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?

Why is outrage not directed at those such as landlords who profit massively from state subsidy for their ludicrous rents?

Because the majority of the time, Landlords are not profiting massively. They are paying a mortgage and maintaining a home, at the same time as putting in the time, effort, risk and responsibility required to be a landlord. There is no reason why people shouldn't earn money for the service they provide, but quite often, they earn nothing and are putting in the effort now in the hope that it will pay off later. That is a good thing, and is certainly better than having children you have to have help to provide for.

Landlords can be another whipping boy but they tend to make fairly smallish profits once they have paid their mortgages. Once mortgage rates double again they will probably not make any profit.Most landlords will not lend to those on benefits. Here is an example in London this week - ten groups of potential tenants (4 house sharers) put in bids to a landlord such is the current shortage of property from whom the landlord picked. The professionals bidding to be tenants would score higher than the actor and benefits claimants would not even bother bidding.

When I was considering buying a flat last year as an investment (yes, I was nearly a landlady myself and have been one in the past- so I do not think they are all money-grubbing w*nkers...) I was told that if I got hold of a four bedroom council-type flat I would be able to get the Council to pay ME £1700 per month to house a family in it.

I didn't enquire btw, it was one of the agent's selling points.

So there is an industry I think in SE London and no doubt other areas-- HB has provided an income stream for investors.

That ain't right. That's state subsidy of a private investment and it isn't on.

flaming heck Xenia I can't believe the property shortage here in London.

Maybe I should 'invest' in one of those overpriced flats...I pay 1500 per month to live in a boxy house myself. Am in weird divorce situation hence having money around but not enough to buy a place big enough for me and dcs. THat is why I was thinking of buying a property rather than leaving said cash in bank on a totally crappy and taxed savings rate. But not sure I can bear to be a landlady again.

Yes, I think it's a money winner if you can get a cheap house in an area where the local authority has a high limit on HB. Of course this artificially raises the ceiling... In some senses I'd rather have benefits tenants than someone at the risk of redundancy, how screwed up is that? N.b., I'm not a landlord, I'm far too poor for that. ;)

Don't agree btw Outraged that landlords 'earn nothing'. They get a capital asset at the end of the term with interest and often price also paid by someone else. Why else would I be thinking of doing it, for instance? I'm not expecting much of a return (well maybe more than 2.8% with tax deduction in a savings account...)

Why isnt the government focusing more on creating jobs, boosting the economy, making banks (that the taxpayer bailed out) lend more etc?

Or are they, and we are missing it because of all the benefit headlines?

true Dolomites. With the benefit cap some of this will go (although London landlords can no doubt just let to private tenants) but for sure there will still be a state-subsidised market for smaller flats.

Well, I don't have children because I can't support them and I tell you, it is a personal fucking tragedy. If I can't get out of this financial/logistical hole, caused entirely by society sacrificing my entire life to the carer role, by the time I lose my fertility, I will kill myself. I wouldn't admit that in RL but it is true. I wouldn't ever wish this situation on another person and I think it's wildly unrealistic to think that ANYONE would voluntarily undertake it. It's a totally human and fundamental drive, to reproduce. It's not ideology, it's biology. So I would advise you guys to just stop dashing yourself against this wall. The only way you are going to stop people reproducing entirely is by eugenics, which is a heinous crime.

I agree with Freddo to an extent. When did it get so ridiculous that the people she mentioned couldn't afford to buy a modest house.

I think the people who both work and pay taxes should be the ones given the affordable housing. some of them could probably rent without needing any top ups from the government or maybe they could part buy the house and pay a mortgage.

also I know i will be flamed but I think the open door policy under NL has made LA and social housing more scarce and private rented accommodation and private property more expensive as there are more people competing for places to live. Demand outstripping supply.

I don't agree with people who are out of work having children they cannot afford particularly when they are not in a stable relationship.

Acumens I'm sorry :(

Are you a carer for another adult then?

If I can never afford to have children, I just won't have any. Doesn't particularly bother me either way, I'm not sentimental over kids, and there are plenty of other things in life.

Maybe there's something wrong with my 'biology', but we're not all irrational breeding machines driven by our emotions, and I don't believe people are not capable of making a sensible choice over whether and how many children they should have.

I'm fairly sure that one side of my ancestry struggled to feed my parent, lots of children, a mother who was a widow and of course didn't work. I think most people would find a similar situation but children were born. I think people who think only the wealthy/middle class/coupled up/people on a certain income are entitled to have the family need to have a word with themselves.

We do not want to go back to the era of the childless maidservant, teacher or governess unable to have a family as she is one of the 'lower orders'. That is where we will end up though- especially once the Mother and Baby Homes and workhouses come back :(

A good friend of mine chooses to live on benefits. She was in a DV relationship with 2 DC, she got out, she was working PT but upped her hours when she became a single parent.

She says she was stressing herself out driving to school and nursery, then to work, then organising school pick ups etc, she worked out that if she gave up work she would be £40 a week better off, not running herself ragged, no nursery fees etc.

She has since had another baby with her new partner but they don't live together as she would lose her benefits.

In her situation I can see her point TBH.

But I believe it's the system at fault, she should be paid a decent living wage and have access to affordable childcare so that in no way would benefits pay more.

the other thing is Tressy that it's ludicrously unrealistic to think you can actually control family size through moral exhortations.
What you can however do is to make it basically impossible for women to keep their children due to shame and poverty and that is what will happen.

Usual, did it replace anything? I seem to remember in the 60's and earlier there was something that was referred to as a 'mans wage' which I think referred to a decent living wage for a man out of an apprenticship. Also taxation for a married man was much lower in those days from what I've heard.

absolutely usual.

Maybe the One Child Policy we appear to be about to instate will provide enough replacement serfs though :D

(I know. It's not funny. At all)

yeah Tressy and also the man's wage concept was used to justify differential wages for men and women.

Yeah, when I was 19 my boyfriend got sick and I've been caring for him for the past 11 years as there was no one else. It turned out to be a serious spinal cord defect with progressive disability and he's now paralysed from the neck down. I care for him 24/7; never had a holiday, the longest time off I've had in 11 years is 18 hours. I got no care support of any kind actually for the first 7 years. I had no educational or career opportunities. I was a NEET.

I have taught myself software dev, programming, 3d modelling etc and run my own small business from home. The state makes it incredibly hard for me to do this, and I take the hit, between 4 and 8k per year less money than the out-of-work benefits (depending on how you calculate it). I think it's worth it, for some hope for the future. You've got to have some hope for yourself, I think, otherwise you're just existing.

Er, that was to domesticgodless, sorry.

I cant believe people are still blaming individuals for claiming benefits for children they cant afford, instead of blaming the government for making it impossible to afford children for so many.