AIBU to think some people's sense of entitlement is unbelieveable!

[Starbuck999]

Was at a friends' house for coffee arlier today. One of her friends was also there who I have met before but only on a few occasions.

Normal gossip; home, partners, kids, work etc. Friends' friend (let's call her X) says she can't believe income support is changing so that those with kids aged 7+ will no longer be excluded from having to look for work. (I know it's been lowered to the age of 10, but she's heard it's going down to the age of 7). She has a son who is 8 at the moment and she was genuinely disgusted at the thought of having to now look for work. She was saying how difficult it is to raise a child alone, clean, cook and work(she is a single parent) and how there aren't many well paid jobs at the moment, not many that fit in perfectly with school hours etc.

It annoyed me. I too am a single parent with a 6 yr old dd. I work full time and have done so since dd was 2. It IS hard work, I AM shattered, I have HAD to arrange childcare, JUGGLE my working hours and homelife etc - but I feel glad that I am working to provide for my daughter. I explained to her that it isn't easy but it is very much possible for almost everyone, exceptional circumstances omitted of course. I told her she wouldn't have to work full time, would get tax credits and help with childcare costs etc if she works just 16 hrs a week. "Well then what's the point" X then said "I'd be no better off" I didn't have the patience or the time to explain to her that the point is she would be working and not relying on benefits to pay for her and her child. That working shouldn't be an option, benefits should be there as a last resort, not an easy one.

This isn't a bash at those on benefits (been there before) or single parents (I am one) more a little whinge about the rubbish attitude of some people.

So, AIBU to think that she (with one school age child) has no reason not to work?

I am NOT 'lumping together' everyone.

I am expressing an opinion about citizens who expect to be supported by the state, no matter what their lifestyle choices.

I am critisising (and judging) people who don't work and have no intention of doing so because the benefits system in this country is so absurdly generous that thousands of immigrants come here in order to claim from it, and millions of indigenous citizens have such a nice life style that all incentive to contribute has been lost.

disgraceful, and at the basis of the delinquent society we find ourselves living in today.

If my opinion makes you feel bad, then I am sorry, but I would ask what you feel bad about ? That a person on an anonymous forum says something you find unpalatable? or that in fact I am closer to the truth than many would be prepared to admit ?

Wow Horntail- you managed to squeeze in immigration, delinquency, poor spelling and 'absurdly generous' into one post- surely that deserves some sort of prize?

Although I don't pay my taxes so they can fund so-called 'prizes', you understand.

Listenandlearn, I'm the one who said you shouldn't have kids until you can afford them but at no point have I compained about childcare costs.

Oh and DH pays more in tax each month than I earn as a teacher! However, I don't resent a portion of it being used to support the most vunerable in society, however they got there.

Two reasons. Firstly, I believe it's the mark of a decent society to do so. Secondly, I'm just grateful not to be one of them. So much of life hangs by a thread and can turn on a coin.

"There ARE jobs, just not ones people want to do. They were too lazy at school to get qualifications and too bloody lazy now to do the only jobs they are qualified for."

Wow. That's a blanket assumption of everyone on benefits, isn't it. Sorry, but I can't take seriously anyone that makes these types of stereotypical assumptions.

Of course, it couldn't be other logical things that might stop a person from taking a particular job:

• unsociable hours (which affect not only available childcare but also transportation cost and availability for those who use public transportation)
• inflexible work hours or days that may conflict with childcare or school
• pay and hours low enough that they actually pay more for the childcare than they earn
• no suitable, affordable, or available childcare within feasible range of home and work

I have to agree with listenandlearn - some posters are judging people for having children on benefits saying they shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them, but yet we've had lots of threads recently where some of these same parents were complaining that CB or tax credits will be cut for higher earners and they claim they need the money. Shouldn't they be following the same advice? If you can't afford it without the government subsidy..... but then there are shrieks of "but that's different..."

If there isn't one already, I think we need to start putting these types of threads in a special "hi I'm a snob and want to judge people based on appearances even though I hardly know them" section of MN. It seems like the self-righteous brigade starts one of these threads about twice a week now... it's getting old....

Stats please, horntail. I find your ideas are far from "the truth" actually, so would ask you quantify them with facts. Thank you.

I think you'll find immigrants and assylum seekers are unable to claim and those claiming legitimately are not in receipt of excess income to fund lavish lifestyles. Those claiming fraudulently do, but not those following the rules.

Oh Christ, it's another self-righteously belligerent Tory cyborg

You resent paying tax? Tough shit. Adequete regard for the welfare our our poorest citizens is a clear benchmark of the level of civilisation a society has reached.

The fact you feel more comfortable immersing yourself in a crude manufactured climate of ultra-capitalist selfish purism does not make you entitled to look down on those in poverty and declare them unworthy of subsistence.

