in thinking it is getting impossible to discuss the welfare state on here any more

[size20knickersandfatter]

Disclaimer: I am all for the welfare state. I firmly believe in the NHS, and have no desire for a return to workhouses or other such draconian matters.

However, it seems to be that ever since the Tories started making cuts, it's impossible to even question on here the morality or the fairness of the system. I'll admit it - I don't think the system was fair, at all.

I earn a very average salary. As a result I am only slightly better off than I would be on benefits and considerably worse off when my childcare costs are deducted. It's difficult not to feel resentful when you're in that position.

• I don't believe throwing money around will mean any less children will "go to bed hungry."

• I don't believe benefits should be more lucrative than paid work. Ever. And at the moment, they are. I think the fact that they ever were is disgraceful.

• I think the welfare state is a crutch in a crisis. Disability excepted, it is not a walking stick through life.

I also know there will be hundreds of yawns, this AGAIN, do I want children to starve, I want a return to the workhouse actually no I want the poor shot actually I want them deported ha ha ha what a bitch what a cow what a horrible person. Oh and she hasn't mentioned widescreen TVs LOL.

No, actually, I'm none of the above, I'm just an ordinary person struggling to make ends meet myself. It's very easy to be lofty and high handed and sentimental when you're on board the gravy train yourself. As it is, I don't want benefits to disappear but I don't know just one piss taker, I know several, and don't believe I'm not typical in this.

Welfare - benefits - cost a FORTUNE and people are deluding themselves if they think they don't. The cost of other services doesn't mean welfare isn't a massive cut. It's like saying "that holiday is cheap, look how expensive it is to spend a fortnight in Disneyland." The fact is, it's unsustainable.

I'm happy for people to be given the support they need but at the moment I think some people do think "give people on benefits all the money they like and it will end poverty."

It won't.

Because the term "average salary" nowadays does not equal a good salary.

The average salary in this country is barely enough to live on.

IMHO the biggest problem with the system is the inefficiency of the way it is administered. I suspect more money is wasted on this than is spent on benefits themselves.

It doesn't react well to changes in circumstances making it difficult to accept short term contracts. I know UC is meant to help but we'll see.

Work wise nil hour contracts are the work of the devil. No idea what you'll earn each month, could easily go a month with no pay yet no WTC because can't guarantee being over the hours threshold or not enough CTC because you earned a decent amount previously. The problem is worse because the nil hours contract employers expect you to be available all the time at a moments notice making a second job difficult if not impossible. That's before you take into account how difficult getting any job is these days.

The OP sounds like she's living a normal life though. Certainly much easier than my life growing up, which was then a normal life too. Most people have to make choices, go without for this to pay for that, have a lean month in order to pay for Christmas etc. It's just life when you don't have a limitless amount of money.

I agree with your opening post OP.

People aren't rational about it on here, the opinions are generally too extreme.

You get the same posters periodically posting 'Tory cunts, cutting benefits, robbing the poor to pay the rich, their children are suffering' etc

Then other posters 'my neighour is on benefits, taking the piss, living the life of Riley, it's not fair for me to pay my tax to support their lifestyle' etc

Most people are placed somewhere between the two opinions, but debates quickly become a downward spiral of name calling, and it gets too heated.

I don't know what your answer is, feelings run high from both points of view, so I don't think you'll get an unemotional debate.

The Economist published an article some years ago that put forward the theory that housing costs should not amount to more than 28% of the total household income. Any higher and there would be trouble.
I wonder now if we are seeing the effects of the relatively high cost of housing in all sectors?

Kim - yes that's exactly why employers don't pay a decent wage, that's the problem. It's not helped by bloody Tesco doing Workfare either

That about sums it up Crumpled although I'm not sure how normal we are!

It is difficult to get a job in some areas of employment, however our recent job ads attracted the grand total of 3 applicants Yes, some jobs are hugely competitive and hard to get - others, not so much.

I read propaganda in the newspapers, I recognise it as propaganda and ignore it, but by the same token I have to say the world I am presented through Mumsnet is at odds with the world I know. Anecdotal perhaps, but nonetheless, it's difficult to ignore what you see on a daily basis, isn't it?

bowlers you've described my stance pretty nicely there, I think - cheers!

