To think that having two horses at livery is actually a luxury.....?

[Marigoldfetish]

I know this is going to get me flamed etc. but I really don't care well I do a bit else I wouldn't have namechanged

I live near a large family of 8, the children range from 14 years to 18 months. The parents are lovely people, I often have a chat to them about the kids as they have some issues with their teenage girl pretty much the same as mine.

Recently the mum told me they have got two of their children horses, and my children could go and have a ride if they wanted, they are going to be kept at livery stables up the road.

The family's sole income is benefits - I know this as the mum is quite open about this, and that they don't want to work as a) they couldn't earn what the get in benefits and b) she wants her OH at home to help with the kids. Without being too specific so as not to out them or me, one of the parents gets a higher benefit allowance for depression (so the mum has told me). To be honest, fair play to them - if they have made that as a lifestyle choice and their kids are well looked after and happy, and they are only getting what they are entitled to.

I realise this will attract the usual suspects and talk of goats, plasma screens and the like, but..... somebody please tell me, in the name of my sanity, that I am not being unreasonable to think that benefits are not provided for somebody to keep two bloody horses at livery????

[pigletmania]

Word it's not just stabling horses it's the upkeep farrier, tack, if they show them fees for that, food

[wordfactory]

Well you can do deals for all those things, particularly if you horse-share.

But the insurance is what it is. No deals to be done there. And it is expensive!

[pigletmania]

What I am trying to say tat benefits are there to rivière the minimum a family needs to keep a roof over their head and food on the table not pursue luxury hobbies. There is something wrong there if the woman is able to do this on benefits. It's people like her that give those on benefits a bad image

[Stinkyminkymoo]

YANBU. I have 2 horses and have worked incredibly hard to keep them.

Whilst buying a horse is cheap (especially in this climate, you can pick one up for a tenner at the sales ) and you could keep it fairly cheaply on just grass livery (ie no stable, just a field) if you ended up with a horse that injures itself badly enough to need vet care, you can become v unstuck.

My baby horse has a problem with the cartilage in his knee. His box rest (when he had to stay confined to his stable to minimise any further damage) cost me £2,000 for 3 months. I was heavily pregnant for the first 2 months and had a new baby for the third so could not have possibly done it myself.

That doesn't include the vets fees and treatment. He is fully insured but it didn't cover all his box rest as I discovered afterwards to my horror so I had to pay the rest out of my own pocket. This is why I never go on holiday or spent money on myself for this kind of issue that's bound to arise when you least need it to.

They say the fastest way to become a millionaire is to start as a billionaire & buy horses.

[Dawndonna]

I posted earlier about what my sister does with her horses. Did nobody read it? There is the possibility that she is paying nothing, but no, that can't be the case, scroungers diddling the tax payer or nothing.

[catgirl1976]

Perhaps a list of what people on benefits are and are not allowed to spend that money one would be best

OP - if they manage thier money in such a way they can afford to spend £40 - £70 per week on livery it is up to them really. It's not a vast amount - less than a lot of people spend on fags and far healthier

[ShellyBoobs]

OP YANBU.

Everyone knows YANBU.

It's why there won't be another lefty government for a very long time.

[elastamum]

I keep horses on DIY livery. There are at least 2 people on benefits keeping horses at the yard and one on disability who is too sick to work but manages to be up riding at 7.30am each morning

[pigletmania]

Dawn there is noway that horses cost nothing. Are we not allowed to pass comment about it, horses cost a lot f money to keep yes it is wrong for somebody who is not able to support themselves to keep them, tey have 8 kids they hardly come chea. Believe it or not there are people that diddle the system nt all benefit claimants are legit!

[pigletmania]

Yes when you are both on benefits unable to support your family yourself, have 8 dependents than having an expensive horses is a luxury is it not!

[Dawndonna]

Piglet If you'd read my post, my sister has two families that use her horses. My sister, who can afford it, pays all costs. It does her a favour and the families concerned. Ergo, costs the families on benefits nothing. My sister is not the only person in the world doing this.

[saffronwblue]

I can't get my head around the lifestyle choice of not working. How do all the children have their aspirations if they have never seen Mum or Dad go to work, let alone build a career? I think DC learn such a lot from hearing parents talk about their work, the highs and lows and how you have to solve problems and deal with other people and show up when you feel like crap. None of this is being demonstrated to these children - I imagine they would not have the first idea how to fulfil their aspirations and I find that sad.
Also can't resist saying horses for courses.

