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.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To ask if you have had any contact with benefit 'scroungers'

588 replies

JumpRope · 10/05/2015 13:59

I utterly believe that we need to protect the poor, vulnerable and those unable to work and they should have help to live.

I grew up in a very rural area, fairly poor, very hard work for non land owners - workers werefarm labourers mainly. And there were many people leaving school in the 80s and 90s and then abusing the system - picking up the dole, laughing about it, straight to the pub until it ran out; I remember a dog called Giro. People just sold a bit of marijuana for extra work. After moving to a bigger town, I came across families like this, where the dad would start it off, and the children would just grow up and do the same.

There were jobs around. As students homes for holidays, we picked up work without trouble, and could have stayed on, got promotions etc.

How do you deal with these situations? How can we make sure we are not making cuts to those who desperately need it, whilst absolutely changing the mind sets of able bodied men (and women) who have grown up believing they are entitled to money for nothing.

OP posts:
D0oinMeCleanin · 12/05/2015 08:38

I work 16 hours as a single parent. Couples have that option too. A couple with a baby under 1 only needs one parent working at least 16 hours to get WTC, a couple with a baby over 1 need both parents to be working 30 hours between them, how they split that is up to them. A working mother in a couple on WTC has the same option to work p/t as I do, as does her partner.

I'm not playing the system. I'm not working 16 hours because I'm better off working less. I get free childcare from my family, so the more I work, the better off I am. I'm working 16 hours because raising kids alone is hard work. I also have other commitments, which means I'm stretched as thinly as I can be. There is no more time to work and there's no partner to pick up the slack when things get too much. If I'm up with sick child until the wee hours in the morning, there's no partner to drop off the healthy child at school on his way to work while I rest or to come in from work and do the housework and cooking I haven't done while I've been mopping up vomit. There is only me.

TeaorcakeTeawins · 12/05/2015 09:04

My little brother, in a very minor way. He attempted to claim benefits when he left school before going to university - they phoned him at home to sort something out, and Mum answered the phone. She hit the roof. He didn't try to get any extra "pocket money" again. If it had gone through, it wouldn't have been illegal, but we all (apart from him) felt it would have been immoral.

I don't know anyone else that I know is claiming benefits they aren't entitled to. I do know people who don't claim benefits they are entitled to because they don't think they need them.

propelusagain · 12/05/2015 09:49

If I'm up with sick child until the wee hours in the morning, there's no partner to drop off the healthy child at school on his way to work while I rest or to come in from work and do the housework and cooking

You think this happens with most couples?

MY OH works away a great deal, and when home is gone from 6.30am until 8pm. I also work full time.
I don't know where you get this rosy picture from.

Hakluyt · 12/05/2015 10:14

"MY OH works away a great deal, and when home is gone from 6.30am until 8pm. I also work full time."

But he is home at 8. And at the weekends. And presumably with two salaries you do have some money left over after you have paid child care?

unlucky83 · 12/05/2015 10:44

Hmmm until DD1 was 8 my partner had his own business - he worked 9am till midnight everyday except Monday - had to be there, 52 weeks a year. From her being 3 month to 5yo I worked 9-6 Mon-Fri and I sometimes went back when DP got back from work at midnight for a few hours and took her into work at the weekend to do odd bits - very competitive field. I gave up just before I got pregnant with DD2. The reason I started 'cosleeping' -I didn't know it had a name - was DD1 wasn't a good sleeper...no-one was picking up the slack for me...I still had to go to work. And my wages alone covered the childcare and household costs for the first few years - so money was really tight until DPs business started making money.

D0oinMeCleanin · 12/05/2015 11:02

But you chose to do that, unlucky, for the rewards that your DP's business would give you when it took off. Had it been too much for you, you could have claimed the same Tax credits I am entitled to based on your partners earnings. There are no special benefits for single parents to enable them to work less than a couple while maintaining the same lifestyle as a working couple. There just aren't. They either cope with full time working hours or they work part time on the same income a couple would get with one partner working full time. There's no extra money for being a single parent, just extra work.

And as I said, I have extra commitments on top of my own children, work and housekeeping. I'm not saying all single parents do, but some may. No one has the right judge until they've walked in the other persons shoes.

