Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Benefit Bashing

823 replies

Kendodd · 18/02/2011 16:40

A mum I know and her DP with two children live in a two bed (nice) HA house. Neither of them work and have not worked for as long as I've known them (two years) I don't know about before then. She has told me they are trying for another baby, not to get a bigger house or anything, just because they want four children eventally. I would love four children but can't have that many because for one we just can't afford four.

AIBU to feel a bit pissed off that they can have more children and I can't or am I just a jealous benefit basher.

ps They are both nice and don't have a flatscreen TV.

OP posts:
Normantebbit · 19/02/2011 14:01

Here's Polly Toynbee with some facts

anythingwithagiraffeonit · 19/02/2011 14:02

The fact that I wrote lol?

And that's all you have.

It's lovely to win an argument.

GabbyLoggon · 19/02/2011 14:04

Mrs Hunt please respond to George OrwellHe has taken the name of a great writer;and deserves a response.

It all boils down the the fact that we have a very unfair society. "Gabby"

FooffyShmoofer · 19/02/2011 14:05

What a fucking twit.

Normantebbit · 19/02/2011 14:08

I know everyone's enjoying themselves, but I thought this bit was interesting...

"Next myth: there are growing legions of families where no one has ever worked, Shameless for generations. But here are the facts from the Office for National Statistics, well spotted by Channel 4 News. Long-term unemployment hasn't risen ? it has fallen tenfold over the last decade. In 2000 47,700 had claimed jobseeker's allowance for five years or more. By this year there are only 4,220 long termers. Research by LSE Professor John Hills shows low earners in the bottom 20% move in and out of insecure work in temporary jobs, never getting their foot on a ladder. The growth of agency work consigns willing workers to a life revolving through the jobcentre door. That is not Cameron's "benefits culture": it is a miserable, underpaid culture of outsourced jobs with no future."

ScramVonChubby · 19/02/2011 14:12

Normantebbit on yer bike (sorr, culdn;t resist Wink

Actually incredibly good stats, will save for future use.

FooffyShmoofer · 19/02/2011 14:15

Yes norman I read it. Very interesting. Nice to see something concrete other than the conjecture of the blinkered and ill informed.

MarioandLuigi · 19/02/2011 14:15

Bless you, are you so thick that you think you have one this arguement?

The only thing you have one is the 'who is the smugest person on this thread' - you won that by a country mile.

anythingwithagiraffeonit · 19/02/2011 14:19

I don't think I have 'one' any argument.

This will run and run... I have my views and I think I am right... And I'm sure you do.

How did this get so far from the point? Do you actually think it is okay for people who chose not to work to continue having children?

And you know nothing about me... I'm not smug and I'm not stupid. I just feel completely frustrated by people who can work but don't.

And also petty name calling... Very clever!

Hammy02 · 19/02/2011 14:20

Apparently one in three people are not having children as they can't afford it. Its a shame some people don't seem to worry about who is going to pay for their offspring. Hopefully Cameron will put a complete end to this.

GabbyLoggon · 19/02/2011 14:24

Normantebbit thanks for the statisical info

it helps the debate. "Gabby"

carriedababi · 19/02/2011 14:24

why doesn't anyone seem to care about the working poor either?

anythingwithagiraffeonit · 19/02/2011 14:25

Thanks Hammy..

That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Unfortunately, saving up to have a child is considered 'smug' to some.

Run away before the wolves descend on you! ;)

jenandberry · 19/02/2011 14:25

I don't think there is anything wrong with considering your finances before having children. I had a gap of five years between my first two and a gap of almost ten years between my second and about to arrive third. That is what most of us do.

I think we should support our own children as far as is possible. That is problematic to enforce or even describe. My DH and I have the means to live without any financial support from the state so therefore would not even consider having a child that required child benefit etc.

I would not want to say to anyone who was not able to have children without financial support that they could never have children. I do think if you can work you should do before having children. Tbh that just seems common sense to me. I have been on benefits it is shit enough without endlessly producing children on it.

popcrackle · 19/02/2011 14:27

Good link Norman.

