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?

Are there working people who choose to evade tax? Yes. Does that make all working people dishonest tax dodgers? No. Same line of thinking applied to people living on benefits?

OwlLady, the reason that cuts are affecting you is because of the people who chose to live on benefits. If people had only ever used welfare when they needed it instead of when they wanted it, there wouldn't be so many people that support the cuts. Nothing would have needed to change, but because so many of us are pissed off with having to work to support our two children when others stay at home and churn out four, there is a big public appetite for cuts.

You are right that its not fair and that some of the cuts are flawed, but we are only in this position because the system of handouts was so flawed under labour.

It's not the complainers who get the two groups mixed up. It's the denialists. We say : we don't like fraud and mickey-taking. They say: oh so you want to make disabled people homeless.

Er. No.

LOL Brycie -I know - people think they know the way life on a sink estate, but they just don't if they have not come from there....

I escaped through education, determination and sheer graft.. others merely remain in perpetuity as it is generally expected of them... I don't know why my sister took that route, whilst I railed against it - but the one thing I DO know is I'm never going back!!

People surely realise that there are vast estates in this country where nobody works, where the government/taxpayer pays for EVERYTHING - if they don't realise I guess they have lived sheltered lives... in the kind of place I live now you would not think people like my sister exist, but we don't live in a bubble without access to those worlds any more....

I don't want to make this personal morethanpotato, so I'm going to talk in general terms.
I'm delighted that women today have more choices then they had previously. I think it is great that we can go back to work if we want to, or we can stay at home if we feel that is right too. However, I think these are choices that we make if they are financially viable. I do not see them as "rights".
I am a huge believer in free education & I would like to see better nursery provision. Other than education for my children, I have never benefitted from subsidised childcare myself.

Ex-H left us & I have an autistic son - however, as a healthy human being I see it as my responsibility to do the best I can to ensure that I keep a roof above our heads and am not expecting everyone else in society to do that for me.

YANBU to think that,it happens,course it does.
The problem though,is when you would be WORSE off working, and you are already struggling, you wouldn't see your children etc, so sometimes i think, well why would they? go and do a 38 hour week for LESS money? there is of course a satisfaction to working, and teaching your children a good work ethic, but when you're SKINT it must be difficult to do.
I'm a SAHM and would love to do some sort of work (partner works and supports us all, just) but it would cost me so much in childcare, it's just not worth it :(
sorry if someone's already made this point, can't be arsed to read whole thread

It is an unpalatable fact that a lot of people with large families couldn't hope to earn enough to provide for them and the childcare involved. I know somebody with five children who was an SAHM while the children were small and her husband has what I would call quite a good salary. She wasn't entitled to benefits (apart from child benefit) and said they would probably be better off on benefits. I didn't really believe her at the time. But I do now.

Unless there's extenuating circumstances what about allowing benefits for 6 months that's enough time to get a job, after that its cut. I think a small minority abuse the systems others use benefits to supplement their living costs, there's nothing wrong with that, at least they are trying to earn a living. I don't do paid work, I choose to care for my small children. But I am supported by my husbands wage. I could have all the luxuries if I went to work but choose not to. Im also a fulll time carer to an elderly person. I'm not living off benefits. But society has gripes with women like me, apparently we are lazy? Why because we chose to forfeit luxuries and be mothers to the kids we pop out? When u say housewife ppl, assume ur a benefit scrounged, when the women may not be on benefits or maybe with good reason?

I don't know any families on benefits alone. I know of many who use benefits to supplement their poor wages.

We shouldn't forget disabled people or those with mental health issues or full time carers. We may see them as lazy neighbours who never go out to work, but do we know their circumstances or are we judging them on the heresy of curtain twitchers?

so who helps you with childcare postbellumbugsy?

it's nigh on impossible to get childcare for a severely disabled child, it's nigh on impossible to even get a break in the form of respite

The thing about being better off on benefits is that it hasn't been the case since tax credits came in - that is a myth put out by the tory govt. But now with this universal credit it will definitely be the case again. So expect to see even more people unemployed.

