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?

[knackeredmother]

Although I must add, there are others who do pay her cash in hand (she charges £10 per hour) so she is definitely better off than me in real terms.
I am a professional, trained for over 10 years to get where I am, in the top 2% of the country academically to do what I do, yet this lady is better off than me.
Where's the sense?

[usualsuspect]

I think your judgey pants are strangling you.

Maybe you should switch careers?

[knackeredmother]

If I had no morals or work ethic I would do exactly that.

[Muminwestlondon]

If she has as much disposable income as you claim she is likely being supported by a partner or ex or her parents. I have known quite a few single parents on benefits and they really struggle to buy basics. Benefits alone is a desperate existence not a life.

I live in a very desirable part of London and would not want to live in a council flat here because most estates are crime and gang ridden. You also live cheek by jowl with some of the richest people in the country and local childcare and activities reflect that. It is not easy if you can't even buy your kid an ice cream in the park because it is £3.

Frankly it sounds like she feels she has no option but to continue her current lifestyle - not sure I would describe it as a positive choice.

[SaraBellumHertz]

Usual you're damned if you do damned if you don't re tax on MN

Personally I have paid plenty of people in cash over the past 20 years - I couldn't give a shit if someone working for the odd £8/10 ph pays tax or not and once the money has left my purse I consider it to be the payees concern not mine.

So shoot me

[knackeredmother]

Muminwestlondon: yes she is supported by her partner. He works part time. My point was their disposable family income is more than ours with 2 adults working full time. They both fully admit there is no incentive for them to work more when FTC effectively tops up their income and they get the other associated benefits I.e free school meals/prescriptions/ no childcare outgoings.

[chris481]

"It's ludicrous that if you have a nanny, a butler or a gardener they are tax deductible, but a nursery isn't."

None of those are tax deductible.

[IfNotNowThenWhen]

Janey, I dont see any resentment towards people earning 50 k and paying their own CT and rent.
I certainly don't resent them I wish them all the best.
But what you seem to fail to see is that our entire welfare system is under threat because of the misinformed, media fed bollocks about how people are better off on out of work/part time benefit, and I am pointing out that this is not the case, ever, no matter where you live.
I agree, wages should be higher, public transport should be less and rent should not take up over a third of your income (or nearly half in my case), and rich corporations should pay tax. I resent the politicians and journalists who feed people the rubbish they seem to believe about the high life on benefits.

[LadyBeagleEyes]

Get a cleaning job yourself then knackeredmother, since being in the top 2% academically in the country isn't giving you the lifestyle you deserve.

[nailak]

i got a neg2 place for my ds, 15 hours, it was on the basis we get ctc higher then family rate, that my elder dd had speech therapy and i was planning to do voluntary work in those 15 hours, and learn to drive and stuff, which would benefit the families future,

I also had to attend tripple p parenting.

[janey68]

Sara - you're dead right about damned if you do/damned if you don't! knackeredmother would have got a right flaming if she'd admitted to paying cash in hand. As she doesn't, she now gets a right flaming for working hard expecting to earn more than she would if she worked less. How very dare she!!

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Knackered.

Somebody is telling fibs, her dh is working that means they have wtc, wtc other than during the ( short)back to work run on prohibit you from getting free school meals, if you don't get free school meals then you don't get free school trips.

If they were not claiming top up benefits and had out of work benefits then she can earn ( figure from memory as I haven't checked for a bit) £20pw without it affecting her benefits.

Unless you live in a 20 room mansion or live like a pig there is no way cleaning your house will take her long enough to earn enough to pay any tax,if you live in a normal house and arnt a skank if it did take that long to clean it each week she's a shit cleaner so why employ her.

[fuckadoodlepoopoo]

Who would pay a cleaner in anything but cash? Most people aren't going to set up paye for their cleaners!

Window cleaners don't submit an invoice, its cash.

[usualsuspect]

How very dare people claim tax credits that they are entitled too.

You know what, if it's that cushy why don't you do it?

[JakeBullet]

I had WTC for a short while.....it makes you ineligible for free school meals etc. I have never had them all the while in work.....I get them now I am out of work.

This is what I mean about people not knowing all the facts and condemning someone on the basis of what they THINK they know.

[usualsuspect]

Yep, They are happy to get cheap labour for cash, but whinge like fuck about the people working for cash in hand.

Double standards anyone?

[pumpkinsweetieMasPudding]

you have to be on jsa or is to receive free trips & school dinners.
Those on low wages in receipt of wtc are not entitled to them knackered

[janey68]

Oh you wanted her to employ someone cash in hand then? But you were itching to slate her for it (til you realised she didn't!)
Oh dear , only on MN eh

[usualsuspect]

Only on MN do people post shite about receiving free school meals on WTC without knowing the facts.

[janey68]

Do you think people should pay cash in hand and people should accept it then? Yes or no?

[usualsuspect]

I think people who pay cash in hand should stfu about benefit scroungers.

[janey68]

An avoiding the actual question....

[usualsuspect]

I have no problem with people being paid cash in hand, it's just tax avoidance innit.

Like what the rich folks do.

[janey68]

Actually its tax evasion.
But thanks for clarifying your stance on it.

Personally I think tax evasion is illegal and tax avoidance stinks- whoever does it.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Cash in hand payments are not in themselves against he law nor are they evading tax. Its perfectly legal to hand a person there wages in cash.

It becomes tax fraud if that person is paid in the year enough to qualify paying tax and does not most people would need to be earning more than about £100 pw ( and qualify for ssp,smp ect) to need to pay any tax or NI