YOUR "sense of entitlement" is nauseating.

That's it, greensleeves- we should campaign for a self righteous topic.

Each thread could start with "I don't pay my taxes so that..."

Or we could call it IDPMTST.

Or something.

arch,well you and hubby must be on a very good salary with what you said about tax,good luck to u i mean that

is there ever a right time to have children,maybe if you have had a good education,good parental guidance basically a steady upbringing,for some they will always be on low wage etc should we discriminate because there never going to earn big bucks,or will rent and not buy,the list is endless

i would never encourage anybody to concieve while on benefit its hard you are judged but it does happen,maybe if people choose this longterm lifstyle (i hate that word)its because they really havent been given opportunities or know about how others live there lives

plenty of small towns were thrown on the working scrapheap years ago by gov and thats probably were youngsters have never known any different

i think there is a bigger picture to all societies ills i happens over years and largeley ignored by sub gov

nothing is ever black and white

I think YAB a bit unreasonable. She wants to stay at home and lok after her child and she should have that choice. Not made to look for work. Yes I know schol age children are at school. But there are often times when they are ill and also young children can get very tired after school and just need to go home. I actually found all my children needed me much more in the first year of school than they actually did the year before.

Sanctimoanyarse- love the name btw- it's lack of wanting to take care of yourself I guess. I stayed at home til baby was 8 months and that was long enough. How anyone does it once the kids are at school is beyond me. I prefer earning my own money even if it topped up a bit by tax credits coz its a low wage.

Before I found myself a single mum I had never received a handout in my life and didn't do so out of choice- no matter what the Daily Mail say I dont think many people claim anything out of choice.

I'm sorry if I've got anyone's backs up I know it isn't easy to get a job when you have small kids- I got mine back coz I had a mate or 2 who put in a good word for me, and no matter what I think of my job I'll be forever grateful to them.

Not sure you got anyone's back up prozac, don't worry about it.

WRT to the waiting until they ahve enough savings thing someone was saying (sorry can't scroll easily, DH disassembling a sofa around me LOL) and waiting until 35, isn't that precisely the opposite of medical advice these days? I knew I wanted my family complete before I was 35 becuase I didn't want to up risks of disability- as it was we had a genetic syndrome anyway so am doubly glad we didn't push it. And whilst ds1 / ds2 / ds3 all in my late twenties took one cycle to conceive, ds4 in my early thirties took me 18 months.

Oh when DH and I were both working, and now when he is, we never even once begrudged payiong taxes- not once. I cherish the welfar state of this country and am glad that no child needs to be raised in absolute poverty.

And greensleeves and tethersend wrt to the benefit basghing topic- hear, hear!

I think what alot of people agree but don't dare say on this thread for being flamed is that there are many single mums, or jobless people who actually have chosen this lifestyle. Nobody can deny that. There are kids gowing up whose only 'job' is to have kids andbeing given a house and everything which the government provides. It is an easy life. Sorry but it is.

There are jobless scum out there, they couldn't give a shit if you or I worked, as long as they are getting paid.

Nobody on this thread should be able to deny that.

BUT - I also don't think that anyone on here has a negative word to say about those who have been made redundant, disabled or carers, left abusive partners, widowed, or been left holding the baby so to speak. This is where it always kicks off because the people in the second bracket feel they are being victimised, which of course they are not. Nobody can deny their rightful need for benefits. Good god, it could happen to any of us tomorrow.

The OP asked about this mother who had no wish to work and support her child, that is the difference here I think.

Well then what's the point" X then said "I'd be no better off"

Yuk, yuk and double yuk to this attitude.

If she really thought about it then she'd look at it as a blessing, its encouraging her to get back in to work before its really too late and no one will even consider her. i.e. when shes not worked for 16+ years.

What makes me sad is when people look at the wage they will start on rather than the prospects. I mean, yes she probably wont be any better off to start with when shes on minimum wage but if she works hard she could double that by the time her child's at secondary school... no ambition.

RedArsedBaboon, great post. The genuine claimants always feel targetted when no one is targetting them.
It is quite clear that OP is talking about the lazy minority. They are a minority but they are still there.

Actually, I found it appalling for two reasons:

1. She states she doesn't know this woman well. How on earth can she claim to know everything that goes on in this woman's life? And how can we agree with her when we don't know her either? This woman was simply a friend of the OP's friend, a passing acquaintance. There could be a number of other factors that the woman didn't feel willing to share with someone she didn't know that well. And to be honest, I wouldn't feel like explaining myself to someone who had just given me a misplaced lecture either.

