Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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

999 replies

autumnlights12 · 10/10/2012 11:51

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?

OP posts:
Brycie · 11/10/2012 23:29

You got me deleted? For pointing out what you said yourself? Don't like the truth huh. Delete me again. You know it's the truth.

Brycie · 11/10/2012 23:30

Smug, self-indulgent, entitled complacency. Delete me again. Who cares.

Brycie · 11/10/2012 23:44

Grr really cross. Maybe I should be pleased the point got home enough for people to to to the trouble of getting it deleted.

InfestationofLannisters · 12/10/2012 00:03

Yes, people do choose to have a life on benefits. Very damaged people sometimes.

The "benefits family" Hmm across the road have five DC. Never worked and the lady has been claiming as single since the first was born twenty two years ago. Her partner goes to stay at his Mum's house for a few weeks whenever someone reports them, she told me. He is pretty much nocturnal and is never seen doing any shopping or childcare. He really does do fuck-all and when he wants to be downstairs this lady has to send the DC out in the street and stay in the kitchen but oh, he's such a good man. Never hits her like her multiple step-fathers did.

Recently she was very upset because her G.P refused to reverse her hysterectomy so she could have another child because the youngest was over five. I had to tactfully explain. Imagine.

I for one am not jealous of them at all, rather the opposite. Who the fuck wants to have a life like that?

Wallison · 12/10/2012 00:03

You're hardly going to get accurate figures

Why not? If this is such a big problem as we are always being told it is, why aren't figures widely available? There always seems to be a lot of head-nodding going on when the subject comes up, but I don't think I've actually heard anyone put a number on it.

Brycie · 12/10/2012 00:13

Wallison, I should think because it's not illegal, it's playing the system. You can't have figures in the way you do for fraud. You could have a survey, but then you'd be relying on anecdotal data as in this thread. Who would be the people to believe? The neighbours, the relatives, themselves? Anybody doing it would say no: anybody telling anecdotes wouldn't be trustworthy enough for a survey - it's just a case of whether one believes them or not when they're told (or written down as here). I don't think anyone knows what they would count.

Brycie · 12/10/2012 00:17

Thanks for your sympathy before by the way. It's not now, it's a day I felt really guilty about, I was called in, I couldn't say no (short term contracts) and I left him on the sofa for 12 hours or something. The thought made me absolutely hopping mad at that juncture in the thread conversation.

CommunistMoon · 12/10/2012 00:22

I'm sorry to be personal Brycie, and please feel free to report this post as that would be ok. I think you need to calm down. I have looked back over this thread and (admittedly on a rough count after a few glasses of wine) you have posted 35 or 36 times on this thread in the last 24 hours. Just saying.

Brycie · 12/10/2012 00:24

Yes, as I said, addicted. Pretty much addicted as someone who actually counts someone else's posts?

Brycie · 12/10/2012 00:25

Dont' worry about the calming down thing, I'm quite calm now. I was angry at the complacency expressed earlier. That really, really ticked me off.

InfestationofLannisters · 12/10/2012 00:34

It takes seconds to press Ctrl / F , type Brycie into the box and see that your name comes up 179 times on this thread. A few more seconds to count the highlighted posts whilst scrolling down. Not obsessive or addictive but very basic I.T knowledge.

londonone · 12/10/2012 00:36

Basc IT knowledge,but very odd behaviour IMO

Brycie · 12/10/2012 00:37

Wow, I was thinking you'd gone through the thread, which would have been a bit harder because of the really really long boring parts where I wasn't saying anything at all. Something I'm saying must be getting to you if you make even that small effort.

Brycie · 12/10/2012 00:38

I said ages ago to Outraged, I'm addicted to this thread. I think I may even have used an exclamation mark. So what?

wannabedomesticgoddess · 12/10/2012 00:46

Whats the point of a forum if members are now having their posts counted and commented on? Hmm

InfestationofLannisters · 12/10/2012 00:50

I don't think it's odd behavior when you want to make a point. Trawling through the entire thread might be OTT. The technology / code is there; why not make use of it?

I type as someone who had to manually count every fucking word of my A-level essays and degree thesis back in the late-eighties...

wannabedomesticgoddess · 12/10/2012 00:55

What point was there to be made though? A poster posted on a thread on a forum.

Imagine.

InfestationofLannisters · 12/10/2012 01:00

There are many, MANY forums (or fora) on the internet where new members have to be approved. After that, post-count is displayed next to user-name and additional information is available by clicking on a member's profile. It can be very useful. eBay buyers and sellers have ratings for example.