Hammy02 · 19/02/2011 14:37

I find it appalling that people think it is acceptable to deliberately bring a child into the world knowing full well that a stranger (a taxpayer) will end up footing the bill. It is a mad system that allows this.

popcrackle · 19/02/2011 14:47

So come on Giraffe and Hammy how many of these 4000 odd long termers do you know?

popcrackle · 19/02/2011 14:48

Actually don't bother answering, let's not get the thread derailed. Giraffe I don't want any more of your name calling on here and I am sure I am not the only one.

NoSuchThingAsSociety · 19/02/2011 14:50

Hilarious that people are nodding wisely and saying that Polly Toynbee is the helpful provider of 'facts' as though she is some sort of impartial observer.

She is the woman who lauded TB, then GB when the wind blew the other way once TB was no longer popular...who recommended a vote for the Lib Dems and now refuses to see how she might in any way be responsible for the present Coalition Government.

And all this from a woman with a villa in Tuscany and a multi-million pound town house on Clapham Common.

The tribal baiting of Giraffe is the predictable response of the Left - insulting anyone that disagree with their own views. This is the difference between the Right and the Left - Tories are quite happy to have friends that differ from them in their views (Heaven help us, we'd be a lonely bunch if we didn't!), whereas Lefties are more likely to actively dislike anyone with a differing opinion.

As I've already said, if you're on benefits and take a view that supports their continuance, then you are arguing purely from self-interest and can be ignored.

FooffyShmoofer · 19/02/2011 14:51

I find it appalling that people think it is acceptable to deliberately bring a child into the world knowing full well that a stranger (a taxpayer) will end up footing the bill. It is a mad system that allows this.

out of interest to whom does this apply? Is it just for these work shy sroungers you speak of or is it a blanket statement for all benefit claimants regardless?

anythingwithagiraffeonit · 19/02/2011 14:51

What name calling exactly?

Aside from calling you stupid (which is a description, not a name)

??

Any more threats?

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 19/02/2011 14:52

Questions from this pile of stats:
Long-term unemployment hasn't risen ? it has fallen tenfold over the last decade. In 2000 47,700 had claimed jobseeker's allowance for five years or more. By this year there are only 4,220 long termers. Research by LSE Professor John Hills shows low earners in the bottom 20% move in and out of insecure work in temporary jobs, never getting their foot on a ladder. The growth of agency work consigns willing workers to a life revolving through the jobcentre door. That is not Cameron's "benefits culture": it is a miserable, underpaid culture of outsourced jobs with no future."

Job Seekers' Allowance... What is long-term deemed to be exactly? What are the numbers for the preceeding years?

How many people are actually in the lowest earners, perhaps claiming income support instead?

what are the other benefits being claimed by another name? Where are the DLA stats? How many of the DLA applicants decided not to reapply when the new (stricter) rules came in?

I'm all for facts and figures but the statistics, in isolation, are a nonsense. Every politician knows how to manipulate them to say exactly what will look best, hence the vast numbers of unemployed miraculously diminished, only to be referred to as 'job seekers' or some such.

I'm really not that interested in the figures because they don't mean anything.

In reality, we have people who do not contribute to 'the pot' because they'll make excuses like 'you're not any better off if you have to pay childcare'... like it's some kind of choice for those of us who do work... Hmm

... and we've got people who work really hard for not much money, they get some financial benefit but not enough to really help, just about break even.

and then we've got people like Scram and others who really could do with more financial and practical help, and they don't get it.

Something has to be done to make the system fair because it is being exploited. Angry

carriedababi · 19/02/2011 14:52

part of the problem seems to be

alot of people would be more ashamed of say working in mcdonalds on min wage, then claiming benefits

usualsuspect · 19/02/2011 14:52

You sound familiar NoSuchThingAsSociety..there was a poster before who said similar things Hmm

he was an idiot too

NoSuchThingAsSociety · 19/02/2011 14:55

usualsuspect - you make my point brilliantly!!

Swipe left for the next trending thread