to think that there are people who choose to live a life on benefits?

[autumnlights12]

the recent threads about George Osbourne made me wonder..
A high number of posters say that people don't choose to live like that, they stumble into it, hate it, what a miserable existence it is, nobody would ever choose it etc..
but if you have two or three children through choice, whilst at the same time having no job to provide for them, or if you turn down the job at the local factory (as I know someone who did) because it pays £7.50 an hour and a full time job there doesn't give you the same unemployment rights and benefits, isn't that choosing to live a life on benefits? Or being trapped on benefits? I'm not talking about people who can't work, disabled people, ill people, women dumped by feckless ex and left to fend for herself etc.. of course they should be protected.
I was watching 999 What's Your Emergency and I know that area. And I know people like that exist. And it's often a second, third generation who have never worked a day in their life, even during times when work was freely available. In the town I live, we have numerous Eastern European immigrants who all seem to be working, but mostly in low paid work the locals wont do
What say you?

Would it make more sense to try to crack down on benefit scroungers during periods of low unemployment, when they can be more easily identified? Just now, there aren't enough jobs for those that want to work, so how can we prove that whose who don't, don't?

Happymum, it's not only income tax you know. There are taxes on everything we buy. So everyone is contributing. Also how about contributing to society by bringing up a child. Why do you think that working parents are topped up? Sometimes the top-ups can be more than a single parent is receiving depending on circumstances.

Just because 5 or 10 people come on these threads saying 'i know one', 'my neighbour is one', 'my sil is one'...doesn't mean that those people are as many as it seems. People don't come on these threads to say 'my sil has been looking for job for a year', 'my friend applied for 500 jobs' etc.

And to the poster who said that those of us who don't believe the propaganda about benefits lifestyle we are on benefits, how do you fucking know? It is called empathy. You don't have to be-currently-on benefits, you just need a bit of empathy and two brain cells to know that your life can change and you-or your dcs- might need to be on benefits in the future.

Oh fgs once we hear people claiming that you can only love, nurture and raise your own children if you don't work, then frankly what's the point of any intelligent debate?!

Paying VAT out of your benefits doesn't count as 'contributing'. It's not. If its not money you or your family earned, then it is contributing nothing. Especially as VAT is only payable one supposed 'luxuries'. I thought people living in benefits couldn't afford luxuries?

Potato, you ask what is wrong with wanting to be a SAHM, and the answer is nothing. There's nothing at all wrong with it if you are being supported by family, or a spouses wage. But there's a hell of a lot wrong with it when other Mothers would love that option but couldn't afford to, so have to go out and earn a living to support the children they created. Don't you think they miss their children too?

Your attitude sickens me so much that I have to stand back, laugh, and try not to patronise you with my pity.

just wanted to jump in and point out a few misconceptions that always get spouted on threads like this

goldenhandshake people on benefits apsolutly do not get water rates paid for them by the state (nor by anybody) unless they live in a care suituation where by water rates are included in rent or fee's. to the best of my knowledge at no time (or at least within the last 25 years) have water rates been covered for benefit claiments.

for anybody that is intrested there is a scheme run by the water companies themselves and applied for through them whereby you can have your water rates frozen at £455 a year if you have a provable illness that actually requires you to use more water or you recive a social benefit and have 3 or more kids you will still pay for your water but it will not go above the upper rate for the year.

outraged anybody on income support or any other out of work benefit that is exempt from actively job seeking (i.e lone parents with under 5's,carers,lone parent of older but disabled child) is still required to present themselves at the job center at least twice a year (minimum) and be interviewed and prove that circumstances havent changed,should they not attend this interview the benefit will be stopped. no chance what so ever is the person you refer to poping out a kid every 5 years and being left alone by the dwp.

There are people who do this BUT it must be a miserable existence. Normally people who know no different, grow up with parents on benefits, they have no concept of life outside of benefits. It's amazing what becomes normal in these communities... not something to be jealous on IME.

Happy.

I do H.ed as is my right, I do care for my dcs/have done 2 dcs are older now. These are my choices as others make theirs.
Others take from the public purse in terms of the services I mention above and this as I stated begins with pre school ed through to 18 years (now). I contribute to the economy by buying goods and services, which yes SOME of which has come from the public purse.
The rich remain rich by keeping their money not really contributing very much.

dont tampons still have vat on them?

Outraged, you are entitled to your opinion. But all the other workers you mention have the same rights as me. They are not called "rights for morethanpotato" and nobody else. We all have the same choices in life, I don't see how anybody else could not afford to? Please explain

Janey68.

I don't say that you can only nurture and bring your children up by yourself.

My argument is that if this is how you feel about your own children, you have the right to do so.
Otherwise childcare, pre school and school would be compulsory. So would work and having a nanny/childminder.
I maintain that whilst I have taken from the public purse, I most definitely have saved and continue to save money in which I am entitled to from leaving the public purse.
In addition, when I did work and pay tax I subsidised childcare for working parents whilst never taking this myself.
So I guess everything isn't so cut and dried when people on threads like this tell us we have no right to sah if we receive benefit.

We all have the same choices in life, I don't see how anybody else could not afford to? Please explain

Some people cannot afford to because they earn more than NMW. Not much more, but just enough so that they wouldn't be better off on benefits. Some people look ahead to the long term, and want to progress and be earning enough so that by the time their children are going to secondary school and building their own lives, they will be fully independent and not reliant on the state for any of their income. As they can do that as well as raising children that will contribute to society as much as a SAHP parent's children, they see it as a social responsibility.

I'd never heard of sink estates until MN. I had to google it. Turns out I grew up on one .

Where has anyone ever said that usualsuspect?

Grow lithe

I grew up on a rather nice council estate...

Ah that's what I thought About - but I was obviously deluding myself

There's almost no doubt that there will be lurkers from Central Office and Labour HQ moseying around on threads like this, taking the temperature, adding to their focus group assessments, picking up a bit of zeitgest. All the parties will take more notice of posters like Outrage than posters like Usual, just to pull out a couple. That's what I think.

Why brycie? Why would they pay attention to outrage more than usual?

Thats a genuine question. Im having a thick moment.