I dare you to think this benefits couple is reasonable

[lainiekazan]

Dh's brother and wife are very comfortable: large house, Range Rover, etc.

Their dd lives with her boyfriend in a country cottage on housing benefit. Neither work due to depression. They run a car, have holidays, nice clothes financed by their parents.

Now the dd is having a baby, and they are awaiting a new-build HA home in dh's brother's village.

The boyfriend is a professional student (he told me he can always find funding as he is unwaged and independent) and he said that their dc will be privately educated because it/they will be eligible for bursaries.

Surely IANBU for all this majorly sticking in my craw?

Seeing that the boyfriend has clearly been pulling the OP's leg about serial student funding (as has been pointed out repeatedly on this post) and about combining student funding with benefits (again pointed out on this thread) and seeing that he can hardly have any practical experience of actually getting any bursaries for his dc (an unborn baby!), I wouldn't take anything else he says on trust either.

It all reminds me of the other thread from this morning: my dh has just left his job and we're going to get umpteen thousand in benefits when he signs on. Well dear, you haven't got it yet. I think I'll just hold off my pearl clutching until I see if you do.

I feel that for clarity, I should add simply that as someone who works in student funding, although the comments made regarding the limits of student finance are so far correct for higher education; for further education there is further funding available for people who are unemployed and on benefits. Someone who is long term unemployed could get course fees waived for a considerable length of time, and often help with childcare, although financial help with living costs is usually very limited or unavailable.

I should add though that in most cases, although being unemployed and on benefits would mean funding is available, once the student enrolled they would lose most of their further benefit entitlement.

Always thanks for that info. It does fit pretty well with what I and others said earlier, anyway; help is there to do a course, and to make that possible, yes, but not just to hand out sums of cash to cover living expenses beyond a very small amount. So, again, the bf is not going to be living the life of Riley on that. And, as you say, they would lose other benefits.

People who are disabled (including children), those who become seriously ill, the old and those who simply cannot care for themselves and have to rely on 'care in the community' should not have to 'beg' for money.

I have heard but I don't know if it is true that cancer sufferers get no extra help with bills when they have to give up work. I hope it isn't true.

These people, who have extra stress, should not have to worry about money on top of everything else. So, I think that there should be a re-distribution, maybe even enlarge the welfare budget, so that they are taken proper care of.

Other welfare claimants would have to take less. By 'others' I mean those who have never worked, not people who find themselves on the dole after a lifetime of working and have to make do with a pittance. I guess I mean those who never intend to work or who spend their lives getting pregnant to avoid getting off their arses.

I'm all for giving more, much more, to the sick, the disabled and those who have worked and for giving less to the Jeremy Kyle type of claimant and unless they are all, every man jack of them, concentrated in a town about 20 miles from me, there must be a fair few of them about. I am quite ready for someone to come along and say these arses are only a tiny percentage and I will accept that if this is so, then yes, they must all be concentrated in this area.

A tiered system of benefits because one size fits all is insulting and not fit for purpose.

People who are disabled (including children), those who become seriously ill, the old and those who simply cannot care for themselves and have to rely on 'care in the community' should not have to 'beg' for money.

When someone suggests this it will be well worth arguing against it. I think you're jumping the gun though.

missmarple is talking about funding at a local authority level, something everyone chooses to ignore as it only affects minority groups

My DH was medically retired in his early 50s and is in receipt of DLA. He also pays tax on his pension. We occasionally - gasp! - go on holiday together.

So, is he a workshy benefit claimant or a hard-done-by taxpayer? As it's obviously so clear-cut and black-and-white, and as some people seem to have the amazing ability to judge a situation on less than the full facts, medical records etc, it would be useful to know whether I'm married to the scum of the earth or an upstanding pillar of society.

I hate benefit bashing threads.

It is not your money and if you don't like contributing to our welfare state, go live elsewhere!

Those of you up in arms about all the unemployed benefits scrounges are deluded!

Here is the welfare spending for the UK...Those damnable pensioners. Liars cheats and thieves the lot of them

Very true

Why not try being informed before being incensed?

It is not your money and if you don't like contributing to our welfare state, go live elsewhere!

yes is it the tax payers money. we don't have to go somewhere else. the UK is a democracy - the people get to decide what we should pay for.

yes pensioners are expensive. which is why everyone of working ages who can work, needs to support them.