1. This occurred while she was at a friend's for coffee! I would never go to a friend's house for coffee, then presume to lecture one of her friends that was present about her financial situation and my opinion of it. How unbelievably and incredibly rude!!

Then to come on here and act all self-righteous about it and expect everyone to nod their head condescendingly. God, some people are beyond belief.

thank you foureleven - I think this is the whole point. Nobody is getting at those in genuine need, ONLY those who just don't want to get off their lazy back sides.

So, the government desperately needs to weedle (sp?) those scum out and get them into work, whether they like it or not. There is far too much being given to them so they have no intention in doing jack shit about it. Put yourself in their position the man on the right hands you a wedge of money, the man on the left expects you to do something before he gives you that wedge of money. Easiest option obviously, is go to the man on the right.

I have no idea how it can be recitfied but something needs to be done. Think of all the money that could be better spent on nhs, education etc etc.

That is where I would prefer to see the money go.

RedArsed- only agree to an extent

I don't think there are lots of people in that class of feckless people (I do not argue there are none, that would be silly); my direct experience in this sector and groewing up on the estates teahces me that most people have a very complex back story that at least explains if not excuses tehir lifestyle. I repeat not all, I know that, but most.

And yes carers etc should be seen as separate but there's dual issue here- as I have said before on this thread the harder the hammer used to bash the feckless (and the tighter the financial situation) IME directly translates into people making random judgements against the otehr groups too, and treating all claimants as some soty of homegenous mass. Also, on a practical note, it is widely accepted that changes to DLA in 2013 will mean a great many famillies find themselves in a sutration where they can no longer claim DLA / Carers but unable to work; the system being proposed currently fails badly with less visible difficulties with ESA, and will with DLA, but it won't make people any mroe able to access childcare or work. A case in point in DS! who ahs AS, eating disorders etc- he looks and appears NT until he loses it and attacks you, or trashes the house. He will clearly pass a test constructed of things such as 'can you pick up that item' but would be a danger in a childcare establishment (even if tehre were any after 11, which there are not, and he needs 24 / 7 supervision).

That's not just my worry BTW: plenty similar on SN thread and NAS (national Autistic Society) have published material related to this on tehir website.

So I predict with narrowing of criteria other benefits more npon choice claimants will end up the seemingly-feckless 'lifelong IS' category.

Makes me (almost) glad I have a more severely and obvioulsly autistic child to 'protect' my non-feckless status. Not that I wouldn't taake a job in a heartbeat for a cure, of course.

Triggles, do you think that people dont exist who have a skewed sense of entitlement when it comes to benefits? Do you really think everyone is deserving?

I havent read all the thread but do I gather that someone has said they dont like paying taxes..? Wow, now thats sad.

What if you ever needed them???

Yes, education to give children ambition and break bad cycles is whats needed.

I have met familys who are in their 3rd generation of benefits claimants.. Theyre brought up with the sense of entitlement and no sense of responsibility. They had a real attitude about 'rich' tax paying people being snobs and thought they were a different breed.

I'm sure there are some people that feel they are entitled, however, I take offence at lumping everyone on benefits into that category. And I think the OP made vast assumptions about that woman without really knowing her, which was what she based her entire OP rant on. And I don't think it's our place to make judgement on who is deserving and who isn't. That is what the benefits office is for.

Perhaps I'm just tired of all the benefits bashing that has been going on here lately. I suppose it's a symptom of the financial crunch everyone is in, but that doesn't make it less ugly.

Not a clue about the taxes comment - nobody LIKES paying taxes, they are, however, a necessity.

i love the idea of saving up to have children, it costs approx £100,000 per child over 18 years ,so if you want 2 children ,you would need £200,000 in the bank .also better save some money for ivf ,just incase it has taken you till 50 to save the £200,000 .

I dont know triggles, I do like paying taxes. Who was that who famously said 'I like taxes, with them I buy civilisation'?

But I think if you do pay them, its fair enough to question sometimes when you feel they arent being spent wisely.

Absolutely it's fair to question fouerelecen; i do so frequently

bUt at a polirtical level, not by confronting people (as in op) or making judgements about people whose stories you can't know

When DH was amde redundant years ao there was no way i was telling anyone that yes he'd had 200 interviews but his MH was so poor (very severely unwell at the tiime) that nobody was going to hire him until he became well, was I? Why would I? Personal pride over rules a lot of the 'justification' thing.

Thers a thred running atm about being poor by someone called skinters; amazing how many people on that do the whole ehad high and don't let on thing and that emans even if you knew they were claiming you would not know why

Sanc - your post about the DLA etc changing is worrying for those in that position. I would hope that they look at this very carefully before they make such changes. I would rather more government money was sent in your direction and others, and if the system was looked at properly, there would be a whole lot more coming your way rather than lining the pockets of the idle.