[pigletmania]

Fine if that's the case but ip said that they pay each week

[rogersmellyonthetelly]

I describe my horse as "the walking money pit" I'll admit he is the expensive sports model, but even without any vets bills, just his hay feed and bedding cost me £30 a week, livery is on top of that, with insurance, wormers and vets bills, not to mention the shoes. It is possible that they are reducing the costs perhaps by mucking out someone else's horse in exchange for hay, such arrangements do exist on livery yards, and perhaps if they have native ponies rather than horses they won't need shoes, just a farrier trim every 8 weeks. Hell, I used to trim my own horses back feet when I was really skint.
It's not a case of people on benefits shouldn't be allowed to keep horses - just that if the benefits system is paying out enough money that they can reasonably afford to do it for not one horse, but two, something is very wrong with the system.

[pigletmania]

Exactly roger la queen, here are other costs on top of stabling a horse. If they can have 2 horses whilst none of them work than tree is obviously something wrong there

[pigletmania]

I agree saffron, but of curse we are not allowed to say things like that on here.

[LadyBeagle]

My mate has a couple of ponies, she took them on as they were 'difficult', she lives permanently on minimum wage and her and and her partner built a shed/stable for them. She was lucky enough to have been given a bit of croft land but she has spent a fortune on vet's fees.
What I'm trying to say is maybe your mate just loves horses, and àt least they're getting a good life, there's an awful lot of horses out there, who are living horrible lives.
I'ts not just the riçh that have horses, you know.

[IDontDoIroning]

My colleague has a field and she keeps horses. The expense astounds me. She has the farrier every 4 weeks, vets bill for just the run of the mill things like injections are hugs and god forbid they have an illness or injury. Hay and feed costs are huge too.
Rugs and saddles all that stuff isn't cheap.
It's her choice she and her dh work and the horses are kept on their land but I know that some months her entire wages just goes on the horses in some shape or manner.

[difficultpickle]

How do they cover the cost of shoes and vets bills? I have a good job and could afford full livery for one horse. I would love to have a horse but my good job is full time and I cannot spare the time to make it worthwhile.

[EternalHope]

I have problems with anyone who is on benefits as a lifestyle choice. Whilst is may be legal, it is immoral in the precisely the same way that tax avoidance by the rich may be legal but is also immoral: in both cases, the people that pick up the price tab are the ordinary hardworking taxpayers, including youngsters on minimum wage but nonetheless paying taxes and not able to afford horses.

If the way that the horses are afforded is through some kind of barter arrangement (livery in return for horses being used for lessons for clients, say) then that arrangement should be valued and declared as income to be offset against benefits. Just because it is not cash earned does not mean it has no monetary value and should not be declared as income. If livery is paid for in full then I agree totally with La Queen above.

BTW I am totally supportive of generous benefits giving a reasonable standard of living (not poverty) for people who are in genuine need: ill, out of work, whatever, but not as a CHOICE. If all those who could do, did without benefits then we would be able to pay MORE to those with no alternative.

[Dawndonna]

The other point is, the OP said that one parent suffers from depression. Maybe, just maybe, she/he is using dla to cover the cost. In which case it's nobodies business to judge. Perhaps they're using all their dla to cover the cost, or just some. So what? It's not anybodies business.

[kenanddreary]

Well it warms my heart to know that when I get up on yet another dark, cold Monday morning to face another week in a tough classroom that somewhere out there someone is benefitting from my hard work by being able to visit their horses and get out in the fresh air of the countryside.

Yes - it makes it all worthwhile - that's definitely motivating

[gettingeasier]

Agreed how people spend their benefits shouldnt be under scrutiny anymore than how people spend their salary.

What should be under scrutiny is policy making whereby nobody is funded long term by the state without very good reason.

The idea that as long as you have a child under 4 years old in the house you can claim benefits irrespective of how many children you already have and claim benefit for is madness.

ophelia talked earlier about the Tia Shape case and how nobody likes to think about those scenarios and the fact that many people decide 100% to abuse the benefits system. I note not one poster has commented on that.

To me on MN if you dare query someones right to a benefit of some kind or say out loud that there scrounging lazy gits openly abusing the system you are some kind of facist

Oh and OP I dont think YABU but I dont get why you think its ok for your friend to choose to live off benefits with her DH and 6 DC in tow