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????

Oh, and then you have the cost of expensive stuff, for shows, pony club, hunting etc.

em, i spend my benefit money running my car - i just wanted to check that was okay with everyone here?

not if you enjoy using your car mummmsy. you aren't allowed to enjoy anything whilst on benefits.

oh goody, that's such a relief Tired because I actually hate the bloody thing really, it's 19 years old, rusty, dented, conks out, despite getting me to job interviews etc

oh, but it does make life much more pleasant for me and dd, staying dry and warm, getting shopping etc - perhaps I should give it up since there is a certain amount of comfort derived from said benefit-funded vehicle?

in that case you must give it up. cant have people being comfortable. comfort isn't for the likes of you!

Keeping horses does ot necessarily cost megabucks- is it working livery?

oh, i will, immediately!

will self-flagellate later too

That is not what I am saying, but keeping horses is a luxutpry whatever way you look at it, people do not go out to work to pay for their horses. There is something wrong with the system as a whole when its better to stay on benefits than to work. With their lack of work ethic they will probably pass to their children. Many people would love to have someone at home to help them with the kids but they have to go to work to support their family and pay taxes to keep this family and others like them in te lifestyle they have

One of the adults suffers with depression. Perhaps she/he needs the other parent at home to help. Perhaps the other parent gets carer's allowance for doing so.
I agree that people should not fiddle benefits. I agree that there shouldn't be a culture of benefits as a lifestyle choice. I also think that if you don't know the real situation you should butt out. I also think you're bunch of judgemental old harridans that refuse to accept that there may just be an alternative.

Gosh so everyone should agree with you then! We should all accept it and be happy about people taking the piss . The op knows this family so she is in a better situation to make an opinion. I have had depression and have been in tat situation myself for a couple of years. Yes I think that some not all of course do take advantage of having depression.

Scheherezade - what size are your rugs? need some extra winter turnouts

My horse costs 300 a month basic livery and this price includes shoes. It does not include re-flocking of saddles, new tack, lessons, worming, vet, vaccinations et al.

If you honestly think that 600 pounds a month is "not a luxury" and everyone on benefits "has that right" then you and I live on different planets.

Agree with downtherabidhole. My horse costs £100 per week (including insurance etc). It is a luxury, no doubt about it.

However, hard cases make bad law and are there really very many families living exclusively on benefits as a lifestyle choice? Really? No matter what we do as a society, there will always be people who live rough, people who are criminals, people who are poor, people who won't work, people who can't work. Human beings are a diverse species.

I'm not sure that people who make different, legal choices should be branded as "immoral". It's up to us as voters to make sure that if we don't agree with the system we get involved to get it changed, not stigmatise people who make legal choices within an approved framework .

It doesn't matter about the livery , horses are expensive and a luxury . You should not have them if you live on benefits .. Full stop.. Flame me all you like but they are luxuries along with a lot of other stuff you shouldn't have unless you pay for it yourself !!!

By the way I have always had horse and know exactly what they cost.

What some on here fail to realise is that for them to make a choice like that somebody has to go to work, money does not come out of nowhere.

That's the rest of us! I have read this thread with mounting incredulity. I'm normally a softy liberal, and quite proud that I am able to earn so much that I seem to keep several families in benefits, if they really need it, that is a humane society.

But to male a "lifestyle choice" to have 6 children on benefits? That is not what Aneurin Bevin (architect of the Welfare State) intended. It's a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

And I had ponies as a teenager so I really do know how much they cost: it's not the livery, it's everything else!

When I was widowed at 33 with a small child, I was living in a country with a much more basic welfare system. Free healthcare, and free schooling, but for us, it pretty much stopped there. And we didn't qualify anyway because, gosh, we'd saved up & got a mortgage, we had life insurance (my OH had a very sudden acute illness at 36) and we were both working professionals. I worked my butt off to keep my career going, knowing that that was the way to security for me & my child. I'm now comfortably off, and I know I'm lucky, but I used my talents, and was proud of being self-sufficient.

So excuse me if I sound like a Tory (I'm really not) but this sort of family gives those genuinely struggling ie most benefit recipients, such a hard time. For example, I think what is happening to the disabled in this country is a scandal.

The real problem with this sort of 'choice' is that those of us who do or have struggled see the so-called "easy" life of some families on benefits, and wonder why we have to work hard to support them. NOw I earn way above the national average so it doesn't hit me, but for families trying to get by, working outside the home, and scrimping and struggling, hearing about this sort of "lifestyle choice" must really really gall.

< dons tin hat, retires behind sofa >

colliedog and bishbosch you seem to be missing the point that this lifestyle choice is open to all of us as the system currently stands - therefore it isn't unfair if someone decides to opt for it and you don't.

The fact is that it is the system that needs to be changed so that benefits are exchanged for a contribution - call that work if you like. What is unfair is that some people are enabled to have a nice lifestyle without doing anything for it. The choice should not be work or don't work, but work for a named employer in return for a salary or work (or train) for the "community" in return for benefits.

People who are healthy should not be able to sit around at home all day without having to worry about how the bills will be paid. We have allowed the state to offer these choices and if we don't like it, we should do something about it. Its a red herring to talk about individual cases.

cu Rambo 6'3''-6'9''

Working livery is actually often more expensive because they are looking after your horse for you, like full livery plus exercise, schooling it.

Owning horses is expensive it's not just the livery but the farrier every 6 weeks for both horses at £70.00 a go plus hay, probably £10 per horse per week, plus hard feed in the winter add another £10 a week and supplements another £10 a weeks plus say £40 every couple of months for worming and then maybe £150 a year for injections. Also we probably spend at least £300 a year per horse for vet visits, x-rays, antibiotics etc. It is a very expensive hobby, all of that doesn't even take into consideration rugs for the horse, new tack when needed and clothing and footwear and safety gear for the rider and if they want to compete or anything that's loads more £££.

I don't really see how anyone on benefits could afford it for two horses but it's not for me to say it's right or wrong of them, what they do with their money is up to them as long as the bills are paid and the kids are fed and watered.

It is just really expensive with horses whatever your income, I think sometimes people go into it thinking it's ok it's just x amount for livery but it is way much more.

It surprises me that the extremely low % of benefit claimants with more than 3 children who have been on benefits for more than 2 years are known by loads of people on mn. It's a small world

You can keep horses quite cheaply , if you own your own land and have a make do and mend attitude to everything . My horse insurance is cheaper than my dogs insurance with pet plan , its only £16 a month .

Did the people own the horses before they started on benefits ? because a lot of people will sacrifice many things to keep their horses .