Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 21:33

Here's the reality:
People just scraping by will have less. Their kids will have less. Cutting tax credits will make poor people poorer. Nothing will be done to increase wages, those affected will have to claim other benefits, go to food banks, be evicted.

They will STILL be the scapegoats at the end of this parliament.

Justanotherlurker · 01/07/2015 21:34

Luis, building straw man arguments isn't relevant, you do know that was an independant panel that suggested the pay rise, and Google who objected to this rise.

Hint- it wasn't labour or greens

Kardamyli · 01/07/2015 21:35

Luis, just because I don't agree in a benefit free for all doesn't mean I lack empathy.

Still don't get what you mean by banking, you haven't explained why you think banking is a problem.

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 21:35

You have no idea how much money I have, how patronising. It's a stock response I suppose. It was a comparison - you get that though I think?

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 21:37

Dear me. Atenco referred to "bankers". You quoted the post. I said it was "banking" (or banks) not "bankers" as in the individuals.

LuisSuarezTeeth · 01/07/2015 21:38

Benefit free for all? You really do not have a clue.

Kardamyli · 01/07/2015 21:40

Not patronising at all Luis, I dont know how much money you have. For all I know you could be richer than george Osborne. Just saying though that you do seem obsessed with how much money people not on benefits have.

Kardamyli · 01/07/2015 21:43

Luis all you said was "banking". Without further explanation impossible to know what you're on about. Now that we've cleared that up please do elaborate. Is it all banking you object to? Or just some of it? I suspect you mean investment banking, which is not really banking at all in the true meaning of the word.

Justanotherlurker · 01/07/2015 21:46

So what's your solution then luis, should we tackle tax avoidance of mega corps, bearing in mind that the last coalition have recently brought in legislative measures to tackle this (more than the past red government)

Should we build more houses, labour was willing to build ~20,000 more a year which is woefully inadequate and no one wants to be in government for a house price correction as it would be political suicide.

Should we get rid of 0 hour contracts, despite evidence that the majority of those on them are happy with the t&c's and not looking for further work and that the last coalition outlawed exclusivity contracts whilst also ignoring the 0 hour contract job market is minuscule in comparison.

I'm guessing you think we should just spend our way out of recession (Keynsian economics) whilst lamenting hs2 etc and ignoring the fact that your loading debt onto the future generation.

reni1 · 01/07/2015 22:00

OP you wonder why "people are entitled when it comes to benefits and life". I take it you mean why do they feel entitled? They feel entitled because they are.

Everybody is entitled to a life in dignity. That includes food, a home, an education and participation in cultural activities. Your first point is the worst. Children- you say people have them who cannot afford them, but once born surely these children are immediately people themselves, not just something people have but can't afford. These children have the same right to a life in dignity.

I personally get no benefits whatsoever, equally no tax credits, I do however use the state education system, the NHS and local council amenities like libraries and parks. I think I am a net payer and I do not begrudge anybody a penny they get because I think it is right we should all live in dignity and as much comfort as society can afford. Equality is certainly more important than petty grievances about somebody not working/ working enough to feed their children without assistance.

Justanotherlurker · 01/07/2015 22:14

all live in dignity and as much comfort as society can afford

That is the crux of the argument, going forward, society cannot afford the current spending measures.

You being a net contributor is irrelevant, unless your willing to introduce a Scandinavian tax/benefits model which is a kind of own goal.

reni1 · 01/07/2015 22:33

I would argue society cannot afford to reduce what it currently pays. Life in dignity is already not available for many of the poorest, including a disproportionate number of young children, single parents and disabled people.

Dawndonnaagain · 01/07/2015 22:38

I'm guessing you think we should just spend our way out of recession (Keynsian economics) Somewhat simpflied and not entirely accurate.
Many demonstrations that austerity is not the answer, including Paul Krugman.

Your falling for the other side of the rhetoric whilst also ignoring one of the main arguments against tax credits being capped/cut.
No, I'm experiencing the cuts, I'm not falling for anything.

As far as I'm concerned just one person like that is too many.
So, as far as you're concerned, everyone should suffer because a minority are in the wrong. You do realise that that includes those with disabilities and their families?

Kardamyli · 01/07/2015 22:48

That's not what I said Dawn. please don't put words into my mouth.

Justanotherlurker · 01/07/2015 22:51

As far as I'm concerned just one person like that is too many.
So, as far as you're concerned, everyone should suffer because a minority are in the wrong. You do realise that that includes those with disabilities and their families?

Not me, so ignoring that.

No, I'm experiencing cuts, I'm not falling for anything

Without trying to diminish your personal experiences there are plenty of people on the other side of the coin who have also 'not fallen for anything' (it was you that made this initial statement) and can differentiate between the deserving and those that have been enabled by the system to play the game. I don't think anyone is really trying to join the two.

Paul krugman is a full Keynsian advocate so I'm unsure where my argument is simplified.

Fizziebizzie1 · 01/07/2015 22:52

Love the post from Worktolive as I think I must live near all of the people she mentions! And every single one of them has the same entitled attitude - think they are owed a decent standard of living but wouldn't get off their arses to go out and earn it. Why would they - fools like me are working 12 hour shifts to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

LineRunner · 01/07/2015 22:57

Why such a concerted attempt to silence Dawndonna? I think her experience is very interesting and significant, relevant and important.

Justanotherlurker · 01/07/2015 23:03

Who is trying to attempt to silence Dawndonna?

If it was me, I would like to know and apologise as I'm just responding to previous posts within context.

Dawndonnaagain · 01/07/2015 23:03

Was pointing out that krugman doesn't support austerity.
As for working out the deserving and non deserving, that is exactly what this government claims to have done and as a result we are all suffering, presumably because they think all benefit recipients are non deserving.

Kardamyli · 01/07/2015 23:08

Don't think anyone on here is trying to silence Dawn. Some of us are just disagreeing with her that's all.

Dawndonnaagain · 01/07/2015 23:19

line Flowers
Again!

Justanotherlurker · 01/07/2015 23:22

No, you pointed out that I was simplifying Keynsian economics wrt hs2 etc (I was) but tried to point out Krugman as though he was offering something different.

With regards to your second point, this governement has been brought in because the line has blurred between the deserving and non deserving and individuals as well as corporations has benefited from state top ups.

That doesn't mean those in favour of cuts cannot see the difference in who genuinely deserves support and those that don't.

LineRunner · 01/07/2015 23:24

Kardamyli, well I do think that. My view, my space.

LineRunner · 01/07/2015 23:26

Dawn you exemplify the difference between lived experience and theoretical patronising claptrap.

Dawndonnaagain · 01/07/2015 23:26

But the government can't see the difference ergo we all suffer.
It is too late for me now and I will look again at my earlier post tomorrow. I am, like many others I imagine, hot, sticky and tired.