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

to think benefits should be capped at minimum wage

604 replies

moogster1a · 23/11/2011 07:55

A little idea that all benefits should be capped at a weeks worth of minimum wage; so 37 and half hours times whatever minimum wage is now ( £6 pounds odd ).
That way no one gets paid more for sitting at home than they would for going out to work.
Out of this, all rent prescriptions etc. should be paid, the same as most people in low paid jobs have to pay for everything.
it might also provide an incentive to go out to work to up your wages if you progress in a company.
Just think it would be a lot fairer.

OP posts:
acumenin · 23/11/2011 11:11

Also, you know? I work full time. I work a 70 hour week actually because I run my own business from home alongside my (160 hour week) caring role. So let's not make this about those out of work vs those in work.

I'm in work, and I disagree with you, slave.

northernwreck · 23/11/2011 11:11

"Northernwreck, that doesn't address the point that you can have about the same amount of cash and a better standard of living (less time poor) on benefits. You just sound like you're getting cross and losing the ability to put forward a proper, reasoned argument."

No. Read carefully. I am £30 per week better off working than on benefits. £30 a week to someone as poor as a person on IS is a big deal.

Damn right I am angry.I can't believe how some people spend so much time worrying about how the people on the very lowest rung might somehow not be struggling enough.
Get your own house in order and never mind what other people do. Are you really jealous of someone trying to raise kids on IS? Really? Christ, I'm not.

DooinMeCleanin · 23/11/2011 11:11

Don't you get it moogster? People do not get more than that now unless they have genuine need ie carers and the disabled, even then it's hardly a cushy life.

Original poster
moogster1a · 23/11/2011 11:13

*Are you really jealous of someone trying to raise kids on IS? Really? Christ, I'm not.
*
Well I'm jealous of people who raise kids on the same " income" as I have without having to go to work.

OP posts:
northernwreck · 23/11/2011 11:16

Really? Cos I love working, and would go nuts if I didn't work.
I agree Jade btw, that wages are far far too low.

Original poster
moogster1a · 23/11/2011 11:16

doinmecleenin have a read back to Folkgirl's threads. She and her husband would be etter off not working. AFAIR she didn't mention any additional needs or disabilities.

OP posts:
insertcleverusernamehere · 23/11/2011 11:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jade80 · 23/11/2011 11:18

''Well I'm jealous of people who raise kids on the same " income" as I have without having to go to work.''

Again, very well said.

DooinMeCleanin · 23/11/2011 11:19

Because she pays into a pension scheme to protect her future. The working poor and those on benefits do not have that option. We have no savings for our future and no pension. Once/if we get to retire we're fucked financially.

She also pays towards a student loan, which will eventually be paid off, leaving her far better off working. She could cancel her pension if she wanted to.

jade80 · 23/11/2011 11:20

Really? Cos I love working, and would go nuts if I didn't work.
I agree Jade btw, that wages are far far too low.

I agree that it seems an option to crank up min wage and wipe out those benefits that seek to make the current min wage 'liveable'. I'm hardly qualified to understand the many and varied knock on effects of this.

Throughout I hold to the fact that if you spend 40 or so hours a week working you should get a better 'return' on your effort than someone who doesn't work those hours. How else is it fair.

jade80 · 23/11/2011 11:21

Sorry missed quote marks-

''Really? Cos I love working, and would go nuts if I didn't work.
I agree Jade btw, that wages are far far too low.''

I agree that it seems an option to crank up min wage and wipe out those benefits that seek to make the current min wage 'liveable'. I'm hardly qualified to understand the many and varied knock on effects of this.

Throughout I hold to the fact that if you spend 40 or so hours a week working you should get a better 'return' on your effort than someone who doesn't work those hours. How else is it fair.

jade80 · 23/11/2011 11:22

You'd go nuts if you didn't work? Blimmin heck I think I'd manage to fill the time... a life of leisure would be fun!

spiderpig8 · 23/11/2011 11:23

Just lioke to point out that some working people earn less than NMW if they are self employed.

GypsyMoth · 23/11/2011 11:24

It's not leisure if you can't afford to do anything though

mamamoonmim · 23/11/2011 11:27

To be honest I was shocked at how much benefits I was entitled to when my son was diagnosed as being severly disabled (perminantly), and I wondered if it was necessary to give us so much, an extra £70 a week!! and other bits).

Then I started to learn that there isn't going to be any childminder who could meet his needs, despite finding myself wanting to work and being a bit restless.

So really, if I didn't get this disability, and lived on less, (we'd be unable to run a car which takes up most the money) and I'd be unable to take my son swimming, and out to the childrens centre for groups etc (no bus route here).

So I'm wondering if it's being suggested that this money be taken away?
Because that would really lower the standard of living of my child, who cannot actually help his condition..

IF however, there could be another service to help improve the life of disabled children, without giving carers money directly, then I'm open to it

jade80 · 23/11/2011 11:28

Don't take the piss Sara. There are stacks of free things to do.

DooinMeCleanin · 23/11/2011 11:28

Such as what jade80?

jade80 · 23/11/2011 11:29

Are you asking re. adult entertainment or amusing kids?

acumenin · 23/11/2011 11:29

jade80 I didn't work (apart from as a carer) for ten years and I did go nuts. It was awful. It's like living in limbo: you have no future, no goals, you become more and more isolated from the world (and therefore the social structures that engage and energise us as primates). Apathy descends upon you; you drift. Life loses meaning. It becomes harder and harder to get up in the morning.

This is pretty well documented, actually. Worklessness is not a marvellous prize. Go look in a zoo sometime.

mamamoonmim · 23/11/2011 11:30

jade can I just have a few ideas of free things to do please?

(we live in a village were theres a bus to civilisation on a thursday, but then youre stuck in town for 8 hours until the return one).

There is no local children park within 3 miles.

GypsyMoth · 23/11/2011 11:30

I'm not. You are being so simplistic here

How many times can you go to a 'free' museum/park etc before it's no longer 'leisure'? How do you afford to get there? Eat out? Etc etc. There are always costs associated

mamamoonmim · 23/11/2011 11:31

for children

DooinMeCleanin · 23/11/2011 11:31

Either. Kids or adults.

jade80 · 23/11/2011 11:31

Even if there weren't you can't say 'oh I have no leisure time because I can't pay to do things. So I have no leisure time at all.' Leisure is when you have the option of what to do, are not directed by someone else, It doesn't mean going windsurfing and stuff.

GypsyMoth · 23/11/2011 11:31

Come on hade! Give us your fantasy 'timetable'

Swipe left for the next trending thread