not lack of jobs - lack of ambition!

[eggs11]

I know very, very little about politics, and if you can help me see this from a different perspective, please do!

A friend is a labour party member, and we recently had a row.I have a good friend (I like her for her personality, not for her life choices) who had a baby at 16 and is on benefits. She has a now 4 year old, starting school in September. She has a huge two bed flat in london (we would love to live where she does! but couldn't afford it), sky tv, the child has a nintendo ds, new clothes all the time, constant days out. I said it makes me angry that me and DP work (we also had a baby young) really really hard. Firstly, I had to go back after 9months, while she gets to sit on her bum until her kid is 5. Secondly, she gets free childcare! She had 2year old funding and 3 year old funding, while the £50 a day to put my 1year old in nursery makes it barely worth me working.

This is the point where we had a row. My labour friend said that it's not her fault that she's on benefits, there's no jobs to make it worth her working. However, if you spoke to my other friend, she has never even considered working. She said to me last week, when her daughter goes to full time school in sept, she has two options: 1) have another baby and get another 5years 6months, which she's planning on doing. 2)Wait until sept, then she has another 6months on job seekers to get pregnant. HOW IS THAT FAIR????? she isn't even looking after her daughter for the past two years, because she's in nursery. Why does this woman get to sit on her bum with free childcare? Why isn't she made to do voluntary work as a fully abled 22 year old with 10 gcse's, or at least made to go with her daughter to nursery and learn parenting skills, which is what I assume they think she lacks if her daughter gets so much funding!

I'm not saying that everyone on benefits/job seekers allowance isn't looking for work. I know how hard it was for DP to find work, it took months of hundreds of applications. I'm saying that while a life on benefits is so cushty and just relies on a baby every five years, no one has the incentive to work! labours answer was increase the working wage. I disagree, she's comfortable, why would she go out to work just for a few extra quid a week?

Yes, quite Bogeyface.
I cannot believe the impression that posters on here have about people on benefits as opposed to the utter sustained misery of living on them.

Bogey face- it's not about lowering benefits. It's about ensuring that someone in the lowest paid, most menial and unskilled job, is significantly better off than they would be on benefits. And the more you work, the more you should earn.

The system has become so unwieldy and complex that it is quite possible to be working and have a standard of living which is no better than you would have on benefits, or by working very part time. That is quite clearly bonkers. If anyone disagrees with that, and believes it is possible to run an economy and society effectively without ensuring that people are significantly better off in work- please share your secret.

lady, I'm confused

can you show me a post where someone genuinely thinks people on benefits have a good life? I've never met anyone who thinks this, or read that on here. I've read posts including my own, about someone that is cheating the system dishonestly and it claiming money they aren't due, and living a cushy life off the back of this. But nowhere have I read someone saying people who claim the correct amount they are due to receive have it easy...?

Bogey face- it's not about lowering benefits. It's about ensuring that someone in the lowest paid, most menial and unskilled job, is significantly better off than they would be on benefits. And the more you work, the more you should earn.

Unfortunately, making claimants poorer does not make low paid people any better off financially. IMO, what is 'bonkers' is allowing companies to pay paltry wages/employ people on workfare. Companies should prioritise paying their workers a decent living wage before handing out million pound salaries to their CEOs. We need a fairer society - not a divided one where badly paid workers are encouraged to despise benefit claimants (which is what Osborne etc seem keen to encourage).

I never suggested making benefit claimants poorer. I am saying that being in work should leave people significantly better off than not working.

ssd - you keep going on about people 'cheating the system dishonestly'. Seriously, if you genuinely know people who are doing this why aren't you dobbing them in for fraud?

... the only way people can be 'significantly better off' by working, rather than not working, is if wages are significantly increased.

But ssd, there are sooo many people on Mn that know somebody, or have a cousin or a friend of a friend or the cousin of a friend etc etc that have 2 holidays abroad a year, run a car and have huge tellies, Sky and every electronic device known to man.
They usually have countless children in designer gear as well.
This comes up all the time on benefit basher threads and as somebody said upthread, it's designed by the Government to make the working poor have someone to look down on.
And it's working, judging by what I read on here.

