Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 14:18

as those currently claiming benefits do [get a payrise] err? So do people in work who have another child. The inland revenue still need to give them their 'payrise' Hmm

LeapingOverTheWall · 11/04/2014 14:18

it's simple, we drop our DC at childcare, and go to work somewhere else looking after other people's DC. Easy - everyone in work, every DC in childcare.

Oh, but who's paying the wages of all the childcarers? Not the parents, because it's all going to be heavily subsidised by government, who get their money from taxes paid by those working in the childcare places.....

TruffleOil · 11/04/2014 14:20

Feminine, the employment market is fluid; it yields to trends. Daycare has to be one of the easier shifts to accommodate.

HappyMummyOfOne · 11/04/2014 14:20

Not every parent would be in work, lots save to cover a period out of the workplace or live within their means of just one salary.

If more need childcare, then more places will open simply due to supply and demand. More tax payers as new employees in childcare are needed and those then too support themselves.

Whilst some see nothing wrong that their choice to stay home is funded by the state, thankfully others and the government think different. Having children and deciding to not financially support them is wrong.

HappyMummyOfOne · 11/04/2014 14:23

"as those currently claiming benefits do [get a payrise] err? So do people in work who have another child. The inland revenue still need to give them their 'payrise"

Only if claiming benefits. If they are self supporting then no they dont get a payrise from their employer.

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 14:23

Happy you didn't answer on the last thread. If you're that against financially supporting other people's children I take it you don't claim any in work benefits then?...

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 14:24

No they still get extra bloody payrise child tax credits happy! .

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 14:26

Only if being self supporting . Well isn't that the point. If many in work are claiming ctc wtc cb then they aren't being very 'self supporting' are they. I don't care how you dress it up. It is still taxpayers money. Just going two different ways.

Feminine · 11/04/2014 14:27

but happymost people don't choose to be funded by the state.

It is what has to happen if employers pay peanuts!

Most families relying on it, don't earn a living wage despite putting in a more than decent days work.

truffle all I need is before and after school care, in our village it is not seen as viable.

Feminine · 11/04/2014 14:36

My eldest will be 16 this year. When he was born there were no CTC. We were lucky we didn't need it -we both worked.

My middle child is 10, again, my DH had a job that supported us all ...CTC of about £40 a month.

Then we left the UK. We didn't need any state help from the Government of that country. We stayed abroad and had our DD.

In 2012 we came back to the UK after losing everything through no fault of ours. The entire economy collapsed around us (US) and although my DH kept his job our home lost its total value. This had a knock on effect when our roof gave way-completely. To escape from the tiny bit owing on the house, we had to give it back to the bank. This also meant we lost our entire down payment funded by selling our London property.

I would like mummy to explain how we could have planed for that?

For my DH to even get a full time position at the age of 53 was a miracle in itself!

ithaka · 11/04/2014 14:36

I wouldn't get extra child tax credits if I had another child - I don't get tax credits now, in common with most working people. If I had another child, I would not get a payrise, my salary would have to stretch further. I would get child benefit, that is all. Honestly, there are tons of families that don't get child tax credit/working tax credit/housing benefit etc. We tend to not have too many children, for obvious reasons...

I have no problem with the statement ''The purpose of Welfare is to help people into work'. That was, indeed, the founding intention of the welfare state and it is an honourable one. Whether it is succeeding is more open to question.

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 14:40

ithaka it is not in common with most working people though is it? Plenty of working people are heavily subsidised through wtc and ctc.

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 14:43

Because Femine you're meant to plan for every conceivable possible outcome and you're a hapless human if you don't. Grin. I hope things are looking up for you both now Cake Brew

ithaka · 11/04/2014 14:43

Misspixietrix I honestly don't know, although I am sure someone will have the statistics. Are the majority of families subsidised? I would be suprised if they are. DH and I are not high earners, but we both earn enough together not to require any top ups.

Feminine · 11/04/2014 14:44

I have a friend who as a self employed person manages to manipulate her taxes so much that she also claims WTC!

Her DH makes good money and so does she.

HappyMummyOfOne · 11/04/2014 14:45

Misspixie, this must come as a huge surprise to you but there are many many workers who dont get tax credits. Therefore if they go on to have more children their income remains the same. No pay rise like those one benefits get (whether in work or not given tax credits apply to both). Is that so hard to understand or do you prefer to just bang your head on desk without looking at the facts?

No tax credits here, DH and I both work to provide for ourselves and any children we have or may choose to have. Quite a novel idea to many i know.

Thats it ithaka, if you are paying for your own choices you have to budget and accept that you cant have everything which many do. Those on benefits believe they have the right to make choices they cant afford and that the state should pay for them, be it choosing not to work or have another child etc. Its wrong and sends the wrong message out.

People should always be expected to self support unless physically unable to or they fall sick or are made redundant and need a helping hand for the short term until they can return to work. The welfare state was intended to help them not to turn into the free for all it is now.

Feminine · 11/04/2014 14:46

Oh thank you miss .that is sweet of you.

Yes, things are actually fine now. Well you know, ordinary life etc...Wink

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 14:46

Yes it has repeatedly been stated by others in previous threads (I can't link as using phone) and by Economists etc but most HB claims for example come from people in work. I'm sure someone who can do links will correct me where I'm wrong.

Feminine · 11/04/2014 14:52

happy what you are saying then (by lumping in work benefit recipients and the work -shy together) is that only certain income people should have families?

You can't be saying that surely?

You do not appear to be hearing that there are so many different situations...

ithaka · 11/04/2014 14:53

most HB claims for example come from people in work

That is not the same as saying most families claim housing benefit. I do not think the majority of families receive any benefits apart from child benefit, but I cold be wrong. That statistic would interest me.

Feminine · 11/04/2014 14:54

You are right miss those in work and pensioners!

I don't know how happy plans to tackle that type of lazy ass! Grin

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 14:55

How is it not the same? People are complaining that they heavily subsidise the workless. When it is very often not the case.

Misspixietrix · 11/04/2014 14:56

Well clearly I don't think Pensioners should be allowed to sit on their arse and order cruises courtesy of the taxpayers feminine. Is there any spaces left in Poundland. They should earn their benefits I say! Wink

Madasabox · 11/04/2014 14:58

Being a SAHP (unless one is acting as a carer for a disabled child) is a lifestyle choice. I am a SAHP, but only because we can afford for me to be one. If we couldn't then I would be working at whatever I had to. I would be ashamed to have my lifestyle choice funded by the tax payer.

HappyMummyOfOne · 11/04/2014 14:58

Most families arent though. Employment is currently at over 30 milliion and wikepedia says approx 5 million claim tax credits so only one sixth of workers do. Thats not "most" by any stretch of the imagination.

It would be interesting to know how many of those 5 million claim having the lone adult/ both adults working full time and how may have chosen to work part time, not work or have a SAHP. I'd hesitate to guess the majority.

HB is paid to the unemployed as well as employed but many claim it as they choose to live in an area they actually cant afford to etc. It will fall under UC though so will be scrapped anyway.