Why thank you. Bit early yet, but I'll have it later. Cheers

redhelen of course you can have a mortgage on benefits. You are unlikely to get a new mortgage or be allowed to re-mortgage whilst on benefits but plenty of people have mortgages when benefits enter their lives.

It's pointless to "discuss the welfare state" for the simple reason that almost nobody, on either "side", knows a fucking thing about it that isn't anecdotal.

As a result, nobody makes any actual arguments worth the name, it's all just people getting up on their hindlegs and bellowing "I BELIEVE..." and then talks in very general terms about their "beliefs" using metaphor, general allusions to safety nets, crutches etc, illustrated perhaps by a story about their auntie's milkman's cousin. Then other people disagree with the generalised terms using their own generalised terms, nobody really says anything of substance, nobody changes their mind, and nobody learns anything.

This is very, very boring to read, and almost totally pointless to write.

Op....... Which benefit do you feel is too generous? Which one out of all of them are you referring to?

Also, why did you mention child care?

Discussions of the welfare budget tend to ignore the fact that by far and away the largest proportion of the spend is on state pensions and benefits relate to pensions. The benefits that tend to get people frothy at the mouth (unemployment benefit, income support etc) actually account for a very small % of the state's expenditure on benefits.

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html

Thanks Fay - that was the point I was trying to make in one of my earlier posts

Actually MadBusLady I think you're spot on, and you've pretty much summed me up. I have opinions, but know very little about the benefit system so would never comment on it because, well, it's just my opinion and I'm not sure i know enough about it to give my argument any substance.

You're also right about no one ever changing their mind. It's always the same old, same old from the same posters. Gets a bit tedious after a while.

Mum & Boys - not if you are on long term benefits which I took the thread to be about. yes, you may get the interest part paid, but only at a certain rate and for a certain amount of time.

MrsDV : the resentment is because people who have less are often paying for people who have more and don't work for it.

Why would you not resent that?

Yy,endless anecdotes.

What are 'long term benefits' ??

Bowlersarm then you have a restraint that is unfortunately rare It's like Budget Day, when almost everyone I know unexpectedly turns out to be an expert economist for a day.

Sparklymommy I also know several piss takers. Several mothers who have several kids and have never had a job. (I personally worked up until my oldest was 3 and a half). We struggle to make ends meet whilst I see some of these mothers living the life of Riley and it is frustrating

I suspect this trend (people looking for a free ride/meal ticket through life, men as well as women) supports the OP's original point.

People working long hours in stressful jobs don't post as frequently on mumsnet as those with an agenda in maintaining generous welfare state payments. Its not a balanced demographic for debate to spring from.

Theres also a lack of tolerance from some very shouty posters when their strongly entrenched views are challenged. They seek to stifle debate by informing people that, should they have any different view to themselves, they have all sorts of character flaws that mean their views are worthwhile. But presumably they can still pay the tax to support the benefits system.

Aye, right.

The point is crumbled in I general they don't have more. Through my work I have seen people on benefits who have good possessions. They fall into 4 groups those who were previously working and already had these possessions. They are unlikely to be replaced when broken, they have been bought from one of these weekly interest places for which they struggle to meet the payments and fear the bailiffs. They have saved for months if not years doing without something else (sometimes meals when it's for children's presents) or the worst group they have obtained them illegally. You envy these people? Really?

Added to the above, comparison is a pretty useful tool in debates. So if you compare the situation in the UK to that in similar countries in the same part of the world - Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc - their economies are currently doing better, they have less people on all types of benefits of lesser amounts despite higher costs of living, and the overall standard of living is now noticeably higher than in the UK. With the exception of housing. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that people in those countries tend to live in smaller houses and less luxury new builds than people of similar salary status in the UK, rent more, and take more responsibility for making upgrades to their homes themselves. I think theres also far more self builds, but I may be wrong.

I do think if there was a planning policy in this country that said that 20% of all new builds had to be self builds, it would be very beneficial for society.