Expat. Oh i seeeee.

[wonders who the poster is]

Twofingers. I have a friend who is a single parent to school age children, doesn't work and also claims carers allowance to care for a relative. Except she can't really care for the relative as they live too far for her to get to their house, would cost a fortune in cabs, no buses go that way and she doesn't drive, too far to walk etc etc

The relative does have a condition, there is no denying that but my friend doesn't care for her on a daily basis. I don't actually know what she is expected to do though to be able to claim, but i do recall that when one of my parents tried to claim carers when the other was seriously ill it was so hard! Got turned down because my parent worked and so couldn't also be considered a carer, or something like that. It was a nightmare! And seemed so unfair as they really needed help

So Im not sure how my friend managed it. She is doing ok money wise, in that she has holidays and a gym membership (oh if only) nice clothes, is able to throw parties, have nights out a lot, expensive furniture etc.

But to get to the point of why i don't grass her up . . . because who the feck does that to a friend? Would you really? Would i want to see her and her children suffer? Of course not.

Personally i do think she's got stuck in a rut and it would be good for her confidence to work part time or something but i can't make her, but i would never grass her up.

It vaguely irritates me but mostly because Im so skint and it doesn't always seem fair. And also so unfair that my family were turned down at a time of great need. I don't understand it really. None of us had ever claimed benefits though whereas every member of my friends family do so perhaps they know how it works better.

I agree that wages should be higher, but a lot of the focus in this thread and others has not been on the fact that workers aren't paid enough but that claimants are paid too much.

Lots of comments along the lines of "why should my tax pay for someone to sit on their arse all day?" "I dont pay tax on my earnings for someone else to do nothing....." "We work and cant afford sky, why should someone on benefits have it?"

Its not about increasing wages, but about taking away from claimants. And that attitude is wrong! It wont solve anything but will create a terrible situation of homeless families and neglected children.

I wonder how these people would feel about paying their tax to foster and care homes because millions of children have been taken from their parents just because the parents can't afford to feed and clothe them.

Oh and I think that we can safely disregard the "my cousins sisters dogs aunties babysitter is claiming £X and has three holidays a year blah blah" As has been said, the official figures for fraudulent claims is less than 1%, so a couple of anecdotal stories on a thread with almost 300 messages is hardly representative of the benefit claiming community as a whole.

You can be a carer and also work as long as you don't earn more than £100pw, you also don't have to physically see the person you care for for any minimum time scale

You have to be doing things on there behalf for at least 35 hours pw, your carer duties may be in the form of either practical help,personal care or supportive encouragement emotional care.

I.E one person may need a carer to clean,cook or do shopping or physically assist them with movement dressing ect.

Another may need a carer to just cook

Another may need a carer to attend to personal washing ect

And another may need a carer just to be there or just to communicate or be aware of health variations or to provide verbal support or encouragement

Or be available as and when needed

Or to phone 27 times during waking hours for reassurance and checking amongst other types of verbal help

Also ca is £53 pw hb take most of it hmrc ( tax credits) treat it as earned income so it can reduce any of those it also can lower the amount f benefits the cared for person receives, So that ca probably makes her about £16 pw better off than a person in her circumstances who is not a carer and reduces her relatives income.

Ooh a benefits bashing thread on MN....how original

I agree with Janey - the govt has to give people an incentive to work.

It is appalling that the "working poor" exist. I know a woman who very matter of factly mentioned that her feet would get wet as she had holes in her trainers - she couldn't afford new that month as she'd had to buy her DD new school shoes. That woman had a DP who worked and did shift work herself around the school day and her DPs work.

I genuinely don't understand how she can be in that position whilst someone else I know is a single parent on benefits spends her whole time buying new boots in the HofF sale.

Anyone on low pay will also be on benefits Sara......so cutting benefits will penalise your friend just as it does the person who is not working.

And a single parent buying boots in the HofF sale is raking money in from another source. I am a single parent on benefits and I have a disabled child meaning I get extra....but no way can I afford boots. My last ankle boots came from a charity shop at £8 and that was about my maximum budget too.

jake I didn't mention "cutting benefits"

And I know the woman buying boots is getting money from other sources - her 2 DC's fathers pay a large amount of maintenance whilst she is also in IS.

