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?

allthefun.

This is so typical for many just not worth it. Unfortunately saying this on these threads means that you are lazy and expecting others to pay for your dcs, some people just don't want to look at the evidence.

And you made this personal, you brought your own situation into this. So don't complain about people judging it.

Brycie.

I guess that comment was to me. Well I hope your job is secure and you will never need any assistance.
You also have the right to live as you want, I don't see why you can't see this. If you want to sah for goodness sake do it. If you don't then thats your right.
If you can't afford to because you will lose a wage and not afford your expenses on benefit that is hardly my fault.

So what is the evidence morethanpotatoprints?

Fuckinghell. I've had to work a whole day leaving a sick kid at home. This kind of self indulgent complacency makes me want to vomit. Time to leave the computer.

morethanpotatoprints - I don't think anyone here is saying that those who really need support shouldn't receive it. There do seem to be quite alot of people saying that there is abuse of the current system.

I am saying that no one has a "right" to be a SAHP. There never has been a right for this & I don't think there should be one now. I have yet to see a compelling argument presented for why this should be the case.

Outraged you must send me calming vibes. I'm wired about this!

morethanpotatoprints - can you see how your posts might come across as a bit smug and entitled to people like me and my DH, who are working and paying for your 'right' to sit at home and play with your children all day, while we can't afford to even have one child of our own?

You are not helping with the image of benefit claimants here, and in that sense you are doing a disservice to those who have a genuine need of the welfare safety net.

As for the 'right' to be a SAHM - IMO you have the right to do as you please in terms of lifestyle choices, as long as you don't expect other people to pay for it!

PostBellumBugsy seen this fpresentation? that covers some of the early intervention stuff.

Yes OneMoreChap - that is one of his presentations. I'm not Scottish & I don't live in Scotland - but I have huge respect for Harry Burns and what he is trying to do. I heard him speak & was even able to have a chat to him a couple of years ago & it really changed my outlook.

Usualsuspect, yes I think SureStart was an attempt at an early years intervention. I think the intervention needs to be far greater - but it is so politically unpopular because it is a long-term project, I'd be amazed if any Govt of any colour will ever do it. I think 3rd sector initiatives are probably the only way full on intervention programmes will ever get delivered. That's just my opinion though - I don't have any statistics or facts to back it up - before anyone asks!

Meh

What?

maybe the surestart centres could stay open if less money was wasted by people who think they have a right to sight around at home while others poorer than them pay for it

garlicbutty - I've just seen your response and I can assure you 1000% that this is not made up - not that you will believe it as some people on here seem to want to live in lala land and are so sure that there are no such people out there lying and cheating their way through the system.

Trying to catch up on thread and haven't reached the end yet, but simply had to at this from DolomitesDonkey:-

I am continuously "surprised" by the levels of general ignorance ... I am saying all victims of necrophilia should have their benefits removed

Can't be done, DD. Victims of necrophilia are dead, by definition, and not receiving any benefits. Even if they did get benefits, I can't see why being raped by perverts would dis-entitle them

I sometimes find myself "surprised" by levels of ignorance on MN, too ...

Bubalou, is your reply about your neighbour, who swans about living the easy life on £91 a week for herself and her DD?

It simply cannot be true. The state does not "pay bills", only rent and council tax. The rent must be in the bottom third of local commercial rents, or a council property.

You said she's getting her bills paid - I asked, by whom? Perhaps her parents tide her over. Perhaps she's got a boyfriend who helps her out. Perhaps she's using up her savings (I did). But the state isn't funding any glamorous lifestyles.

If you know she's working on the sly - is she on the game? - you can report her. Likewise, if she's claiming shedloads of allowances for a non-existent disability, she will get caught out.

BUT - consider this: You said her DD is rude, out of control, etc. Has it occurred to you that the daughter might have a learning disability? She could be getting around £90 a month to help with that. Not enough to fund a life of easy luxury, but would buy the woman a few much-needed coffee breaks.

On reporting, by the way. Reporting suspected benefit fraud makes the suspect homeless. It happened to me. My landlord couldn't wait until the enquiry was completed, I was evicted and that set in train a series of horrible events. I wasn't cheating, obv. Some curtain-twitcher thought I must be scamming because ... well, what? ... maybe she saw me having coffees out.

If I've replied to the wrong post, Bubalou, sorry. Let me know and I'll correct later.

Haha - Don't worry Garlic - it was this one - "Either this guy is doing that or your story is false. Or both." in regards to the person I know who claims to have illnesses he doesn't have including being suicidal which I think is just the most awful thing to lie about.

Sorry Brycie, only just catching up, had to go to work to pay tax to enable people to stay at home dossing with children they created but can't afford.

To answer the question of how many people don't work and have never worked, according to this there were 1.5 million in 2010. That's a lot.