacity. I've known many who do genuinely.
I do know 3 who claim it because they don't want to work (in the case of 2) and another who claims as a single parent because her partner (living with her) can't declare his income (drugs and selling on stolen goods). The first 2 were friends who were very open about it and liked that they could relax at home and not worry about income. The last is very well-known for it and I honestly don't know how she hasn't been investigated as she tells people part of her excuse is agoraphobia and severe social anxiety limiting her work options, while she's out shopping or in the pub. 😂

I would just change it full stop so that at 18, benefits were time limited. You could only claim for a limited period and thereafter you would have to be in full time work to claim again. Contributions based benefits would eliminate these issues.

Pensioners and long term disabled excluded. No healthy individual should be subsidized by the state for part time work.

That's how it is in other developed countries

People with caring responsibilities. People with poor physical/mental health/disabled people for whom work is beneficial, but who can't manage it full time.

Exactly this! For higher earners they’re given pointers like the example you’ve given to get the most out of the system for their benefit. For a single parent, if working full time and paying for childcare makes them worse off that working part time and claiming UC to top up their wages then I fully support them to claim the UC.
People seem to forget that it’s the children in the family that usually benefit most from this. Why would anyone want a child to grow up in a home with less money just because they think it’s not right to choose to work part time and claim UC?!

🙄Well it is an option and it will not change.

Because MN are trigger happy shutting down threads at the moment. It's lazy and stifles intelligent debate. Just remove the offensive posts not the whole thread.
Idk why we can't talk about those that abuse the benefits system on here. We all know the sort the OP means not the people on here objecting about being lumped in with the workshy. Remember Benefits Street? A whole area where everyone happily claimed benefits instead of working? Why can't we talk about this? How this happens? How lack of aspiration perpetuates across generations etc etc

people don’t have a problem with high earners legally dodging tax or whatever because they’re already paying large amounts in.

in simple terms it’s less galling when somebody puts in £20 and takes back £5, than somebody who puts in £5 and takes back £10

I know people who struggle, and I know people who do play the system. Frankly you can’t blame the latter because they are only doing what makes economic sense. Eg having a partner and a job does not get you s council property (round here). No partner, no job + more than one kid and you’re in. What was supposed to be a safety net had the effect of making getting married and working a barrier to getting your own home. My cousin was on the waiting list for 8 years. When she left her partner she had a very nice house in months.

My Mum became a single parent, she worked part time and was in receipt of benefits to “top up” that wage. If she’d have worked full time and had to pay more childcare we as children would have been the ones who went without.
Now, as adults, we are all in full-time employment, have been since finishing our education and all pay tax, one of my brothers in the higher tax bracket due to being a high earner. I’d like to think our contributions over our lifetime will pay back what my Mum claimed through our childhood. I don’t understand why anyone would have wanted us to have less money in our household when we were growing up because they think people who choose to work part time and claim UC are somehow milking the system. They’re entitled to do this because of how expensive it is to work full time and raise a family as a single parent.

Unless you are paying higher rate tax then there's no way you contribute to the tax system; it's higher earners that keep the system going.