"Strivers vs Skivers" - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

Prompted by a blog post this week from MN Blogger Sonya Cisco, and this opinion piece by BlogFest panellist Zoe Williams, for our first blog-prompt of the New Year we thought we'd ask for your thoughts on the current debate around benefits cuts.

According to both Sonya and Zoe, politicians have deliberately encouraged us to think of people as either 'skivers' or 'strivers' in order to pit people on low incomes against one another -  and to divert attention from the fact that the economy simply can't provide enough jobs.  

Do you agree with them? And if not - why not?  Post your URLs here if you blog - or, if you haven't got a blog (why not? ) do tell us what you think here on the thread.

[JakeBullet]

I agree with this idea to a point bit am not well versed enough to know the ins and outs of it. A hearing it's a Green Party idea....must go and look.

[swallowedAfly]

am i right in thinking that these third generation families would be found in areas where employment got wiped out by the death of the manufacturing industry and the dirth of anything replacing it? would these be the same areas where there was a not so subtle push to transfer people on to incapacity benefit to fiddle the unemployment figures.

not to mention that long term unemployment, lack of status, poverty and lack of a sense of involvement or purpose in society can and does lead to depression and other health conditions which would lead to an increase in IB claimants anyway?

whole towns have been literally 'depressed' - economically, in status, in community and life. def not something to be jealous of or want to stone the people for

[morethanpotatoprints]

SwallowedAfly

I can only speak from my experience but yes you are right in your thinking. I agree there are very few not stuck in this trap that would want to swop lives. I live in the NW and in some areas this has been the case for the past 30 years. I only refer to pockets though, a few communities. I think these are a minority in society and not the masses that the Daily Mail readers seem to want to believe exist.
My own philosophy is the some middle class people are guilty of their wealth when others have so little. They try to hold themselves up by convincing themselves that the poor who can't find work or have given up hope are the dregs of society.
The town I lived in was like this, I managed to get out because my parents were better educated, although I wasn't.

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

So, there's a banker, a DM reader and a benefits claimant and they sit down to share ten . The banker takes nine and then turns to the DM reader and says, 'Careful! That benefits claimant is trying to take your !'



I haven't read the blog post but I completely agree with the opinion in the OP, it's divide and conquer and we should be vigilant and ready to resist it and stand together. The cuts are harming the health and well being of loads of vulnerable people at the moment. People are worrying about how to afford to eat or keep a roof over their head. We have thick snow and people who can't afford to put their heating on or get their boiler mended ... some of them are working, some are not.

We are being sold a big fat divisive lie and it should be named for what it is every time it crops up.

extra for smiffy
and another one
one for luck

[ThisIsMummyPig]

Xenia - who is going to be dealing with all the identity fraud? A growing area of benefit fraud and very difficult to pick up on and investigate.

Actually though, I don't disagree, and its not so different to what they are doing with the pensioners.

[PeneloPeePitstop]

It's funny how they scoured the nation trying to find these families with multi generational workless ness and only found..... Five.

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

Let's not forget that in the 80s and 90s the government was actively trying to move people from unemployment benefit to incapacity, to make their statistics look better (as SAF said)

And people don't generally get more healthy as they get older. Nor, indeed, do they get more employable after years out of work.

[BoffinMum]

With one exception, the only people I know of who have lots of children, decide not to work, and maintain the setup on benefits are religious people, who argue that they need to devote the whole day to religious study. However that is too inflammatory for anyone to debate.

[Gemd81]

I am going to find it really tough with the child benefit being cut because the new policy only looks at the highest household earner - which is unfair and discriminates against women choosing not to work and bring up their baby - even though my work would not accommodate a part time role I am being penalised for wanting to bring up my child. All along there are a family next door to me earning more jointly an being able to claim child benefit - David Cameron stop being so anti women staying at home and at least make it a level playing field!
NEVER voting Tory ever again!

[Gemd81]

Always really the middle earners being penalised the most - people on lower paid jobs have higher disposable income because benefits not fairly handed out - big vote loser mr Cameron - duh!!

[swallowedAfly]

for those who are assuming people on lower incomes and benefits are better off and middle earners are the worst squeezed...

i earn a pittance and with the changes to housing benefit (whereby most councils are having to decide they won't pay full benefit for anyone and will stop it at lower levels of income due to govt changes in the way it's funded) i will no longer be entitled to any housing benefit or council tax benefit.

for those not working and on benefits - re: the unemployed, the disabled, pensioners who are topped up with benefits will now have to find a portion of their rent and housing benefit themselves from their frozen benefits along with inflation, souring fuel prices etc. their 'disposable income' will be shrinking significantly.

the working poor are getting lower percentages of childcare paid and have had the hours they must work in order to receive working tax credits increase whilst funnily enough employers are not going here, have a few more hours seeing as we've got so much work to go round.

seriously it just isn't true to say the middle are most squeezed.

we (as in those of us out here in the real world who don't get bailed out of our debts from tax funds or get a full pension after 3 years work or tax payer funded 'expenses') are all being squeezed.

