Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To ask what's the beef with benefits?

631 replies

mytartanscarf · 04/01/2015 14:33

Do people think they are too little? That they should be more?

There's always a lot of upset on here about them - about how wrong the government are and how awful life is on benefits. I've never been on benefits so obviously can't judge. But what are the solutions?

I suppose I am asking what should the government do?

OP posts:
greyhoundgymnastics · 05/01/2015 23:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

notauniquename · 05/01/2015 23:41

I was also under the impression that benefits were taxed. (so even the most channel 5 worth benefit "scrounger" is a tax payer)

easy to say why not just change the amount and eradicate the tax, but something to do with pension contributions?

LeftyLoony · 05/01/2015 23:44

Yes carers allowance is taxable.
But I don't get taxed.
Because I don't have enough coming in to get to the taxable level.
That's hardly kerching is it?

And yeah I get why 'sainted taxpayer' is going to rile. Just as gleefully telling me that services I rely on to survive are going to be cut did. Not that that was you, but that's the kind of comment I'm responding to.

Again, I've been a taxpayer. I intend to be again.

LeftyLoony · 05/01/2015 23:45

So really greyhound you're saying that you're provoked by my comment. Fair enough.

But I'm supposed not to respond to provocation? In the name of debate?

greyhoundgymnastics · 05/01/2015 23:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dawndonnaagain · 05/01/2015 23:52

notaunique it's a bloody nonsense, this government has cut taxes for the rich. Regularly. There is plenty of evidence demonstrating this.

Dawndonnaagain · 05/01/2015 23:55

Greyhound, you weren't clear in your post about what you were getting at. I pointed out why we can seem a little jumpy at times. You are starting to look like you are pursuing something now.

greyhoundgymnastics · 05/01/2015 23:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeftyLoony · 06/01/2015 00:06

There's defo an agenda Dawn
I thought the comments levelled at me were unnecessary too.

Only my comment wasn't actually levelled at you, as I explained before. It's sarcasm aimed at someone who was doing a really good impression of behaving like a dick.

greyhoundgymnastics · 06/01/2015 00:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

writtenguarantee · 06/01/2015 00:56

An older car would cost more money to run.

there's a sweet spot. a new car is the most expensive (it loses value the minute it leaves the lot) and a 200 pound rust bucket is going to breakdown. but 5-10 year old cars can be very cost effective.

writtenguarantee · 06/01/2015 01:01

It wouldn't work with old vehicles due to depreciation, higher repair bills and potential recovery costs on breakdown.

I don't begrudge people with mobility needs to have an allowance for this. But I don't understand how the economics of car purchase would change for someone with mobility needs (other than needing a bigger vehicle).

Gatheringthoughtstothink · 06/01/2015 01:18

Some posters get my goat. It's my goat get your own.
Mobility cars are necessary due to the many medical appointments meetings reviews OT SALT and accessing specialist stuff that is never ever local, or on a main transport link, that's even if you can use public transport.

ArsenicFaceCream · 06/01/2015 01:26

Also housing - right to buy being extended to people in employment.

I beg your pardon? Confused

Who do you think has the RTB OP?

ArsenicFaceCream · 06/01/2015 01:38

How have I got the choice and others haven't, it's not all just luck is it?

Sheesh. No handcream that'll be your innate superiority, magically protecting you from mishap and serious illness. Hmm

What a nasty thread.

Dawndonnaagain · 06/01/2015 03:22

written We don't always purchase on the mobility scheme. Many cars are leased via the scheme giving the person options that may not be available to them otherwise. The main point, other than easy access to transport for the many reasons listed, is security, peace of mind. There may be a 'sweet spot', there may be cars that are good for five to ten years and I'm sure an allowance would be good, but for three years, total peace of mind is guaranteed. The only problem I have ever had is that I can rarely get a loan car (when car is being serviced) big enough to carry a wheelchair. Fine if dd is at school and staying there, but a problem otherwise. All works are usually carried out the same day, not so easy when perhaps parts are required for an older car. The peace of mind is very important.
Oh, and the mobility allowance is used to cover all of this. The government is doing nothing more than allowing us to use our benefit as a loan. Motability is a business.

