for being annoyed that our tax is paying for people to buy wallpaper.

[suzexxx]

I saw a post from a girl on facebook asking whether the social could help her buy things to do up her home e.g wallpaper and paint. Alot of people commented that she could get some vouchers to use on a certain paint brand and B&Q etc.

AIBU to think this girl should save some money or attempt to get a job for extra luxeries before expecting the social to foot the bill?

I'm moving house next month and the whole house will need decorating. However i am realistic in the fact i won't be able to afford to wallpaper the whole place at once, instead doing a bit at a time as and when i can afford it. My partner earns a moderate income and i'm currently on maternity leave, so money is tighter at the moment, but would never expect someone to pay for something i could manage without like wallpaper.

I completely understand people using the social to buy essential items such as a cooker or fridge, but not non essentials.

:( threads like these are a disgrace!!

Was it that same thread on food banks where the OP, or someone else, was outraged that poverty-stricken parents could get Easter eggs for children there? I found that particularly special, for someone on a parenting site [Jesus wept emoticon]

I always do at these threads and then they back track as a poster up thread said it is a disgrace, yes I remember the easter eggs fury oxford , and there was also a biscuit outrage on a food bank thread , ,

Agree with WilsonFrickett. I have never in my life minded paying tax, and our household income is also six figures (just). I also, actually, don't mind if some people on benefits spend it on booze and fags. I might too if I had no job, no prospects of a job and a damp cold flat to live in. It seems to me to be the lesser of two evils that some people 'waste' the money if the alternative is that people don't get help that they need and deserve.

I also agree that the "net contributor' thing is pretty irrelevant. The NHS has saved my life twice, and the benefits system kept me and my family fed and housed for a while when I was a child. I wouldn't still be here without other people's taxes.

Lord Irving sponged £59,000 off the tax payer for wallpaper a few years back. As net contributors I bloody well object to that.

The food bank one was the op being outraged that anything with sugar should go in, considered as "treats".

In all fairness, op has admitted she was wrong - can we not give credit for that?

Bloody hell oxford, I just read your post about the Easter eggs and burst into tears sodding post-partum hormones. Did people really resent children getting Easter eggs? :(

Only read the first page, I didn't realise wallpaper was seen as a luxury! Why? Wallpaper can sometimes work out cheaper than paint!

That food bank one made me buy sweets for my donation.
I took it in today
I put tomato ketchup in as well.

where I work we put cakes and biscuits and selection boxes in the christmas hampers

Ketchup mrsjay? They'll be bathing in Dom Perignon next.

Sorry, MrsDeVere

OP it's probably natural to feel frustrated seeing some getting help and others not. Many people feel that way and not everyone believes in the level of state intervention, state housing etc that is the norm in the UK.

Unfortunately you've made one of the cardinal sins of Mumsnet- criticising benefits. There are a few other no-nos on MN which I'm sure you've also come across. It's really not worth posting on this topic. There's not much in the way of debate... You will just get flamed. As you have.

Of course it's worthy of debate william isn't that what just happened?

Again. A b&q voucher is NOT a benefit. It's a contribution towards doing up a flat. It's cheaper for the ha to do it this way than it is for them to employ painters and decorators to do it for them.

And just to be clear, yet again it is NOT A BENEFIT. It is the landlords way of actually saving money.

Well, that's true, williaminajetfighter.

I do get frustrated when I see social housing being repaired and kept in good decorative order by the LL, and then private landlords letting flats with non-opening windows and covered in mould (see current thread).

But my frustration isn't that the social tenants are being treated with respect and living in sanitary conditions.

It's that the private tenants aren't.

For the (sainted) Tax Payer

"Not everyone believes in the level of intervention, state housing etc that is the norm in the UK"

No, those would be the folk who would NEVER have to use it, it's easy not to believe in something you don't have a use for and never will.

It's also called "pull the ladder up Jack and sod the rest"

And the OP did NOT get "flamed", people pointed out not unreasonably that it wasn't as simple as she thought. That sometimes when you get housed as an emergency you might get a home in a poor state. Asking for a loan in those situations to do the work is not unreasonable. It gets paid back into the pot and then someone else benefits from it.

Luis I don't think it's a particularly compelling debate when most of the posts basically just call the OP an ass.

Lots and lots and lots of people in this country feel the way the OP does especially people who struggle on low incomes but are over the threshold for support. But MNers just tend to write off all the people who might feel this was as fascist DM readers. I've rarely seen posters illuminated by the 'debate' about this issue on MN because it just turns into name calling.