Fed up of my cousins comments about benefits and UC

Crikey, simmer down love. Touchy much?

I stand corrected re where and when you grew up (although I am now even more astonished you can't seem to distinguish socialism from communism), but I stand by the rest. This is a discussion forum and disagreement is part and parcel of discussion. If you perceive disagreement as an 'attempt to silence', that's not my problem. The guess you've hazarded re my posting habits is incorrect, and you're welcome to try to point out where I've attempted to 'deflect' or 'derail' on this thread to any greater extent than you've been doing, because you won't be able to.

Yes, I've shown derision towards your statements on here and I stand by that because I think they are ridiculous. If you don't want people to do that, it'd be helpful to express yourself in a more reasoned manner.

Some people on this thread are laughing at some of the views you've expressed because they consider them to be laughable. If you're going to make sweeping statements (some of them based on the opinions of some random American friend fgs?!) and not bother to back them up, you run the risk that people may do that. If you want your opinion taken seriously, you need to express it in a reasoned way. And 'nothing to say' because I chose to express derision for a viewpoint I consider derisory? OK, then. chuckles quietly to self I really don't think I'm the one who's 'desperate' to prove any kind of point here.

We would all judge you favorably that you’d managed to find one they’re like hens teeth

Probably a male poster!

I don't know how it is in the UK, but my adult daughter is on disability in Canada and it's not enough to live on. So she lives with me. It works out well for us as we are company for each other but I know she would love to be more independent.

So you're saying anybody who has had a child with more than one man is
what exactly? Are you slut shaming by any chance?

Gosh this is very judemental don't you think? I have a DC that is 10. I would like to think nobody would judge me if I were to meet a loving kind man and decided to have another baby. Some people need to think before commenting on threads...

@MuckFusk yep, I do understand the underlying reasons in lots of cases - I’m not sure though what the heck the solution is - what I will say is it will come home to roost for some the minute their children hit adults and the add ons and any maintainance stops- there then becomes a very big difference between working and not . Benefits for single people with no kids are incredibly low level unless getting add ons for disability etc

Shriek and froth, yes. Shriek with laughter that you have absolutely nothing to say and are desperately trying to demean me in an attempt to silence me. 😂

I'd hazard a guess you're in the habit of projecting, using ad hominems and attempting at all times to deflect, derail and demean because you have nothing to add.

Oh, and not that it's your concern (at all) because people can (gasp horror, write a comedy sketch about it!) have insights and intelligent observations to make whatever their walk in life, I grew up in the late 70s/80s in Scotland.

If you assume that's a lie, that's just more projection I'm afraid.

You've nothing to say, so don't bother . 😂

I don't disagree with you there.

I see comprehension isn’t your strong point.
There was no suggestion that self-employed people were deadbeats. It’s about risk analysis and the risk is too high for me personally
You do you, Hun

@MuckFusk I ask myself the same question, but the thing is for ‘some’ it all comes down to hard cash and if you are low earning and in some cases not actually that capable of bettering yourself and like lots of time to yourself and around your family , ‘some’ are not hugely worse off by not upping the ante , especially if they have children , are renting in a cheaper area or social housing , sometimes getting maintenance on top of full benefits or high levels of benefit and in some cases getting other allowances on top too - I remember once playing around with this on entitled to , as had a worker who seemed very intent that only ever wanted xyz number of hours due to benefits and indeed as a single parent she was very little better off overall working 28 hours than she was 14 - so I couldn’t really blame her. I’m not saying she wouldn’t be better off but it worked out about £30 week . Clearly the £30 week wasn’t enough to be that tempting - maybe things have changed, this was back in 2017 -

I think when benefits become part of the equation a lot of perfectly decent people do get quite hard nosed about it in relation to working. For those who have never been in that position and often still in couples I think it’s hard to fathom why certain choices kick in that aren’t always the best thing in the long run but you do what is needed for self preservation at the time.

