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?

Owl, holiday clubs are out, but he's been ok with a childminder or aupair. It takes longer to find a childminder or aupair that are prepared to deal with an autistic child (and he is at the less severe end of the spectrum) - but for the most part it has been ok. The aupair thing was great, as it is the most cost effective form of childcare but now the DCs are older, I felt they shoudn't be sharing a room, so I'm using a childminder.

And there are plenty of other less salubrious fingers in the pot than benefit claimants. I would much rather that my tax money went to some guy who had just been laid off after 30 years of work with no pension because the company went bust than to some grubby-handed PFI scammer.

PostBellum.

Those are your words above, not mine.
I don't believe that I am entitled to anything except the right to bring my dc up the way I see fit. This includes being a sahm. This is your right and everybody elses too.
The government encourage me to do this with financial assistance, so once again Do you expect me to give it back or not claim when there are others receiving benefit who earn more than £70k.
You have no idea how much assistance I receive or my circumstances and yet you judge.
I also believe that if you add up the cost of pre school for 3dcs school from 5-18 for 2 and the average assistance for childcare, you will see compared to most, I haven't received much from the gov.

Wallison.

I agree with you entirely, its just that some people choose to believe they take nothing or very little from the pot, just because it seems invisible. They then go on to judge others for taking out of the pot when in reality that person who is being judged may be taking less than the people who judge.

Absolutely, morethan. Maybe people think that their subsidised air/road travel comes out of thin air or something. Or perhaps they forget just how awful everyone's life would be if there were not a properly educated, healthy population with access to decent housing and food.

Wallison: you're assuming there's no such thing as a net contributor. You're also assuming that net contributors don't mind paying for complete non contributors who take the mickey. Well here's a net contributor, and I double up as someone who minds people taking the mickey.

Morethanpotato prints: you are making the same assumption, not surprisingly, since you want the money, and you'll vote for the money. Usual said something upthread about being an "I'm alright Jack". Your posts have reminded me of that. I wonder why.

Ah yes, these mickey-takers. Have you got any figures yet as to how many people on the dole have never worked?

No, is everybody on this thread who's talked about it a liar?

Basically people complaining about "the rich" (ha not me) voting for their pockets are basically doing the same thing. You want the money, off other people, and you'll vote for it. You want people to pay you to stay at home, while they leave their kids, and you'll vote for it.

morethan, I have been very careful not to make any personal comments at all about your situation & nor have I judged you in any way shape or form.

I have argued that we do not & should not have the right to be a SAHP, regardless of whether or not that is something we can afford to do.

Maybe not a liar, but maybe not someone who can be properly debated with, given that they don't have anything to back up what they are saying. If there really is a feckless feral underclass who have never worked, then there must be figures for them. I'm just asking to see them, that's all.

You mean the poster who talked about her sister made it up? What do you honestly think?

YANBU. I think these people are in the minority, but they definitely exist.

These people have personal experience. They live in some terrible conditions. Why do you dismiss their personal experience? Are they not worth listening to? what makes them so worthless?

I'm sure there are plenty of anecdotes flying around - all I have asked is that given this thread is about people who view being on benefits as a lifestyle choice, we have some numbers to start playing around with as to how many people do that.

You don't have to be sure - we are all sure - we've all read them. Do you think they aren't true? Tell me honestly.

The thread starter says that there are 'people who choose to live a life on benefits'. That to me says that there are people who have never worked and will never work. At all. At any point in their lives. If this is the case, it is a problem. If you are talking about it, then you need to know how big a problem it is. Which is why I am asking if you have numbers as to how many people on benefits have never worked.

I've told you, I don't know the statistics. Other people have told you many stories about it happening. Are these stories not true? What is your opinion?

My opinion is that you need some facts at your disposal before you start talking about this, otherwise you are not going to get anywhere. There are plenty of people on this thread who think the problem is widespread so presumably they are able to back this up with numbers.

NB 'My lazy sister' is not a statistical analysis.

Do you believe these stories to be true, or not? Sorry to keep pressing, but you're evading it and it IS rather central. Yes, it's important to see how big the problem is, but do you deny there is a problem at all?

Is she lying about her sister then?

How about this "I know that there are. I know several." Is this a lie?

Wallison, I wish I had figures to my finger tips, but I don't. Harry Burns, the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland is campaigning to turn around the lives of the people you refer to as a "feckless, feral underclass" in Scotland. He is a brilliant speaker & seems very thoughtful in his approach. He is a great believer in early years support & intervention to support families & has shown in his research, if only I could find it, that there are often generations of families where there hasn't been an adult in regular employment.

The charity I work for, is connected with trying to improve the lot of those who need it most & I am honestly not fibbing when I say that I have met young people whose parents have never worked, in the life time of that young person. These people "take from the pot" as you put it, because they don't know any differently. They are really stuck & very often their lives are dysfunctional, comparitively short (you should see the life expectancy rates for the poorest in Scotland) & miserable. There is work to be done with groups of people like this, that goes far beyond the allocation of benefits.

All that said, I still don't think a parent has the "right" to stay at home - just because that's what they fancy!