[swallowedAfly]

let's face it in this country now the most 'squeezed' are the sick and disabled who are literally being squeezed to death.

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

Gemd81 if your husband earns enough to make you lose CB perhaps you should look at living within your means before you complain about being squeezed.

£60k a year is a lot of money, we would live like kings if we had that. But then we have had lives of going without to learn the value of money.

£60k a year and worrying about £20 per week....something is going wrong in your budgets surely?

[JakeBullet]

Then again £60k a year if you live in an area which is expensive is not much any more. Lets not forget that many people plan around their income and CB might be an income they included in their figures when making decisions.

[wannabedomesticgoddess]

Then move to a cheaper area.

Im sorry but its really infuriating to hear high earners tell low earners they should live in cheaper houses etc but not apply the same logic to themselves. It happens all the time on here.

Drive a cheaper car, have less holidays, live in a cheaper house. Yes house costs are high, but they are high for everyone, not just high earners.

[JakeBullet]

That is true wanna. I am pretty much anti the CB cut simply because its often the one payment a woman gets and if she has to leave (domestic violence etc) it's just a bit of help until other benefits can be sorted.
I agree though that many moaning also say those of us not earning so much should move, downsize, cutback etc.

[ssd]

gemd81's post says all there is to say about tory voters:

my husband earns more than 60k a year
I want to receive child benefit anyway
I don't want to read the thread and comment an all the posts about the disabled and vulnerable people who'll suffer terribly after these cuts being made
I just want to discuss my own comfortable standard of living and ignore anyone else less fortunate
I'll threaten to never vote tory again!!!

really gem, really

[Iggly]

Who are these mythical middle earners?

I certainly wouldn't put someone on an income of £60k in the middle.

Average household income with two working adults is around £40k.

£60k makes you minted. Earners on this should recognise that fact even if you don't feel like it.

Me and my DH are higher earners and we only recently have to worry about money because of a few disasters. However we are in a good position where we can cut back quite easily.

Imagine living on the breadline, having to count the pennies, worrying about feeding your family and then having to cut your costs further?!

[Bonsoir]

BoffinMum - "With one exception, the only people I know of who have lots of children, decide not to work, and maintain the setup on benefits are religious people, who argue that they need to devote the whole day to religious study. However that is too inflammatory for anyone to debate."

I shall not debate it either, but I know what you mean.

[Xenia]

£60k a year is £41k after tax. If you were a single person on that then you probably have £14k to £3k a year in childcare costs if you work full time. Do people now think it's minted to have that much? Add in the fact that person has no housing benefit unlike the poor so has to pay for housing out of the balance. It's not minted at all - it's not too different from the net income those on benefits have for some particularly single or widowed parents.

True that the new £140 a week pension if you pay 35 years of national insurance is a bit like my proposed universal £200 a week for all adults.
I don't think identity theft would be that bad - universal benefits do seem to have worked pretty well without too much fraud - child benefit etc, less fraud than non universal benefits.

On the question of religious groups who pray and live on benefits there are not really very many of them. Even the orthodox jews with 14 children tend to have jobs although a few will not work. Groups like the Brethren who often have a lot of children tend to work. Gypsies tend to be self supporting. I don't think there are that many families in the UK with lots of children in them. It's not our biggest issue at all.

[JakeBullet]

Are these religious folk in huge numbers though...if not then surely they are in a minority of folk who won't ever contribute no matter what? Or is this a bigger problem than I realise....PB by any chance?

[JakeBullet]

Cross posted with Xenia.

[ssd]

to me on an income of £24k between the both of us working, him full time me part time but trying to get more hours, the squeezed middle is the people who might have to think twice before buying a new car and get one a year old, books one week abroad this year instead of the usual two, only manages a few weekends away instead of whenever they feel like it, buy their kids new clothes and visits charity shops for a nosey, not an outfit, has to cut back on their nights out as going out every second weekend is getting a bit expensive now


I'd bloody love to be in the squeezed middle

[ssd]

41k after tax

I'd be happy with that, not on here moaning that I cant live on it

[Iggly]

Xenia, relatively speaking, yes you are. Although point taken on single parents.

We can debate whether or not childcare costs are too high (yes I think they're extortionate) but ultimately if you're on £60k even as a single parent, you're still better off than most.

My point was that £60k doesn't make you part of the squeezed middle. I think a lower income makes you part of that.

Housing and childcare costs are the two biggest disgraces of this country. For example, me and DH want to move as our mortgage is too high. However we'd be looking at stamp duty to pay plus other costs of moving. Yet I won't complain because there are people who are worse off than me.