My point was that is wrong that the working poor exist.

Yes, sorry, I realise that Sara, mind running away with me at the moment. Just saying both are going to face cuts to their income over the next two years in real terms......both the low paid working person and those on benefits.
Interestingly enough when I spoke to a lone parent advisor about the possibility of going back to work in the next few years his advice was that at NMW I would need to do 30 hours to break even......now that IS not right or fair. Thankfully my qualifications mean I won't be on NMW but for those who are I can see why some will not bother. Not all because most people realise that there are more benefits to work than financial.

An....yes maintenance is not counted due to it sometimes being unreliable.....so that's how she does it.

I teach at least 3 students a year that apply for the course in order to claim a funded nursery place then don't attend or submit work. Consequently I see them and chuck them off the course but many students coming to FE courses get away with it for quite a long time.

Accept it that not everyone is striving to better themselves and some people do actually want to doss about while other people pay.

Sock.

That's interesting. You know a lot about it!

In my parents case the working one definitely earned more than 100 a week because it was a full time job although was still a fairly low paid job. My sick parent could really have done with full time help as they couldn't even make themselves a cup of tea some days and couldn't dress themselves etc but it just wasn't possible financially for the other to give up work. So the working one would help them before work and do what they could and then go to work late so that they were around for a few hours in the morning. Then others would be around later sometimes including me, but it meant the sick parent spent hours alone which wasn't good.

I don't begrudge anyone benefits who need them. Times can get really hard and in those times people need all the help they can get. I do however not understand how it was so difficult for my parents to get much.

They applied for disability living allowance (think that's what it was called) which they were turned down for as well despite the fact that my parent was actually dying I fought on their behalf and managed to get them that but it took some doing!

One of my parents had actually spent their entire adult life not able to work due to an illness. They were turned down for any help due to it being an illness which you could say is "all in the head", they just accepted it and didn't appeal and so my healthy parent spent years and years supporting a family on one low wage.

I don't know if there really was a time when mental illnesses didn't qualify or if it was a mistake or if the rules changed at some point or what. But my parents were the sort to just accept it and give up and struggle.

They are the type of people who really suffer when its made difficult to apply for benefits. The ones who know the system manage it no matter how hard its made. Its those like my parents who really need it who just gets poorer and poorer and go without food to feed their children, and then children like me who grow up very poor as a result, without clothes (i used to share a few badly fitting things with my mum as i got older) and opportunities, school trips etc.

Because my sick parent couldn't claim anything we didn't get free school dinners and things like that. It has a knock on effect.

It affected other things such as my teeth! I needed braces but my poorly parent couldn't get me to appointments and it wasn't practical for the working one to take time off to take me as they worked 12 hour days in a job which eventually gave them a breakdown. My teeth weren't really a priority. So to this day i still have a wonky smile and more teeth than my mouth can handle which can be painful sometimes.

Wow Im going on and on and on . . .

Im not really sure what my point it, perhaps that it just seems so unfair. Those who really need it don't seem to get much help and yet i see others who appear to do well on benefits to the extent that they don't have an incentive to go back to work.

After all this though, i have no idea what the solution is!

Your point about braces is pertinent. I also know quite a few working adults who have terrible problems with their teeth because they cannot afford dental work. If they were on benefits they would be given the treatment for free.
This isn't about benefit bashing... I actually believe essential dental work and check ups should be free for all. There are people on here who are sticking their fingers in their ears and going 'la la la benefit bashers' because it's more convenient that accepting what many of us are actually saying. I have no problem with benefits being at the level they are- it's just that when working people who supposedly earn too much to qualify for benefits are in real terms able to afford less than people on low incomes or no income then the situation is not only absurd but unsustainable. Which is what the govt has finally recognised.
Make work pay. Make more hours of work pay more.
In reality there can be very little , or even no, difference in the actual standard of living between one person working full time and not qualifying for anything and someone working say, part time in a lower paid job getting top ups. Where the hell is the incentive for that full timer?