"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.

The problems I see are:

Childcare is expensive before three, often ridiculously so.

Employment is poor, there aren't jobs there at the moment. People are losing them faster than employment opportunities are being made.

Minimum wage is not a living wage, this shown by the top ups given in forms of tax credits.

Housing is too expensive and there aren't enough decently priced housing opportunities, so councils are overloaded and end up paying private rent rates in benefit.

There may be some issues with the state benefits, but adjusting them at this time was wrong I thought, perhaps when the economy is better and people had more opportunity to work in living wage jobs where the majority of income doesn't disappear on rent and childcare as it does now, perhaps then it might be time to look at something different, but I certainly then still wouldn't have started with the most vulnerable disabled adults and children, and I'd be making sure carers got paid more for their input.

My employed Carer gets £10 per hour. £7.50 after deductions. I worked out as my daughter's carer I get about £10 per day on top of what I get normally, and that is a twenty four hour day as she needs care throughout the night and day, I sleep a bit now that she goes to school, but it worsens my condition and the money to make it more bearable is laughable. Every single bit counts and I am glad for, obviously, but it does show that carers aren't actually appreciated for what they do.

correct me if i'm wrong but say an economy produces X amount each year and the top 2% of capital owners take out percentage X of that per year that leaves a certain amount to dissipate through the rest of society. the more that top 2% takes the less there is to dissipate. then if you agree on a poverty line that no one should fall below the gradient of how much people at various levels (other than the 2%) has to fall within what's left. if the top 2% takes a huge percentage there is very little left to spread over everyone else and that gradient will have to be pretty shallow (does that make sense?).

if the top 2% weren't taking vast quantities out there would be far more to be dissipated, keeping people at the bottom above the poverty line wouldn't be such a huge proportion of what was left and the gradient could be steeper - re: a far more marked difference between those who don't work/are disabled/are poorly qualified etc having markedly less than those on the other end whilst still being above the poverty line.

the problem surely is the percentage taken out by the 2% in this example. if they take too much, get too greedy, not only is there less money out in the spending economy (bearing in mind the 2% hoard and save theirs, not spend it) but there is less spectrum of wealths for the remaining masses.

sorry that was really poorly worded - does it make sense?

if i have a small amount of sweets to share between five people and i've decided they all have to have at least 5 then no one will be able to have much more than 5. if i have a huge amount to share between ten people i can give some way more than 5. the gradient steepens.

i really believe that it is the greed of that 2% (to coin a figure) that crushes us all. if they took less we could keep people off the poverty line and still have enough left over to make sure people who worked hard or achieved well could take out far more than those who didn't (something like the mythical meritocracy) - that can't be achieved when only the small change is entering the system whilst the very few vampircally suck out too much before it even hits the ground.

For anyone to say that people on benefits have more disposable income than those earning £41k after tax is so offensive its unreal.

People on benefits are often living in poor housing, spending a fortune on pre pay meters for electric and gas, the houses are hard to heat because they are poorly insulated. The landlords are a law unto themselves and the housing isnt secure, unless you have a LA or HA house. And even that isnt a guarantee of a settled life as those areas are often hotspots for anti social behaviour.

Private rental prices are now so far above the LHA rates that Im sure a lot of people are having to top up their rent.

Its not a lifestyle choice either. There is no choice right now because jobs are so few. Want to start a business on benefits and be a bit entreprenurial? Dont bother. Your JSA goes down to £50 per week for 6 weeks and they might give you £1000 towards set up costs. I havent a notion what happens to HB etc but what business can be started on £1000 and pays a wage straight away? People have families to support. And when you already have nothing you cant afford to take even a small cut.

Its a trap. Claimants are trapped and then the rest of the country blames them for their own situation. Companies went bust and they lost their jobs, but yes its all their fault and their lives are so much better than that of someone earning £41k after tax. Really? Jesus!

Right now we are sitting here trying to decide whether to spend our last £5 on coal, electric or petrol ffs.

For anyone to say that people on benefits have more disposable income than those earning £41k after tax is so offensive its unreal.

Why? It is true in some instances. Say you were widowed with a v large mortgage and childcare for two or three children. It's entirely possible (unlikely but possible).

I think there was a study last year that showed people earning between £10K and £40k had v similar disposable income due to loss of benefits over £16K and the cost of childcare that comes with a £20K plus job.

Well said Wannabe, I had never had a prepayment meter before living in this property. As it happens the electricity one suits me as it is not responsible for heat or hot water. The gas one though I got changed immediately for a credit meter.

Fact is that the prepayment one while okay is definitely not the cheapest tariff and its not so easy to switch companies either.

I have already said previously that I was far better off on £30k a year despite having to pay my own rent, council tax etc. I have for less disposable income now...it's freezing and only because I managed to overpay the gas slightly do I feel relaxed about having the heating on.

Still think that the NMW is too low...why on earth can you be better off out of work than in work? That says it all to me.....and many jobs which ARE available are NMW.

ethelb I had far more disposable income on £30k a year than I have on benefits. It's not comparable at all.....yes childcare costs are an issue but if you need to claim for childcare costs then it must be debatable about whether or to work is worthwhile financially. Obviously I understand that there are more than just financial reasons for working.

.....and actually while I think about it, it's the working poor who will ironically suffer the most.

The problem is not benefits. As Jake says, its that the NMW is too low and right now the government are undermining it further with the workfare schemes.

If you bring home 41k and you have less disposable income than someone on benefits you need to seriously reconsider your choices.

Just because you can afford a large mortgage on paper doesnt mean you can in practice. Same with the car or holidays.

