"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

S'fine Sunny Jilly says the Tories will save poor people

So that's all ok then and nobody will ever have to put up with what you did.

I suspect the 'help' involves euthanasia by starvation but nothing's perfect eh?

if there arent enough jobs to go around then surely it is an act of charity to not work if you're a bit on the lazy side, because it means someone ambitious and driven can take the job that you'd have occupied.

And the lazy person knows he or she has done a good thing by letting someone express their true hardworking inner self:)

Jobs are scarce!
I don't think we should allow them to be wasted on people who don't want them!
Instead I say we should let people who are suited to that kind of busy working persons life have them so that people who's true nature is that of a layabout can flourish in a manner which is in harmony with their inner self

Absolutely. I don't bother the workplace too much - but then again I'm not bothering the benefits agency either so I claim the prize as the most public-spirited citizen.

then again I'm not bothering the benefits agency either

those people in the benefits agency have a right to job satisfaction you know.
They need clients to make them feel as if they are useful to society, I think it would be more public spirited to show up and help the benefits agency staff to feel like worthwhile members of society!

just dropping out and 'not bothering' people doesnt help much now does it!

I knew there must be some little thing worthwhile about being a SAHM

Suzanne

Oh and totally agree Brenda

I think its pretty obvious why benefits are a lifestyle choice, because without them many people would starve and have no roof over their head.
It's a case of choose benefits or die.
No debate really.

Plenty of full time jobs on up to £11.23 per hour on offer here, applicants always want 20 hours, Another thing associated with this is that the part timers want an NHS and education for their children but they aren't prepared to work enough hours to pay tax to contribute towards paying for it all.

I don't think it is in the interests of the country to let the green belt go. Should every bit of land in the south east be built on?

something has to give. it's either the strict planning rules on HMO houses, green belt, brownfields, council permission to change bloody windows on listed buildings etc. It all adds up. Do you want cheaper housing or not?

it's ok. Apparently, while people are forced to live outside the green belt and commute, horses and animals can graze on the green belt. it's good to have them near urban jobs.

^ Flats can be build, you know.

The UK has an obsession with houses. I don't get two-bed houses. Why not flats that you can stack up?!? In Europe's powerhouse, Germany, most people have lived in flats.

My car is 2 days old. My kids have to use wheelchairs.

Not everything is as it seems.

Only 18% of the total spent on benefits is to working age non disabled people - the unemployed.

I refuse to believe every single one of those is scrounging. Redundancy happens.

Sorry wrong one that's working families. Straightforward unemployed is 9%

'Plenty of full time jobs on up to £11.23 per hour on offer here'

Where is this? Are they permanent contracts, not temp/agency/zero hours/seasonal?

My sil hasn't worked in 20 years. i would not swap her life for mine and she certainly isn't off on holiday three times a year or any of that rubbish but she refuses to do minimum wage/supermarket jobs - she calls them slavery. She also has two children in late teens and says she shouldn't have to work because she's a parent. fair enough when the kids were very young but 19 and 17! She has made a lifestyle choice pure and simple.

In fact in terms of charity and not working being a gift to those who want jobs, in about 1929 my grandfather, a local councillor was reported in the local paper saying no women doctors should be offered jobs locally as the recession was so bad there were not enough jobs for male doctors and it was only fair the men had the jobs as they support families!

she refuses to do minimum wage/supermarket jobs - she calls them slavery

But being a lazy scrounger isn't beneath her? And she is exactly why so many people want big changes. Be angry by all means - but at these people who are destroying the Welafre state themselves.

sortyourshitout

What is so wrong with her not working. I haven't had a job for 23 years and will probably not have one again.
I'm thinking of retiring soon
No, seriously some folks don't want to work, it doesn't make them lazy.
Some days I don't have much free time at all, others I have plenty, but I am never bored or lazy as there is a world out there.

I was being facetious Jilly, the example that you quote is a measure designed to make sure women have no economic power:
the reason men support families is because they have preferential access to paid employment
and the reason that they are given preferential access is because they support families
Circular reasoning.

I'm sort of alluding to a possible future scenario where most of the work is done by robots computers and there is very little for humans to do.
I think I'd be fine, I have a very high boredom threshold and I find it easy to keep myself occupied.
Those who feel a need for challenging work might find it harder?

'And she is exactly why so many people want big changes. Be angry by all means - but at these people who are destroying the Welafre state themselves.'

What is truly destroying the welfare state is staggering housing and cost of living expenses and government enabling huge corporations to pay low wages and often eek out of paying employee benefits via agencies, temp and zero hour contracts so that the cost of top up benefits continues to balloon.

But it all means more money in their cronies' pockets so they continue to point the finger of blame at the poor.

It's delusional not to see the big picture here.

No, seriously some folks don't want to work, it doesn't make them lazy.

hmmmm. I think it actually does make them lazy. it doesn't take much to get people to get up and about to do things they like.

you can't force people to work. but we shouldn't have to pay for it.

No one has to work at all. But they shouldn't be subsidised by other people who are.

Can you imagine if we all decided to be lazyarses?

but what if there really arent enough jobs to go around?
and as has been pointed out not all jobs are socially useful, many people do work which could be described as socially harmful.
It's great if we can all contribute to society but some people are being paid for doing things which are harming other people,or which waste/squander resources.
Isnt it better to do nothing than to do something which is destructive or wasteful?

and as has been pointed out not all jobs are socially useful, many people do work which could be described as socially harmful.

better than the taxpayer supporting them.

simple by name
simple by nature
is it really so very hard to see outside of your own conditioning