Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

'The purpose of Welfare is to help people into work

331 replies

AnnieMaybe · 10/04/2014 22:12

This is what David Cameron just said at the end of the BBC benefit programme

Does he not know what welfare is? Has he forgotten the ethos of where it has evolved from

OP posts:
Feminine · 11/04/2014 10:54

Grin fid

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime · 11/04/2014 10:54

the initial purpose of the welfare state was to tackle "Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

SolidGoldBrass · 11/04/2014 10:56

Of course, benefit bashers are too stupid to consider another aspect of the whole business - what's so great about 'work' in the first place? Quite a lot of jobs are pretty pointless - even more so when they are paid at the minimum wage. They neither benefit society, nor do they generate a living wage or any satisfaction or self-respect for the person who does them.

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 10:58

Fidiline how do you explain then that that man suffered as a result of Benefit changes that should never have applied to him? It shows how ridiculous the rules are. Only this week. I was told how a couple were in a 3bed house. His Wife is completely immobile and needs hoists etc to get her out of bed and move her. He's her full time carer. Their second room is where he goes to sleep for respite and the third one has been turned into a washroom by social services. The Bedroom Tax applies to both the second room (fair enough at a stretch) and the washroom. The bloody washroom! Do you know what they were advised to do?...Get divorced.

Dawndonnaagain · 11/04/2014 11:02

Miss
I look after disabled dh. We have three children with disabilities. We have some money so get nothing other than dla. Dh was advised to divorce me so that we could get respite care!

HappyMummyOfOne · 11/04/2014 11:02

I think the main reason tax credits are included is that Labour sold them as a tax refund as such when it was nothing of the sort. Most payments far outweighed the tax the person paid.

If they were only paid when the household adults were all working full time and then they helped with childcare I doubt people would class them as benefits. However given most people who claim them work part time or have an adult in the house not working they are subsidising lifestyle choices and that's why they are seen as a benefit.

As for volunteering, millions do it and work. It's not an excuse to let others pick up your every living cost. Words fail me.

Of course benefits are a safety net designed to help people between jobs. Pensions obviously not but they are usually separated anyway. If people truly used them as that they it would never have gotten out of hand and need reigning in as it does now. People have all sorts of excuses as to why they can't work (children used as the main one) or why they can't possibly be expected to take x job. Many won't even contemplate overtime as why work the extra hours if benefits are reduced. No pride that they are more self supporting. Personal responsibility seems to have gone out of there window.

sezamcgregor · 11/04/2014 11:04

I don't understand the problem with his statement.

Benefits are there to help people into work.

You get money while you're not working and looking for work so that you can buy food and pay for your utilities. They ensure that your children are fed at school with free school meals. If you're unskilled or wish to retrain, they offer free training courses in things such as administration and fork lift truck. You can also attend sessions with help to improve your CV and attend regular meetings with an adviser at the Jobcentre to go through the jobs that are available and they also ask for feedback when you have not been successful to help with your next applications.

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 11:08

Happy. People with full time jobs claim tax credits too.

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 11:10

sezam one of the problems is that these people reliant on benefits such as HB are in work. Low paying Employers and Zero Contract hours are the problem here.

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 11:10

Happy. Pensions are not separated. They are included in the welfare bill.

FraidyCat · 11/04/2014 11:10

Zero hours contracts should be banned.

I disagree, any problems they cause to people on benefits (including tax credits) should be fixed by changing the benefits system.

The benefits system should provide a baseline income that can never be endangered by any employment contract/income people get. I thought UC was supposed to achieve this, so if it doesn't with respect to zero-hour contracts then it needs refinement.

Feminine · 11/04/2014 11:13

happy we meet again

would you be fine with 'tax payers money' paying for child care then?

So, both parents working (if there are two) and the Government subsidising child care. Child care that will need to be available 24-7? That, in the long run, will cost way more than lowly TC & WTC.

Feminine · 11/04/2014 11:14

Yesterday I heard that the UTC system is not working out too well.

It is behind.

That news cheered me up for a little bit!

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 11:22

DawnDonnaAgain I can very well believe it. Bloody ridiculous! Flowers. This is what I was being told he couldn't be a husband and a full time carer but could get divorced move back in as her carer and it would be okay. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

JohnCusacksWife · 11/04/2014 11:24

Of course, benefit bashers are too stupid to consider another aspect of the whole business - what's so great about 'work' in the first place? Quite a lot of jobs are pretty pointless - even more so when they are paid at the minimum wage. They neither benefit society, nor do they generate a living wage or any satisfaction or self-respect for the person who does them.