People earning that much choose to buy these things. People on benefits and in low wage jobs have no choice. That is the difference.

Is it me or is it ridiculous to compare disposable income. It depends on outgoings and standard of life doesn't it?
I know some people who manage quite well and others up to their neck in debt and whether they are earning 20k or 100k doesn't really come into it. Neither does working/ receiving benefit have any bearing.
Personally we are financially better off with me not working and receiving Tax credits and cb, because our out goings are relatively low. However, if we wanted material things, childcare etc I would have to work to fund these things. Mostly its down to personal choice as well.

Yes it is ridiculous morethan but people on here seem to think being on benefits is a life of riley compared to their £60k a year pittance

Xenia never claimed that beign on benefits was the life of riley.

However, there does seem to be a lack of awareness on MN about a) just how much people on higher incomes pay in tax and b) just how much you need to pay for childcare if you are to get a higher paying job

it is laughable isn't it? and yet they say it straight faced so they presumably DO believe it.

as a single mum with a disability my total income including hb and everything else was 12kpa from which everything - rent, council tax, food, bills, clothes, nappies, etc etc etc had to come. my rent was just over 5k and my council tax just over 1k. that leaves under 5k with which to pay for all fuel and water bills (at least 1.2k per year when you're in all the time and have a baby to keep warm so now we're down to 3.8k), food, nappies, clothes, bus fares etc etc etc.

it is plain fallacy to suggest i was better off than if i'd been earning 60k a year. maybe if i'd had 5 disabled kids and my rent was extortionate it would begin to be slightly nearer but christ knows i'd rather work than raise five disabled kids on my own. i would definitely rather live in my own home than in a private rental that a landlord had me over a barrel with because he was one of the few who accepted housing benefit and would accept a single mum and kids.

seriously it's just not reality that people are talking.

I don't think anyone on this thread was trying to compare disposable income, per se. I think what was raised (perhaps by Xenia) is that the disposable income people have and their income after key costs does vary depending on whether they are getting benefits or not.

For instance a family living on 20k with 3 kids in a metropolitan area may be entitled to additional benefits in the form of ctc, cb, ctb and housing benefit. All these things add up and means that the family might be on par with the same family who on paper have a higher annual income but aren't entitled to as much and therefore have to pay for or pay more for housing etc. These are not actual figures, just examples. So a sahm with a husband making 60k and 3 kids, no longer entitled to CB and not getting HB and council tax benefits etc may find a lot of their money is going to housing, cost of living and their disposable income isn't much. I do think this is the case.

The fact that some families are subsidized by the government in different ways skews the way we look at income and makes it impossible to compare a salary of 20k against 30k because you're not looking at the whole picture. Look at the amount of money LEFT after housing, council tax, childcare, and food then we're comparing apples with apples. If the SAHM on 60k has £500 after paying off these key costs and the other family has £200 only then can we say that the latter family is less well off.

whether your job is high pay or low pay you have to pay for childcare ethel. unless of course you have a wife at home doing it all for free.

for example the average teacher earns 32.2k - a classroom assistant doing the same hours earns closer to 8.5k (not even looking at pension, maternity entitlement etc) - both theoretically need the same amount of childcare.

the sahm isn't on 60k - her husband is.

swallowedafly - don't forget childcare done by grandmothers and aunties, not just sahms. When I lived in Glasgow it seemed about 70% of people left their children with relatives. As I am from N America I didn't have a relative to rely on. There are people who hugely benefit from having relatives close by.

My DD was in full-time private childcare (I didn't know council-funded childcare exist because I couldn't believe it could!) and paid £700 per month. Pretty nice saving if grandma could do it for me. That meant mums on half the salary of mine had better disposable income. Tough.

High earners may have family to do the childcare just as a low earner might.

I have paid for childcare on a low wage. I didnt realise the cost of childcare rose in line with wages

I will say it again. Its about choices.

Everyone has high housing costs, low paid workers have the same childcare costs as high earners. The only difference in these costs is area, not wages.

High earners have a choice. Low earners do not.

@swallowed, yes I agree. But my point was that if I ever got a job that paid £60K I would probably need flexible, wrap-around childcare (ie lots and lots of hours a week) rather than being able to shuffle my hours around (as you can do in some, but not all jobs) or be able to leave bang on time to pick the children up from childcare.

I think this disparity is why so few women reach the top tbh.

ethelb retail jobs are low paid and require wraparound care. Often last minute overtime (usually unpaid).

You havent yet described an issue that only presents itself to high earners.

I never said I was going to @wannabe. I never said there were situations that only presented themselves to high earners.

I seem to be making you quite angry, why?

SwallowedAfly.

I see what you mean about the childcare but surely, then its about living within your means. I had a teaching job that paid me as little as a TA and yes I have a PGCE. There is no way I could afford childcare and there was no chance of gaining more hours. I gave up work and became a sahm as it was ludicrous working for minus money, by the time work expenses had been deducted. People tell me I'm lucky because I don't have to work not realising that if they themselves didn't run 2 cars, high mortgage, childcare expenses they too wouldn't need to work.

You arent making me angry at all.

But when you are sat in a freezing house with two kids job hunting daily and getting nowhere it starts to get a bit tiring to come on here and read about people earning so much complaining about it. Also sick of hearing we are skivers and scroungers.

I want to start my own business. I need £1500 for start up costs and theres no way I can do it because I have children to feed and a house to keep. If DP hadnt lost his job I could save and start it. But thats impossible now.

Its offensive to hear how difficult life is for someone earning £60k. They havent a fucking clue.

but @wannabe I never claimed that someone on £60K doesn't have more choices than someone on less.