RufusTheReindeer · 06/01/2015 07:59

So let me make sure I've got this straight

It's not ok for people in receipt of benefits (whether it be DLA, pensions, in work benefits) and have experience of benefits to complain about the benefits system and say it's not fit for purpose

But it's fine for people not in receipt of benefits (YET) and have no experience of the benefits system to complain about the benefits system and say it's not fit for purpose

EatShitDerek · 06/01/2015 08:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RufusTheReindeer · 06/01/2015 08:59

Thanks eat

I now understand where I have been going wrong

I've been assuming that people who receive benefits (including DLA and other in work benefits and pensions, child benefit etc) know how the system works and can see the flaws

Really what I should have been doing is making up what ever I like based on the fact a friend of mine saw someone she used to know 10 years ago and who is on benefits getting her hair cut...obvs benefits are dead easy to get, pay out too much and allow you to live the life of Riley. What do all these people need with medicine and heat anyway Hmm

Silly me!!

I'm off to check out my new lifestyle choice

And by the way, I absolutley believe that there are some people out there receiving benefits who are taking the mick, but very few!!! And probably proportional to this tax payers who are taking the mick as well. But I assume that the vast, vast amount of people claiming all the many forms of benefit there are out there (child benefit anyone? Pension? Or are you going to be handing that back?) are doing so because they need to

writtenguarantee · 06/01/2015 09:10

The main point, other than easy access to transport for the many reasons listed, is security, peace of mind.

ok, so it's not that it's a false economy to a second hand vehicle, it's that you get peace of mind and security. that's different. I understand that somebody with mobility issues may find that security is much more of a necessity, but keep in mind that's something that most people don't get as they can't afford it.

Dawndonnaagain · 06/01/2015 09:37

written I'm aware of that, but most people are able to get a bus or a train if necessary, many of those in receipt of higher rate mobility (which is what you need to be able to access motability) would be unable to do so. Hence the scheme.

LuisSuarezTeeth · 06/01/2015 10:04

A pp suggested a thread on how to produce cheap meals - what a grand idea. That's never been done before on MN.

Show the poor benefits claimants how to cook, since they can't cope with anything other than oven chips. Grin

notauniquename · 06/01/2015 10:06

And yeah I get why 'sainted taxpayer' is going to rile.
I don't it's clearly a joke,

notaunique it's a bloody nonsense, this government has cut taxes for the rich.
Notice I didn't say that they hadn't, what I said was that of the total income tax bill collected, under a previous government the poor had contributed more and the rich contributed less (as expressed as a percentage of the total bill) than they do now.
and gave a link to a table that was released by the ONS to show that:
<a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121106103415/www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121106103415/www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf

It's not nonsense or stories, it's an inconvenient "fact" about income tax if you have a particular political agenda.
Of course there are plenty of ways that the government have done the opposite of this also.

All works are usually carried out the same day, not so easy when perhaps parts are required for an older car.
Companies like GSF, EuroCarparts, Allparts etc do same day delivery on all parts ordered that day before midday. There is not a big stock of car parts waiting sat about ready to be used at most garages?

Does any one really support "food vouchers"? with the obvious problems? that even the "most law abiding citizen" would happily send someone with food vouchers to pick up some chicken, and in return they'd pick up some beer when they shopped. -food vouchers couldn't possibly work, even if they were tied to people via their finger prints. people could (and would) find a way to get what they want in life.
(was that comment aimed at me? I'm the only one to openly admit that I don't understand how benefits work?)

notauniquename · 06/01/2015 10:13

So let me make sure I've got this straight
It's not ok for people in receipt of benefits (whether it be DLA, pensions,
in work benefits) and have experience of benefits to complain about
the benefits system and say it's not fit for purpose
But it's fine for people not in receipt of benefits (YET) and have
no experience of the benefits system to complain about the benefits
system and say it's not fit for purpose

I've got an opinion about Hitler based only on what I've read also, is this wrong?

Is it impossible to read about a system, and decide that it is broken?
Is it impossible to agree with people who are in receipt of benefits that the system is flawed? (even though I've no real personal experience?)

RufusTheReindeer · 06/01/2015 10:28

not

Of course you can

That comment was directed at those on the thread who were telling claimants that they could not complain about the system and then were complaining about the system themselves

I don't think you did that