DuncanQuagmire · 12/05/2015 11:04

" There are no special benefits for single parents to enable them to work less than a couple while maintaining the same lifestyle as a working couple. There just aren't. "

thank you D0oin, for clarifying that. I am sure some people still won't believe it....

unlucky83 · 12/05/2015 11:17

dooin the rewards IF my partner's business took off ...it might not have done and we could have been dealing with debts and the guilt of making people unemployed. (And I got pregnant by accident)
It was not about 'extra money' - I know little about it and have no strong feelings - it was to the
If I'm up with sick child until the wee hours in the morning, there's no partner to drop off the healthy child at school on his way to work while I rest or to come in from work and do the housework and cooking
comment...a misguided generalisation
I agree about walking in someone else's shoes ...the grass is always greener.

Sallystyle · 12/05/2015 12:19

I start work this week and used the benefits calculator to see what I will get.

It turns out that if I work full time I will end up with just as much money as I will have working part time once I have paid full rent and council tax. I still plan to go full time, working night shifts as I have a husband who is disabled, but it kind of stung to realise that I can work full time, with children, one with SN while helping care for my husband who is disabled or do the same while working part time and financially be just as well off but a whole lot less tired. For me, I want to rely on benefits as little as possible so it is worth it to work full time and in the long run it will benefit me, but I can see why others may not feel the same.

I guess UC will address this problem?

smellyfishead · 12/05/2015 13:31

oh the brigade who think they are worse of or at least just as worse off as single parents...........hahahahahahabloodyha

as others have said you have your partners there some of the time/weekends, us single parents have no help, none of the time!!! we have to be mum & dad, carer, worker etc, we take the full load on our shoulders with no one to share responsibilities with.

presumably many people in couples also have the added bonus of a wider support network 2 sets of grandparents as opposed to one (free childcare etc)

People should not feel bad about working the min 16hrs, if your a single parent your going to lose out big time - paid prescriptions, no more FSM, paid glasses etc etc
why would anyone in the right mind take more than 16hrs if calculated you will be bringing home the same as you would on 16hrs, but seeing your children less also??

Other people should be glad those people are back in work, not chastising them for only working 16hrs!!! Biscuit

DuncanQuagmire · 12/05/2015 13:34

I know fishead - when my children were just two, I had a little evening job with a high hourly rate so I was pretty pleased with myself. cue brother phoning me up and SHOUTING at me that 'I should be working 70 hours a week and paying someone else to look after my kids'.
fucking arsehole.

unlucky83 · 12/05/2015 13:54

Hmmm - again - my DP's (abusive) mother is overseas (father is dead), my parents and rest of family live 300 miles away and as I had just relocated to this area I knew no-one here ...
Although if I had been a single parent I think I would have moved back to be closer to my parents...

D0oinMeCleanin · 12/05/2015 14:01

Oh for goodness sake, this thread is not even about who works harder.

The fact of the matter remains, if you are a single parent there is no more financial incentive to stay at home with your children than there is if you are one of a couple. "Single mother benefits" do not exist.

In rare cases you may find that you are about the same, financially speaking, working for 16 hours as you are full time (I found the magic number to be around 24 hours, U2, perhaps book an appointment with a benefits advisor at CAB) but you are never better off for not working and choosing to stay home with children, regardless of your relationship status.

I'm sure you do work hard, unlucky, as do I. As do people on this thread with disabled children and/or partners. You/I/they do not have access to secret benefits that no-one else does.

Coyoacan · 12/05/2015 14:05

I don't get why anyone should justify spending time with their children instead of going out to work and paying someone else to look after their children?

I was fortunate enough to be able to work part-time when my dd was growing up so that I was able to be there when she came home from school. I don't criticise other people's choices, I know people who are excellent parents even though they see very little of their children because of work commitments, but surely those of us who are not so wonderful need to be there and learn about our children through observing and chatting to them to make sure that they don't end up going off the rails.

And when children do go off the rails we all suffer, not just the parents.