E

@MuckFusk yep I don’t disagree with that too - I certainly think free breakfast clubs and free school meals of decent quality all round would be a good thing - that way there’s no stigma on who is getting and who isn’t . I think socially provided fun holiday clubs - free to all in holidays with free good quality packed lunches provided would be a good thing ( why shouldn’t those who do earn well and often pay considerable amounts of tax get some’free’ too .

it sounds a lot but actually relative to many things that cost far more wouldn’t be that cost prohibitive to do if centrally allocated ( not local council) -
I think it kind of has to be done away from the home so the help gets to the kids - because unfortunately if you did it in vouchers etc for every responsible loving parent, there’s a twat selling vouchers cheap for cash etc .

its really hard to target kids specifically because of course until a certain age it’s very much tied in with parental choice and actions.

@Crikeyalmighty
I think itsall good being a kind and fair person but there are people who simply have no qualms about getting by on other people’s dollar who aren’t disabled, aren’t incapable of work - they simply can’t be arsed to take responsibility for life choices.

They certainly exist, but probably in far lower numbers than many people seem to assume. After all, if you were capable of living a better lifestyle, why would you choose to live the crap lifestyle being on benefits offers? It makes me think there's some kind of psychological problem at play.
In any case, their children aren't to blame and shouldn't have to suffer for it. Short of forcibly sterilizing people or forced abortions, which I'm sure we can all agree would be a horrifying abuse of human rights, what is the solution for supporting the children of the feckless besides benefits?
I would love it if just one person could answer that question with a practical suggestion.
So I'm opening it up to all. Does anyone have a solution which doesn't involve children going hungry/homeless and doesn't violate anyone's fundamental rights?

Absolutely and thanks for the discussion. It was nothing personal, btw. I wasn't talking about you, which is why I spoke of a a hypothetical selfish person who grumbles about people on benefits. I don't know you and have no reason to think that describes you.

@Frazzled83 I’m also originally from a midlands mining town but live in Bath- so I’ve seen it from all sides - and we still rent at63 due to the aforementioned ‘shit happens’ - I’ve known families back in my home town in dire circumstances through crap and others in the shit through their own fecklessness, so I do try to see things from all angles and so I can also see why a lot of middle and moderately high earners aren’t as generous in spirit as you sound. my thing about the real richest you mention is that they have lots of options in life , one of which is not to be here , and whilst plenty will say no great loss if they are paying minimal tax , not being here means zero either , the way certain business etc is structured means it’s easy to minimise contributions - my own view is that we need to tax corporations like Amazon who make sure their tax base is ‘elsewhere’ a small transaction tax on every transaction based on online business done in this country . Same applies to eBay or SHEIN etc or any corporation of size not paying their corporation tax in the UK . Target the corporations ( who won’t leave - UK is one of its most successful markets’ ) - much harder targeting individuals in my opinion

Or Lordy no, I’m talking the top 1% here - the millionaires and billionaires. Trust me, if 20 year old me had known what mine and my husbands combined earnings would be in our 40s she would have been DELIGHTED, but the reality of childcare costs; interest rates and feeding the little monsters means I feel far from wealthy. I know we’re lucky and much better off than many and for that I’m grateful, but I’m talking the stupid rich https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-grab-nearly-twice-as-much-new-wealth-as-rest-of-the-world-put-together/

I absolutely commend you for owning a decision that was the right one for you and in similar circumstances I’m as certain as I can be I’d have made the same choice. But I also appreciate that’s because I had so much opportunity at my feet for further education and career prospects. Not everyone is so lucky. I also had parents who helped me to know my worth and instilled a good work ethic and, again, not all will be so lucky. I went to primary school in an area that was (& still is) very deprived & life has panned out quite differently for me to many of my peers. But I don’t think that’s all down to my hard work, there’s been a lot of luck and privilege as well.

I guess for me, the welfare state when it works well, alongside good education opportunities and other interventions to close the gap (which we haven’t got at the moment sadly) helps people to be more socially mobile as I have been. There will ALWAYS be grifters, but life on the dole is not an easy one and I tend to think well shit, if that’s the best in life you can imagine then daaaaamn life must suck! But I also remember having to queue with my mom to ‘sign on’ and the shame and humiliation she felt around that - all circumstances beyond her control - and I would never ever ever want anyone to feel that for needing help because she’s the strongest most brilliant woman I know. Life was just fucking hard for a bit.

