Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to wonder why people are entitled when it comes to benefits and general life?

430 replies

toomuchentitlement · 30/06/2015 14:50

It is becoming increasingly obvious, from threads here and conversations with people IRL, that quite a lot of people are so entitled. Obviously, everyone is anxious about the budget coming out on the 8th and what the proposed cuts will be, and so most of the talk has been revolving around benefits and the Tories (the party and those who voted for them). It is beyond frustrating how much entitlement there is in this country!

Firstly, there are people who have lots of children and then complain that the government doesn’t give them enough to feed their children. Well – the government (i.e. the taxpayer) had no part in having these children so should you not be grateful for whatever amount they do give you? I firmly believe that when you have children, they are your responsibility. This is where people say ‘Should it only be the rich that have children?’. No , just those who can afford children – if you can only afford one then stop at one. If you cannot afford any , without ANY state help, then do not have any. If you choose to have more children than you can afford to have, then you accept that you and your children will suffer as a result of your selfish decision. Yes, I totally understand that sometimes you can have children that you can afford and then life changes course; these are not the circumstances that I’m talking about. I’m talking about people who are struggling with the children they have (or don’t have) and then decide to have more. Someone will talk about contraception failing – which is rare- and even then you have choices; abortion, adoption, keep your children and struggle.

Second key area I have noticed is about housing. So many people argue that they shouldn’t have to move house ( to find a job or to be in a cheaper area) because they have family around or they grew up in a certain area. Absolutely you don’t have to move – if you can afford to stay where you are without state help! If you are relying on the state to help you and complaining about lack of jobs, then you will have to move somewhere cheaper. Plenty of people move. Family will still be family wherever you are.

Finally (well there’s a lot more but I realised I’ve typed a lot) , is regarding work. There quite a few people who absolutely believe that we shouldn’t have to work more than part-time because its not family friendly. On some threads, I have noticed people make snide comments about ‘ what a shame they live to work and not work to live’ and insinuate that these are bad people. They will bitch about these people and tear down people in highly-paid jobs but then turn around and demand more from them (in tax). My point being ; if you do not approve of full time work or highly paid jobs, why then do you want to take so much from these people who earnt the money doing what you don’t approve of?

This was mainly to vent because it is getting ridiculous and I didn’t want to shout at my friends and family (the ones who also behave this way). Apologies for any typos in the very long post !

OP posts:
Kardamyli · 01/07/2015 19:36

MrsDeVere

I was the one who said that benefits should not be something you are entitled to because you can't be bothered working more than 16 hours a week. I stand by that statement. Do you think people who can't be bothered to work for more than 16 hours for no reason other than laziness should be subsidised by everyone else?

You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am but your personal attacks just indicate to me that you have no real counter arguments.

You have no idea if I am, to use your quaint phrase "at the top of the pile". There are plenty of people on moderate incomes who are fed up with the amount of money spent on benefits for people who could manage without, or who could get off their backsides and work (and no, I'm NOT talking about people who can't work becuase they are disabled etc etc). Benefits should be a safety net, not an alternative to work.

Oh, and bear in mind that calling the people who pay the tax that pays for the benefits thick is unlikely to convince them that the benefits bill shouldn't be cut.

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 20:52

can't be bothered to work more than 16 hours

How many? At what cost? Evidence????

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 20:53

Lotus Xenia you're twisting my melons with your gravy train shit.

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 20:55

So now it mostly goes directly to the tenant, which fits in with the Tory idea of making people budget and be responsible for managing the money themselves.

Is that why IDS wants prepaid benefits cards?

puffinrock · 01/07/2015 21:01

Thetimeformagics post is ridiculous. If people only had children when recievinh no state help there would be hardly any children. What about people both working full time who claim benefits?

Alfieisnoisy · 01/07/2015 21:05

How is Xenia even here? I thought she was a banned poster.

Dawndonnaagain · 01/07/2015 21:05

who are fed up with the amount of money spent on benefits for people who could manage without, or who could get off their backsides and work
You've fallen for the government rhetoric, but okay, please explain how, in the light of sanctions, all these people exist. Please explain how many of these lazy, feckless scroungers, people that reputable agencies couldn't find, you have found. What percentage of the benefits bill does this cover?

ghostspirit · 01/07/2015 21:09

hate theses threads they are negitve and cause bad feelings. all good to have a debate. but the original post seems full of hate to wards anyone one that might get a bit of help.

Atenco · 01/07/2015 21:10

There are plenty of people on moderate incomes who are fed up

And meanwhile the bankers are laughing all the way to the bank. Because that really is the case, isn't it? People are getting their knickers in a twist about Muslims, immigrants, the undeserving poor, while Cameron drinks champagne with the undeserving bankers

Viviennemary · 01/07/2015 21:12

I'm sicke of the word benefits. I wish they'd find another term. It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul and a lot of Peter's have less money than Pauls. It needs to be changed. Hope the changes are fair ones though.

LineRunner · 01/07/2015 21:15

I see IDS had his parliamentary credit card confiscated. Too lazy to deal with his freebies properly. Feckless idle git.

Kardamyli · 01/07/2015 21:18

Bankers? Is that the only response you've got? Do you think bankers are the cause of the country's massive benefits bill? Weird and warped logic from you guys!

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 21:20

Indeed Linerunner. He didn't pay in time. How careless.

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 21:21

Bank-ING
Not bank-ERS

Baddz · 01/07/2015 21:21

How much money did George osbournes best man make from the sale of the Royal Mail?
£23million wasn't it?
Shares that were massively undervalued?
Hmm.

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 21:22

alfie Xenia is always here with her pearls of wisdom.

Baddz · 01/07/2015 21:22

Poor old Fred Goodwin had his knighthood taken off him didn't he?
still got £millions in pay off though

Kardamyli · 01/07/2015 21:22

Dawn I've no idea how many or how much of the benefits bill. As far as I'm concerned just one person like that is too many.

Baddz · 01/07/2015 21:24

I know feckless parents.
I know families who have not worked for generations.
But you know what?
I'm still glad my taxes go to help these kids.
Coz God knows they need it!
Not lazy, divisive rhetoric from some Etonian wanker.

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 21:24

You know when the MPs get their £7k pa pay rise? That's equivalent to about 2 household tax credit bills.

Justanotherlurker · 01/07/2015 21:25

You've fallen for the government rhetoric, but okay, please explain how, in the light of sanctions, all these people exist. Please explain how many of these lazy, feckless scroungers, people that reputable agencies couldn't find, you have found. What percentage of the benefits bill does this cover?

Your falling for the other side of the rhetoric whilst also ignoring one of the main arguments against tax credits being capped/cut.

If you really do believe that tax credits hasn't transformed the job market for both the emplyee and emplyer then your not looking at it objectively.

Using the emotive 'reckless scroungers' etc (which no one has used) language isn't productive, as your making broad sweeping judgements against those that are for reforms and believe businesses should pay more, yet also know that there has become a 'lifestyle' of not working above the magic number of 16hours because it doesn't pay.

Kardamyli · 01/07/2015 21:26

What you on about Luis? You think everything wrong in the country / world is because of banking?

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 21:26

One person without empathy is one too many Kardamyli

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 21:28

I was referring to yours and Atenco posts Kardamyli

Kardamyli · 01/07/2015 21:32

Luis are you maybe just a leetle bit envious of anyone who has more money than you? In the grand scheme of things MPs are not paid that much. A senior manager in a medium sized business is likely to be paid more.