MN is very lightly-moderated but the data is available for anyone who has basic I.T skills. Also, MN owns your posts. We have all signed up for it. When comments of mine appeared in the Daily fucking Heil I wasn't happy but there you go...

What's the point of a forum if people are NOT having their posts commented on FFS? They would just be typing into the ether Grin

wannabedomesticgoddess · 12/10/2012 01:03

I meant the number of posts not the content.

InfestationofLannisters · 12/10/2012 01:14

I think that having the knowledge to quickly access and analyse posting quantity and / or frequency is a very useful skill. Many liars here and elsewhere have been caught out this way.

It is a new life-skill which I will certainly be teaching my children in the same way that my parents taught me to consider advertising.

ToothbrushThief · 12/10/2012 04:22

Presumably analysing the quantity/ frequency of a single posters posts on this thread gives you information which you feel discredits (you use the term liars) their contribution?

As regards accurate figures. Misreporting of the figures is the reason for that. A bit like asking couples frequency of their sex life.... Their own perception or need to believe an idea about themselves will change what they say from the actual figure?

This whole subject is ambiguous. A person believes they cannot work and therefore benefits are justified. Other people believe they can and should. It's not polarised though. Take one person in a wheelchair. They might feel that life is just impossible and working has lots of barriers. Think back to the Paralympics and what seemed impossible was possible. A very extreme example but what I'm saying is that people's perceptions of who can work and who should work are not always correct and this works both ways.

The OP question was do some people chose a life on benefits? The answer is yes. Even if anecdotally the handful of people I know are the only people then its still 'yes'

The reasons for that choice are varied and not often (IMO) because they cannot be arsed (although brothers partner told me that only mugs worked and they did not intend to ever again - has claimed benefits for the last 20 yrs that I've known about). People do have barriers to work (appropriate child care, access issues, capability issues and lack of suitable jobs). Would I wish to see these people denied benefits? No. Would I like to see them helped back into the workplace? Very much so yes.

The whole SAHM issue is a tricky one. It's not impossible to work and raise DC happily and successfully. Lots of people do it. Its hard. It's choice not to.. Exercising choice means exercising responsibility. I.e. fund your own choice.

If someone got a job then realised dogs don't like being locked up all day whilst they work they would have to a) pay for a sitter b) reduce hours. Why should someone pay for that choice when anyone can see that scenario before the dog is procured? Having DC is a choice for many. Having an accidental pregnancy is a different situation but working is possible. Assuming you make life choices and someone else picks up the tab is wrong.

TheHumancatapult · 12/10/2012 06:33

Wondered when Paralympics and life in a wheelchair be brought up as example .

Guess then we better compare and want to know why you lazy lot can't do same as Olympians you better get running then come on what you waiting for more your lazy arses if they can do it so can you after all were all the same right

No exactly Sk please don't compare paraolmpians to people in wheelchairs oh and even a paraolmpians needs help boarding a train or is stopped by a stair !!

FolkGhoul · 12/10/2012 07:07

There are people who live on benefits long term because they are unable to work for some reason - e.g. they are disabled; they care for disabled relatives.

There are people who live on benefits short/med/longer term because shit happens - spouse/partner dies/leaves leaving the remaining person with a young child to care for.

There are people who live on benefits on a short term basis - to bridge the gap between one job ending and another starting, or between university/college ending and the new job starting.

There are people who live on benefits on a short term basis because they are made redundant and their are no jobs available in that they are experienced in/qualified for and it's quite an admission/transition from that to completely changing direction.

And all of those are good and great and as it should be. It is one of the benefits of living in a civilised society.

But then there are those who aren't really that fussed about not having a huge amount of money because their aspirations aren't all that great in the first place and as long as they can get up when they want, go to bed when they want, and do what the fuck they want in between see being cash poor as a fair trade for being time rich.

ToothbrushThief · 12/10/2012 07:14

Human catapult - if you read my post less defensively it does say its an extreme example

I have a disability. I also hear others with same disability say its why they cannot work

It does raise issues for me. Not insurmountable though. I work full time

The point of my post was about removing barriers rather than benefits. Why is that so scary?

TheHumancatapult · 12/10/2012 07:19

Toothbrush you can't remove some barriers glad you can work with yours some people can some can not . also other people may be affected differently to you even the same disability does not guarantee that

Because I'm not employable and removing my benfits or cut them then your making my life already harder

Swipe left for the next trending thread