"Benefits are a lifestyle choice for so many these days"

[Bellerina2]

I'm on the bus and two women behind me are having a long conversation about perceived benefit cheats and one of them just said the above phrase. WIBU to hit her over the head with a rolled up copy of the Guardian??

But seriously, it's so depressing that people think this. Well done to the government and likes of the Sun and Daily Mail for convincing people that those on benefits are leading some sort of charmed life

wordFactory

What do you suggest people like me do then?
Do you think it would have been better for me to take a min wage job, still not pay tax but be entitled to tax credits, 70% of childcare, costing the tax payer even more.
Yes, the tax credits our family have received have meant I didn't have to work. I'm sorry about that, but ironic really that had we wanted expensive cars, holidays as others want on the same income, guess what? I would have taken a job to pay for such luxuries and cost you and others even more.
I'm sure you'd have liked to pay for our lifestyle rather than just think you understand how people live.
Finally, our choice to have a sahp had nothing to do with tax credits, we decided this before they were even thought of.
So yes, we have tax credits as do many other families where one or two parents work.

wicked is right.
However I don't blame anyone who operates within the law - claim what the state entitles you to. It is the system not the people who are wrong which is why most governments are trying to change the system for the better.

Things are looking up. I am actually more concerned about the way benefits for those in work operate to keep people working only part time and ensure employers pay low wages because tax payers to up low pay. We need to solve that somehow.

Your sympathy drains away with gangsta rap booming through the walls and their Staffordshire dogs leaping the fence, terrifying your baby and shitting in your garden Exactly. Never mind their kids vandalising your street, their teenagers drinking in public and smashing bottles leaving broken glass about, graffiti everywhere, your child's stuff being nicked out of the garden. Listening to couples fighting in the street at 3 am because she smoked the last of his dope... It's a stereotype, but it can be the truth in a lot of cases.

That's anti social behaviour wicked. Not welfare payments.

morethan I wouldn't have had you do anything different.

As I said up thread, I don't criticise you for taking advantage of the system.

You choose not to work.

You choose to claim benefits ( or perhaps tax credits could really be described as tax avoidance).

That's not wrong.

But I used it only as an example that not everyone claiming benefits wants to work. Nor needs them. Nor is having an awful life.

Your posts over the years make clear that you love your life and are not remotely poor or vulnerable.

I'm certain your situation is not uncommon.

But that doesn't fit with the premise of the OP and is, apparently 'not cricket'.

Yes, but where I live, those who exhibit anti-social behaviour, are 9/10 times part of the underclass that won't work (not can't work).

Word you made it sound as though both morethan AND her DH had chosen not to work and to claim benefits instead;

morethan has stated that she and her DH have chosen benefits over work. They're not ill or disabled. It was a very definite choice.

You think that's fair play?

I think more needs to be done while the children of these families are young, to break the cycle. More community and educational development to try and change attitudes and motivate these kids. I'm sure someone much smarter than me has some ideas on what could be done.

Labour spent billions on Sure Start.

It was used, almost exclusively, by middle class mothers doing baby massage and breastfeeding clinics.

All initiatives Labour introduced incentivised the feckless and the scroungers to have yet MORE kids they had to use the tax payer to support.

word

I totally agree with you and the only problem I had with your post was that of context.

We haven't chosen a life on benefit at all, in fact apart from the previously universal chb we receive a small amount of top up in tax credits.
My dh profits, hence wage are increasing slowly all the time and as this happens we get less tax credits.
We don't get much as dh does earn a good wage but just not enough to warrant the loss of tax credits.
The amount we receive doesn't give us a good life at all, many of the extras we have been fortunate to be able to give our children has been offers of tuition from dhs colleagues and pupils. It's not that we receive a lot of benefits, I don't think we should btw. We are frugal, always have been and fortunate that our outgoings are tremendously low compared to many.

Ptole

The fact that losing tax credits won't make much difference to us is because we don't much, not that we are getting too much as you so eloquently stated.

Here's what I would do:

Ban zero hours contracts
I am fine with fixed-term contracts of 3 months and more. At least, this would mean that someone gets a little bit of work experience, and can hence build on this.

Establish different housing levels to motivate people to work
A lot of social housing is being buil on new developments. When we were looking for a house, there was one very naice development we were considering. If you wanted to buy, you'd have to spend 350k+ to live there. I was surprised when I heard that one of the social housing properties was raided by police (drugs). Neighbours had complained about the people living there for months. Why on Earth were they given a nice, new house? I think only people who show that they have previously worked for years, are seriously trying or really can't earn more deserve the chance to live in the nice, new properties. Wicked, for example, could qualify. Those girls who have never worked wouldn't. They can stay in older, not so nice housing, and might be encouraged to get off their lazy bum to get a nicer place to live in.

I don't know how to solve the benefits cycle where generations stay on the dole, not doing anything. Given that their kids are not looked after, maybe it would have been better to have been adopted by other parents? I know lefties would hate that. But it really is the only way as your family has a big say in shaping who you become. We can't make school responsible for everything.

Arsenic

morethan and her DH are a team. She repeatedly says that. And Team Morethan have decided that neither of them will work full time.

This is a very deliberate choice on their part.

It''s not that they cant it's that they don't want to. Their life is exactly how they want it to be. They are neither sad, nor poor nor vulnerable.

Like I say, I do not criticise that. Nor do I criticise them claiming benefits to support themselves. They are doing nothing wrong. Others may criticise the system which allows it, but I'm not that arsed to be honest.

Iain Duncan Smith is trying to settle the part time issue. If the state will pay you as much if you work part time as if you work full time why would most people bother to work full time (unless they are on high salaries)? So we need to tackle that. There needs to be some tremendous financial disincentive to part time work.

Snow Bells have you lost the plot?

People who are on the dole don't look after their kids? Deserving/undeserving social housing tenants?

What shite

Given that their kids are not looked after, maybe it would have been better to have been adopted by other parents
WTAF!

Snow bells had the plot at some point!?

(I stopped reading her pages back when she mentioned castration for claimants. I think she's possibly a bit unfortunate)

I know lefties would hate that.

Human beings would hate that

Word

I have never said my dh doesn't work ft, he doesn't work regular hours at all though.
I have never totted up exactly how much he works as this is hard.
However, it is never less than 12 hours a day, stretched out over what essentially could be 18 hours. It's not exactly hard work so he is constantly doing something.
I do what I can and take a lot of the workload that a PA/Secretary would do and also prepare the spreadsheet for accountant.
I do things like banking, photo copying, take bookings and generally deal with most things that don't need his attention.
Arsenic is right, we do work as a team and this is why I'm in no hurry to work for somebody else. Although when dd goes to school I will want to get out and about a bit more so have made enquiries about volunteering at college or for old peoples charity.

Ha ha Arsenic I'm just catching up with the thread.

"Unfortunate" wouldn't be my first choice of words

morethan I see.

Then my apologies. I was certain you had said your DH doesn't work full time as he likes to take a 50/50 role in child care and does half the home educating and domestic chores. That you both like lots of free time to pursue your interests.

Such treats ahead of you Luis

Who would make the choice to go to work in a shit job you hate, for no more money
In fact probably less

So you guys prefer kids to be brought up in homes where they are not looked after? Really? I am talking about the sort of people Wicked referred to. What about the rights of the kids?!? I am fed up people always thinking about the rights of the parents... never the kids. And then, when scandals are revealed where social services left children with parents who never cared, with the consequences that follow, the same people Voice their discontent.

The castration for men comment was sarcastic. Hence the grin. Jesus.

Luis and Arsenic - speak as you wish. I think the same of you.