I'd bet the entire welfare budget that if one of David Cameron's dcs, or George Osborne's, or Prince Harry, were claiming housing benefit as well as being supported by their parents then many on MN would combust with rage.

I think the circumstances of the parents should be taken into account. In Italy, if your dc has a child and can't afford to support it, (or in fact if any relative can't support themselves, including the elderly) the authorities come knocking at the next of kin's door.

Is this a real thread? I thought it was some kind of royal family piss take.

"we don't have to go somewhere else. the UK is a democracy - the people get to decide what we should pay for."

Then stop fucking whinging, if you're staying! The UK is a democracy, thank fuck it is! The UK is also a shining example of a welfare state.

As for people talking shite about how everyone of working age should work...pray tell where these jobs aplenty for all are hiding (not even going to get into people who are unable to work for medical reasons etc)?

Those of us who are still lucky enough to have a job should be mindful that, that could change very quickly.

I'm not sure I would look to the Italian government for ideas on how to run a country...

Then stop fucking whinging, if you're staying!

i am not quite sure why you think you get to say what anyone else thinks...but maybe its the best reasoned argument you can come up with?

or can you do better?

Pretty sure I asked about these mythical jobs for all you and your ilk propose but yes, that's about as much effort I'm prepared to put in when I have no real interest in debating with people who don't see the real picture.

Hi Feegle,

I think the benefits system should be expanded, so that people suffering from life changing and life threatening illnesses should have, if they need it, all their bills paid.

I think that disabled people should be paid above the average wage- who who has full use of their bodies or brain would jib at that?

Pensioners should have their state pension because they can no longer work and who would begrudge old people. We will all be old.

Carers who have dedicated their lives to looking after disabled children or relatives should not have to worry either. Who would want them to worry about money.

people who have worked all their lives, get into their fifties are made redundant should have much more than £70 a week.

Young people with bugger all wrong with them, can most certainly find work..maybe low paid work, maybe crap work but work. If not, they should be given the absolute minimum to keep body and soul together and yes, maybe live in a hostel to keep their bills down.

Women who have children and who don't work and whose partner doesn't work should again be given the bare minimum with vouchers for food and children's clothes unless they fall into one of the above groups.

I haven't done a survey on how many of the last two groups there are but on the evidence of my eyes, there seems to be quite a few. If there aren't, is that any reason for not doing it? Does there have to be a certain number before action is taken?

You would find that most people wouldn't dream of benefit bashing any of the remaining groups.

More money is needed and it should be given to those who through no fault of their own need it, because there but for the grace of God, go any of us.

missmarple
Did you see the Benefits programme on the BBC the other night (Nick and Margaret from the Apprentice) where reports show that at the lower skills end of the market there are 45 applicants for every job. So no, many can't find work because there just isn't that much low skilled work around.

No. I didn't. How many of the 45 applicants fell into my last 2 groups?

So basically, missmarplestmarymead you would like to point a big shitty stick at some members of our society and tell everyone how these people they are untrustworthy with money, as they would just piss it up the wall and smoke their lungs out, so they should be stigmatised further by enforcing a food voucher system, therefore ensuring that confidence and self-esteem levels never rise further than the feeling of utter shame and embarrassment reserved for these 'waste of space and resources' people.

Sometimes, we have to exercise a little discrimination, Feegle, If some will piss their benefits up against the wall that is not their right to do so. Sometimes choices have to be made. if the pot was running out and some say it is, who would you decide should get the last fiver?

Using dramatic language and silly images is a thin smokescreen to try and drive someone into a particular reply. It's a bit like 'how often do you beat your wife?' and absolutely transparent.

If I said my bil was a banker, would you still say that his dd is entitled to housing benefit etc?

Yes, assuming nobody is breaking the law. (What etc? I think we established that the private schooling and endless money from being a student was imaginary).

Presumably he pays a lot of money in tax. If his daughter has a mental illness I don't begrudge her receiving help.

miss I was using descriptive language and I actually do not care what your reply is, or anyone else who is in agreement with you. We are never going to come to any kind of compromise on our opinions. I'm not too keen on wasting my energy on trying to educate people with such nonsense ideals.

lainie Yes, I'd say his DD is not him and is just as entitled as the next person who needs it.

I shall have to wallow in ignorance!