Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:05

And here are you Acumens doing the exact Right Thing that posters bang on about (ie not claiming the larger amount in benefits which you could claim and instead being an entrepreneur) and no doubt you would still get bashed if you dared to have a child while 'too poor' even if that is the whole of your flipping life :(

Tressy · 12/10/2012 16:05

Also bring back the shame on the single mother, oh they tried that one during their last term and it didn't work very well.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:06

wannabe it is magical thinking in a way. It means the structural issues will all just magically disappear if we all think hard enough about how to 'overcome' them; and those in difficulty may be distanced from us; they are the 'weak'.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:06

Tressy I am very afraid it may work better now. Austerity gives them an excuse to bash 'wasters' so much harder.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:08

if you look at it already the discourse on here is one of shame: posters who are very proud of being 'responsible' bashing others for having children they are not rich enough to support in a high-cost economy. Even more than ONE child.

Thus, as lone parents tend to be poorer, and most of them are mothers, and many claim state support: they ought to be 'ashamed of themselves', even to have one child without a husband to support them. The husband will not be mentioned often but is implicit in the argument.

usualsuspect3 · 12/10/2012 16:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:10

I think you know the answer to that usual....!

Viviennemary · 12/10/2012 16:12

The system is certainly at fault. I agree with sweetkitty. It actually costs money to go out to work. Transport, clothes lunches and so on. Not to mention stress.

usualsuspect3 · 12/10/2012 16:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:15

absolutely usual.... the answer is of course a return to the Victorian servant class! Knew their place.. and you could dismiss them as soon as they got pregnant...

God I cant' even joke about it. It's going to happen isn't it....:(

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:16

oh and infanticide? Expect that to start going up in the brave new world of absolute private responsibility....particularly after the NHS stops helping women out with contraception (expect that to happen in about 2-5 years at current rates of 'reform).

gah. It's all just too vile.

Tressy · 12/10/2012 16:18

But women can have children and not work, so no need for childcare at all. They are allowed because they have bagged themselves a high earning husband. Unless he is mega rich and they can afford a low paid nanny to palm the little darlings on.

Xenia · 12/10/2012 16:19

Most people who are well off in the UK are nothing like the stereotypes being described. In fact it is more the squeezed middle who resent the benefits claimants rather than those who have the luxury of a lot of money and feel no threat to it. It's the couple who are teachers both working full time or the nurse and taxi driver couple doing shifts working all the hours when if they didn't work at all they may well not be too much worse off. That's the difficulty for the state - how to make work pay. These are also issues Labour was tackling too - it is not really a party political issue.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:19

I've often thought there is an irony in that the last person a rich old man or woman will see is going to be a care home worker on NMW or less. The person who feeds them, wipes their behind and plus their drip in at the end will be one of the people they want to ban from 'breeding' and having a decent home.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:20

You're right xenia it is the squeezed middle too. But also certain richer people who like to sneer at the 'shirkers' who are making Britain 'uncompetitive'. See the Free Enterprise Group for more details...

Xenia · 12/10/2012 16:27

I don't think it is a problem that the rich hire people who earn less than they do to do those kinds of tasks. Also most people die with family near or around them and often that family is involved in the care to an extent too. No one is talking about banning breeding - just sayhing only have what you can afford and if you cannot afford it go abroad for work and send money home to the children as countless hard working women do all over this planet but don't expect squeezed middle workers to fund your children.

We a return to - my family is my responsibility, not that of the state. That there can be a very very basic but not much fun to live on safety net which is so very horrible you would rather move 300 miles or get a bus to London every Monday tor work than take up. We have not got anywhere near that point yet.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:29

no not yet but it'll come. The conditions faced by women in the third world are not a standard to set or anything to aspire to.

Tressy · 12/10/2012 16:30

The 'squeezed middle' is just abit of spin though. Everyones bills are going up. We all have to pay more for food, heating etc whether we are a 2 earner home or a single earner, unemployed home.

As for all these higher rate tax payers not being able to afford a 2nd or 3rd child while a benefit claimant can. That is nonsense. More likely they decide it would impinge on their ability to fund the holiday home or private school fees or suchlike.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:31

I frankly doubt that my sons will care for me when I die and I hope they don't have to. With the state withdrawal of healthcare however, it may be that the poor end up looking after their own to a greater extent than ever. Unless of course they are working 300 miles away to fulfil the demands of capital Hmm

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:32

Yes its BS Tressy isn't it. Although I am nearly a higher rate taxpayer atm and I don't think I would be able to 'afford' a third child if I were in London and did not receive the post-divorce maintenance that I do....

said hypothetical child would not starve however, but i wouldn't be getting out much, I think...and the heating would not be on much.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:34

HR tax is what 43k? Which is not any sort of riches in London at least.

Acumens100 · 12/10/2012 16:37

Well it's interesting isn't it, because there are aspects of the arguments I agree with, obviously, because I'm applying it to my own life, but then the way of going about it I totally disagree with.

So, universal credit = good idea. It's really hard work being means tested by so many different departments and working under 16 hours on the old system was very inflexible and paralysing. But then the conditionality I think is a pretty bad idea, and the way self-employed/small business expenses is going to be assessed will sink a lot of new enterprise. I don't think that's helpful.

Supported working/access to work for disabled people = good idea. Isolation and the "sick identity" are both really negative aspects of disability and getting people into work, even small amounts of work, or voluntary work is hugely helpful and therapeutic, even for people with extremely severe conditions. But the reality is that people need a lot of support to work, and highly individual support. My DP, for example, needs housing and assistive technology, but not really personal or intellectual support. He could work 8-10 hours a week in a technical advisory role and we aim to get there. His barriers are all logistical. But someone with LD might need 1:1 support or sheltered. And some people will never be able to work at all, and you can't always tell who they are by the name of their condition. What the government has done is (as the last one did before them, I hasten to add!) is to twist these ideas into basically saying that no one is really disabled, it's just an attitude problem. This is the "bio-psycho-social" model. It locates the "fault" in the individual. It's very unhelpful.

The policy of restricting help to only those with the most need creates a perverse incentive to wreck your life. This is true. I know this is true because I deliberately wrecked my DPs life to get social care support. The way I got social care support was to lie on the floor and scream and scream and not stop until someone helped me. I screamed for a long time, but eventually, when they realised I really was not getting up and doing the care, they helped me. My poor DP had to suffer. Afterwards, I was afraid to get up. This is the trap of the "most need".

But more than that, it creates a sense of unfairness. Fairness is a central concern for people, as we've seen on this thread. The people on the right and left of this debate are both concerned with fairness, they've just got different opinions on what that means. Getting some consensus there is, I think, how we detoxify this conversation.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:41

yeah Acumen I am writing (? not enough of) an article about the manipulation of the biopsychosocial model right now.

A total misnomer as it basically ignores the 'bio' bit. At least in the form adopted by health insurers and government.

Acumens100 · 12/10/2012 16:43

Cool, I would like to see that article! I hope you link it when it's done.

domesticgodless · 12/10/2012 16:44

The perverse incentive to wreck your life is quite right.

In mental health it is much the same. No help really except medication (and that will not last long under the 'new' NHS) until you are lying bleeding in the bath. If you 'fake' more extreme symptoms or merely exaggerate the ones you have, you will get help. Help you already desperately needed and without which in the end you probably will end up bleeding in the bath.

It's a bloody awful situation where this starts to happen.