Another myth is that there are vast swathes of people across the country who have never worked a day in their lives. As I said above, in a study specifically designed to look at these people, the researches couldn't find enough of them. They found plenty of people who drifted in and out of employment due to only being able to find short-term short-hours contracts, but most people who claim unemployment benefits at any one time have worked in the past and will work in the future - even if working, for them, means living precariously without any clue as to how many hours they will be doing in a given week or how much money they will be getting etc with all the attendant stresses and strains this puts on them and on their family finances.

I am continuously "surprised" by the levels of general ignorance displayed on mn. Just last week someone had to explain what necrophilia meant - yes, I am saying all victims of necrophilia should have their benefits removed, and yes, that extends to those collecting circa a million a week in Asia who turned 100 years and years ago but we cannot prove they are dead or alive. What a fucking mess.

necraphillia means having sex with dead people ???

justanuther - I agree with you. It is a shame the people are so judgey. I have no problem with people living their lives as they see fit. What worries me is when people start to believe they have "rights" to things that other people have to pay for.

Owl, no one helps with my childcare - I pay for it. I work for a charity, so I'm not in some high paid mega bucks job, but what I earn & the minimal maintenance ex-H coughs up just about covers my outgoings each year.

a study specifically designed to look at these people"
"

you said it wasn't - you said it was designed to look at generational welfare dependancy, not people who've never worked a day in their lives

PostBellam.

First of all I have to disagree that a mother doesn't have the right to bring up her child with gov intervention.

I too have taken no subsidised childcare but see others receiving this at a cost to others. I have heard parents on these threads stating that they are working to keep their career active and receive no financial benefit from working. This is their personal choice not necessity.
There are families earning in eccess of £70k still receiving child BENEFIT, I don't read reports of them giving it back or not claiming.
Most families receive an amount per child for pre school education and schooling to the age of 18. I do not take this for my dd, and there is no such thing as free education.I applaud you for the attitude you have to providing for your ds as I know it isn't easy. I have a ds with Aspergers and received no assistance financial or otherwise from any agency.
Finally I would like anybody to point out to me where I have mentioned that I believe others should pay for me to be a sahm. The government are quite willing to see my case as requiring assistance and will do under uc. So maybe I will start giving mine back when the 70k + lot do.
If the gov decide I am not entitled then we will have to do without the help. I am hardly going to rush out and get a job, I have invested too much time and effort in educating, nurturing and caring for my dc to relinquish responsibility for these.

Actually, since we are getting so much rhetoric about these 'people who have never worked', howsabout a few facts and figures to back it up. How many people in the UK have never had a job? You all say that there are loads of them, so it should be easy enough to find out.

a tax credit is a benefit, wallison

sometimes on here it's acronym city - should I be claiming ctc, hb, tc, ying tong iddle I po

Can someone tell me please what is going to happen to carers/their support which is causing so much anxiety?

I ask because my sense was always that the Tories, however much they hate the dependency culture (if it exists) really appreciate carers. The government depends on them.

"First of all I have to disagree that a mother doesn't have the right to bring up her child with gov intervention."

well I don't. I have to pay for you, and given your entitled attitude, I'm not happy about it.

PostBellumBugsy, so your autistic son accesses mainstream childcare?

morethanpototo, I don't want to start picking apart your individual situation. My bewilderment is at your assumption that there is a "right" to be a SAHP, regardless of whether or not that is feasible financially.
I am getting confused with the argument about families giving child benefit back. What has that got to do with the "right" to be a SAHP?

Thing is, we all pay for each other somehow. I pay loads in taxes for repairing roads I never drive on, for expensive operations performed on complete strangers that will save their lives etc etc. If you want to be part of a humane society, you just have to accept that sometimes you'll put in and sometimes you'll take out of the pot. The time that parents spend with their children is relatively short compared to their overall working life, and I think it's a bit snippy to get all 'I pay for you to do this' when at some point along the way other people will also pay for things that you need/want (I would put driving a car into the category of 'want' btw).

No wallinson the fact is that some people live their whole lives taking out of the pot. In fact it is about half the tax paying population, so it isn't surprising that some of the other half get a bit miffed sometimes! Particularly when those net beneficiaries don't appreciate that that is the position!

I thought that 53% figure included pensioners?