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?

Couldn't we just ditch the fairness feelings though? I don't feel it's unfair some people have a lot more money or are prettier or whatever than I am. I just accept that is life and enjoy what I have. The one thing this species has never had is fairness. We evolved from other species through unfairness, fittest surviving with a bit of social care for our own group thrown in. Anyone thinking there is some entitlement to fairness is never going to find happiness on this planet.

What most of us want is that those in England have a basic welfare net but which is sufficiently unpleasant that those who could work make themselves.

I am certainly not against a basic payment to everyone over 18 whether they are mllionaires or not. Non means tested payments work very well and dont' need a load of pointless civil servants to assess them.

God post Acumen

Can I just ask why you think the biopsychosocial model places fault in the individual rather than fault on the society which doesn't include everyone in an ability to engage in normal life activities like work?

Well, we could all just decide to ditch fairness, but I don't think that's very realistic. Demonstrably, it is important to people and so we probably ought to try to work with that.
I find this ted talk on morality and political positions (American) interesting

Can anyone explain to me what the 3 million jobs the government should provide might be? 3 million pen-pushers at town halls? Cannon fodder? How can the government magic jobs out of thin air? Are people actually suggesting that instead of paying people benefits the government simply gives them made up jobs and titles?

Usual, you are banging on about the country's need for NMW workers, and I agree with you.

We do need workers. What we don't need is generations of people who are long term unemployed. They are the people that need to be hit by these cuts, not the people who go out to work.

And of course salaries from the government pot, so still net takers.

acumens I really feel for you, that is an "unfair" hand to be dealt aged just 19. :(

Childcare will continue to be paid at nmw whilst demands are placed upon ratios of adult:child and whilst parents continue to want to pay nmw. Each and every parent with 2 or more would get more bang for their buck employing a 17 year old fresh out of college - but they're terrified said 17 year old is not good enough for their little emperor.

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.

Right, so why do you think that someone who doesn't work should be entitled to more money when they decide to have a child? If you work, your employer doesn't start paying you more for another baby, so why should someone who doesn't work, or who earns NMW get given more money when they decide to have a third child?

I work in Early Years. I get more than NMW. I assumed most Nursery Nurses did.

Usual - there are workers who don't have children because they can't afford it. Every single child carer I have used has had children?

that's odd Toothbrush, only one of mine did and I bet she was claiming tax credits the scrounging you know what :D

Yes, usual, and if you read what I wrote you would see that I'm to trying to stop people who work from having children. This thread is about people who choose a life on benefit, not people who choose to work. But don't let that get in the way of your repeating the same thing on every thread that dares to mention that people might get too much on benefit.

if it's early years in a school then probably not.

Nursery nurses get utterly crap pay, how on earth that has escaped you I don't know...

Outraged that is a bit disingenuous seeing as upthread you are saying that only people with one child would be exempt from your proposed child benefit and tax credit cuts. Since most people would not choose to have only one child you are therefore quite clearly 'trying to stop people who work (in low paid jobs) having children'.

I'm not saying my pay isn't crap, I'm saying its not minimum wage. I work in a school now, but I'm not on much more than I was when I worked in a nursery.

Outraged you read me wrong. I don't necessarily think that people on benefits or NMW 'should' have third children. Hell in their position and in the world we live in maybe even ANY children is a bad economic decision.

God knows I'd certainly be a lot richer if I hadn't had children! I wouldn't be living in an overpriced 3 bed box in London either!

However, I did not know until my life went to hell post divorce that I 'should not have had children' ... and you know what... .I love them and I'd never wish them away whatever.

I think it is inhuman to say that we should rigidly^ control number of children acccording to income when we live in such a high cost low wage economy.

And in particular, it is inhuman to start slagging off people who had 'too many' children when employed for their 'poor decisions' as I think you or others were doing upthread.

Anyone can be ruined in a bad economy. You can be ruined by divorce. Reproductive decisions are never made with that in mind imho and why the heck should they be???

That's not the same domesticgodess. Saying people can't have children is very different to saying that people should limit their children. Can't you see that?

If you work, your employer doesn't start paying you more for another baby

No, the state does. It pays you more just as it pays the non-working parent more.

Perhaps the out-of-work parents are better at budgeting.

But you are saying that people on TAX CREDITS who are on them for the reason that their bloody hard dull and essential work is not paid enough by the market which undervalues everything except casino finance and property speculation, should only have one child?

Sorry, you're not convincing me or many others I should think.

Usual, no, I wouldn't pay higher costs, I want to pay less tax so that I can continue to provide for my own children and not have to support people who are long term unemployed having children.