OnlyLovers · 12/05/2015 14:13

surely those of us who are not so wonderful need to be there and learn about our children

That is magnificently passive-aggressive.

ouryve · 12/05/2015 14:21

How the hell do you pay £120 per month for Sky? I don't think all the packages added together come to that.

And you've got to be pretty stupid to spend £40 per week on your mobile.

Fromparistoberlin73 · 12/05/2015 14:30

I know people who are excellent parents even though they see very little of their children because of work commitments

passive agressive much!

Fromparistoberlin73 · 12/05/2015 14:33

smelly, I think single parents have it very tough- very hard. I take my hat off to them and you frankly

seriously if i was a single mum i would fucking combust

MurielWoods · 12/05/2015 14:57

Frustratingly, I know of a number of people who are suffering genuine hardship through no fault of their own. The financial support that they get from the state is barely enough to keep them on the breadline, much less over it.

On the other side of the coin I know of plenty of people who are 'benefit scroungers' (and by this, I mean who claim benefits by fraudulent needs, cheating the system etc).

My window cleaner is one of them, always wants cash in hand. Drives around in an unmarked van and massively under declares his earnings. On the side he also lays patios and undertakes gardening and rubbish clearance jobs and these are all done 'on the take' (his words). He has NO qualms about admitting this and discusses it as if it's the most natural thing in the world.

He thinks that I'm a fool for registering my business for VAT

My windows got really grimy whilst he was on a 5 week vineyard tour of Southern California last year.

propelusagain · 12/05/2015 14:57

*"MY OH works away a great deal, and when home is gone from 6.30am until 8pm. I also work full time."

But he is home at 8. And at the weekends. And presumably with two salaries you do have some money left over after you have paid child care?*

But Hak this is the point. There is no point bleating about who has it easier- and smellyfishhead demonstrated this with her assumptions-

oh the brigade who think they are worse of or at least just as worse off as single parents...........hahahahahahabloodyha

resumably many people in couples also have the added bonus of a wider support network 2 sets of grandparents as opposed to one (free childcare etc)

THis is not that case for many. The only family member we have is my elderly mother- I am her carer, as well as looking after children ( one who has had lots of health problems over the years) and I work 35 hours a week- I work 7 days a week.
OK I have a husband, but life is hard for many of us despite that fact that some of us have a partner. It's unfair to make assumptions.
In the same vein I could equally suggest that many single parents have lots of weekends off, or weeks off during the school holidays when children stay with the ex, leaving the primary caregiver a weekend to relax and have fun- a luxury I don't have.

fiveacres · 12/05/2015 14:58

Misery loves company Hmm

Coyoacan · 12/05/2015 14:58

The only intention of my post was to argue against people saying that parents who work part-time or stay at home should be made to go out to work and to defend the need to think of what is best for the children. Where is the passive-aggressive, who am I supposed to be attacking?

Sallystyle · 12/05/2015 15:06

I just used the calculator again and yeah, 24 hours makes me better off.

It really shouldn't be that complicated though should it? working full times should always make you better of than working part time.

fiveacres · 12/05/2015 15:08

You were attacking the 'wonderful parents' who 'see very little of their children.' Unpleasant post.

Anyway it doesn't matter. The essence of the Who Has It Hardest argument is that people are free to make the choice that best suits them whether that is staying at home or going to work. That free choice can be removed however if you are asking someone else to pay for it.

D0oinMeCleanin · 12/05/2015 15:16

No, it shouldn't be, U2, but I don't think the answer is to cut income from those working fewer hours. I think the change in tax credits and HB should be lowered between full time and part time hours so that you are always better off for working more but those unable to work more are not worse off.

If you want to cut welfare spending cap rents, not benefits. How many of us get HB for a house that in a fair market would not earn as much rent as it asks for from DSS tenants?

My house is fairly decent, the LL is a good bloke but there's no way in hell someone would pay £97 a week to live in this area. He gets away with charging this because he knows that HB will pay most of my rent. All of the houses in my area over charge for rent because it's an area of high unemployment with lots of buy to let LLs who have the right buy to let mortage to allow them to rent to DSS. I could get a bigger house, in a nicer area for the same rent, except none of those areas accept HB tenants.