@Frazzled83 I do partly agree with you and partly don’t . As you say many of us don’t have a crystal ball in life and unpredictable shit happens and help is needed, short term or long term , but I don’t agree that all problems are caused by the wealthy - and how do we deem wealthy - assets or income? As to my mind you can Asa family earn £150k or so in the south east and south west and south in general and not exactly be wealthy due to housing and rent situation, alongside higher rate tax etc , often leaving you worse off than others on lower incomes but in cheaper areas.Leaving aside the fact that ‘shit happens’ though and decisions were made at a point when choices seemed sensible , there are a fair amount of irresponsible people who have never not been in the shit but do expect the state to pay for and sort out all their constant fuck ups.im going to be honest and admit I had a termination when I got pregnant with my now H after I had only known him around 9 weeks - neither of us was in a great position at the time housing wise , job wise or money wise and so I felt it was for the best - I didn’t think yay that will get me higher up the housing list in north London etc - I think itsall good being a kind and fair person but there are people who simply have no qualms about getting by on other people’s dollar who aren’t disabled, aren’t incapable of work - they simply can’t be arsed to take responsibility for life choices .

Ok.

Agree to disagree. Go well

I’m absolutely not, these are logical conclusions to what you’re arguing. If parents have absolute financial responsibility for their kids, and they can’t afford them then this is what happens. The fact that you think this is being ‘theatrical’ suggests you haven't the foggiest idea about the living situations of some people. I’m afraid I don’t recall saying anything about Shetland ponies but I don’t recommend you ride one anywhere unless you are very small. They won’t enjoy it.

The fundamental difference in our argument is that you think society is deteriorating because of people claiming benefits. I think it’s because the wealthy are making it very very difficult for the rest of us to enjoy a comfortable standard of living. I think where societal problems are apparent it’s generally more prudent to look to the people with wealth and power as possible solutions rather than the most vulnerable. If that feels like a huge logic leap to you I honestly don’t know what else to say.

Just so we’re clear and understand each other let’s simplify things. Is your argument that people with less money shouldn’t have kids? If so (and so I’m not accused again of theatrics) what are your solutions to:

• people who’s circumstances change going from solvent to struggling (bearing in mind a huge chunk of us are only a few paydays away from being in this position)?
• if you agree there are circumstances where benefits are necessary, who and how do you think we assess who is worthy of money and who isn’t? (the deserving vs the undeserving poor if you like).
• and as I’m being theatrical apparently, you made the argument that people who have kids ‘irresponsibly’ would be less inclined to do so if there was no welfare state. So in these cases, what precisely do you think will happen to the kids who are born to families who don’t have the means to feed, shelter and clothe them without state help? How many generations do you think it will take for that message to get out and what happens to the kids who are already here?
• do you acknowledge that getting pregnant isn’t always a consensual activity? What do you propose in these situations?

IMO if you struggle to answer any of those questions, you also need to acknowledge it’s not as straightforward as you’re making out.

Deflection duly noted. You don't have an argument against the substance of what I said, so you resort to "people won't like hearing that." People generally don't like hearing truths that reflect badly on them. I'm not obligated to make people feel better about their character flaws.

Have you taken a survey involving a representative sample of the population to confirm most people agree with you? Even if you had, just google argumentum ad populum/ bandwagon fallacy to discover why it wouldn't matter in the context of this discussion.

Btw, you have also misrepresented what I said, so there's another lapse in logic. I said nothing about people who "choose to work part-time." That's your characterization, not mine.

A simple statement. What is confusing about it? You call it VAT in the UK but a sales tax, also known as a goods and services tax, is what it is and while a few types of goods are exempt, most are not. So everybody is a taxpayer even without paying a dime in income tax.

People weren't having that many kids back then out of choice

That's what you said, which due to the way it was worded looked like the opposite of what you meant. Apologizes for the misunderstanding.