I have absolutely no problem with people who are not willing to work. Their choice entirely. But don't expect me to pay for your choice.

fideline · 11/04/2014 11:32

Fidiline how do you explain then that that man suffered as a result of Benefit changes that should never have applied to him?

They did and should have applied to him pixie - he was working less than 24 hrs a week.

fideline · 11/04/2014 11:33

Happy. People with full time jobs claim tax credits too.

Yes ^This.

HappyMummyOfOne · 11/04/2014 11:38

Feminine, I'd rather support childcare than simply hand people money yes. Why would it need to be 24/7 though, that's simply daft. If parents work the polar opposites to each other it's usually to avoid using childcare in the first instance.

It's far better for society and the children to support childcare than just handing out money. Children grow up seeing working pays and therefore gain a good work ethic. The parent/s may get a promotion, pay rise etc so not need the childcare help and childcare is only needed for a short amount of time in comparison to expecting benefits for the whole working life. People on MN often admit they won't take on extra hours as they will lose some of their benefits, only helping with childcare would solve this. Added to this the person providing the childcare has a job and pays tax as well.

Too many on benefits blame the government when in actual fact they choose their circumstances and moan when they can't afford them. If you choose to work part time, have one adult stay home, numerous children then of course you need more money. Labour led people to believe other tax payers should pay for those choices and now wisely they are being reversed.

Circumstances can change but far far too many have children they can not afford from the start and take no responsibility for it as they believe it's their right. Never mind the outcomes for the children.

prh47bridge · 11/04/2014 11:44

I worked out that if my DH didn't work we'd have more money!

That's what IDS is trying to change. I agree with the view that the welfare state should provide an adequate safety net for those who can't work for whatever reason but it should not trap people on benefits.

Frank Field switched from the Tories

No he didn't. He has always been a Labour politician, albeit to the right of the party.

David Freud is now a Tory lord

He was an adviser to the last government but was not a member of any party until he joined the Tories in 2009.

fideline · 11/04/2014 11:47

Feminine, I'd rather support childcare than simply hand people money yes

You realise you are not 'supporting' people yourself, don't you mummy?

Did you mean 'we', as in society?

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 11:48

Yes Happy. Far too Many people have children have more children they can't afford. Even those in work.

Feminine · 11/04/2014 12:00

happy It is not daft to suggest we will need 24-7 child care.

Families don't just work 9-5. It is not easy to get opposite shifts, in fact it is close to impossible.We thought about it.

Shift work usually involves spilt shifts- this cancels out couples covering each other.

Do you see the role of a SAHP as any value at all?

TruffleOil · 11/04/2014 12:12

I see a lot of value in SAHP. But I don't think it should be funded by the taxpayer. Mostly because it penalizes parents who work.

BackOnlyBriefly · 11/04/2014 12:19

What he should have said was:

"I think the purpose of Welfare is to help people into work, but I have not given it much thought"

His ignorance would be perfectly acceptable if he was a random person in the street who didn't plan to run for any public office.

StarlightMcKenzie · 11/04/2014 12:22

It isn't welfare 'trapping' people on benefits. It is the unviable alternative for many, and sometimes, even if viable, it is the 'unpalatable' alternative.

I think it is reasonable that people should expect a decent wage, decent employment contracts, decent promotion prospects, decent treatment from their bosses, dignity, help to see the benefits of their work, be rewarded properly, have a job that offers them pride and satisfaction.

A lifestyle 'choice' for many is rarely the 'choice' people like to make out. My 'choice' to not work isn't because I don't want to, and it isn't because I can't. It is because I have a disabled son, who though I could find childcare for, would be SO expensive it makes working less of a benefit, but, and this is the KEY bit, I would probably do so if it wasn't for the fact that my son needs my input after school for a few hours of specialist teaching because the education system is utterly failing him and children like him.

I would never get a professional to agree that his education is failing him. If I could prove it no-one would give a shit anyway (I have been to tribunal at great expense and lost). But if I don't give him this essential input now (Available in many European countries and the US) he will be a 'burden' on the taxpayer through a lifetime of mental health services and social care.

There are LOTS of examples of these kinds of things, where people who do not work are unable to because they are taking up the slack of the lax whinging taxpayer who pretend things, real things, don't exist to justify refusal of support and burden the already burdened whilst accusing them of being a burden.