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

[toomuchentitlement]

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 !

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

Thank you Electrolux however: Cameron promised not to touch welfare for those with disabilities

Still can't see where it refers to 27%? I'm sure you'll help me out though

That's 2013!

I read most of your post with mounting annoyance until you got to the part about entitled companies... because there is your answer.

If you have a family where people work hard, and they aren't paid enough to pay the rent and all the bills and have a basic quality of life, then blaming those people because the benefits that allow all that are being cut from under them sticks in my gullet. We all benefit from the labour of the low-paid. My post is delivered, streets cleaned, bins emptied, fruit and veg picked, petrol provided, tickets sold and checked, food sent to supermarkets and then put on the shelves and scanned through the checkout, by relatively low paid people. My drink is served, meal cooked and served, cinema ticket sold and checked by people on lowish salaries. And those salaries simply didn't fall so greatly below that necessary for a reasonable standard of living in the past, either. The gap between rich and poor has been growing for decades now, and Labour's answer was benefits. It's a bad answer, but it is better than just allowing the poorer amongst us to sink.

Buy to let investments should be taxed more heavily, and tax breaks given to people who own one home, which they live in, instead. We need rent controls again, which in turn would help prevent runaway house price inflation. And the minimum wage needs to be amped up to living wage levels - cries that that just isn't affordable are unsustainable when you look at how much the gap between top and bottom pay levels has widened in recent years.

It's not entitlement for no reason that leads people who work to feel angry that they can't afford the basics: a reasonable home, and children. A family. That's not something that should be some massive luxury, like an all expenses five star trip to the Maldives for a month, or a Lotus. All people are asking for is that they have a life - that they aren't simply cogs in a wheel for some faceless multinational. That they can have what the RSPCA refer to as "the expression of natural behaviour". And I do have to wonder what sort of society we have turned into, if wanting a family has turned into something nobody has a right to expect, even when they are working fulltime.

I also think there is a problem if it's seen as crazy for a family with young children to think a 1.5 between 2 working pattern should be possible. If people are career oriented, and don't want to take time with young kids, then that is absolutely their right (and good childcare needs to be available, both morally and practically, in our present and future economic interests). But there is nothing entitled about people wanting to express natural human behaviour, and I would include caring for your own young as pretty much under that heading.

What you see as entitled, I see as a reasonable expectation. Nobody is asking for a free lunch (other than a statistically tiny group of chaotic no-hopers, who tbh are more deserving of pity than anything else - my husband has had to manage a few in the past as part of his former professional role, and it's equal parts infuriating and heartbreaking, BUT: they are very much the exception to the rule). Most of the working poor are just asking that they aren't solely preparing lunch for other people.

dawn David Cameron might have promised not to touch welfare for those with disabilities but if he cuts the child element of tax credits it will imoact on families who have a child with a disability and claim tax credits. If he taxes DLA then it will directly impact on working adults who have a disability. If he rolls carers allowance into universal credit then it will mean some carers are ineligible to claim carers allowance and will need to seek work / more hours at work and there will be nobody to cre for the person with a disability.
I don't be
I've any promise that Dave Cameron and his cronies have made about not touching benefits which help people who are disabled.

Justanotherlurker, your data isn't really probative of much, either. It conflates zero hours workers in the hospitality industry (bar workers, wait staff), seasonal workers, and students with fulltime workers for retail companies. In the former, it's often genuinely flexible and great for both parties. If someone can pick and choose the hours that suit, and turn down work as much as take it on, then there are obvious benefits for employee as well as employed in many stages of life and in many situations. The issue comes when a company seeks to use a zero hours contract in what is ordinarily a very traditional set-up, with set hours, control by the employer, and even exclusivity in some cases, solely as a means to contract out of the statutory provisions there to protect workers. That's an abuse of the form of employment and IMO should be sharply cracked down upon. And in many cases, people don't necessarily understand that what they are in is a zero hours arrangement, because it's what they are used to. The data set you provide comments that it may even be that the growth in zero hours has been overstated and people are now realising that is what they have, because of all the publicity. The data is just a great deal more complex than you are claiming by cherrypicking in that way.

I don't think zero hours employment arrangements should be banned, any more than self employment should be. I do think that an employer not offering a standard contract should have to complete a declaration form with statements on why it is not subject to such standard hours etc and stating that the employee has an absolute right to accept or refuse work at will, just as they do offering such.

Super I don't believe him either. We are going to be in dire straits if the bastards cut ESA too.

I suppose people are always going to be ill and disabled though and if it's significantly, you will find it difficult to work, so surely there will always be that same group of people?

I've come on to say this was in a BBC article 're housing benefit

It is understood that other proposals to abolish or severely restrict the carer's allowance have been dropped after opposition from the prime minister.
But we'll see.

I really think housing costs need to be looked at before cutting housing benefit. Even on a good wage here you cant buy affordable housing and renting is very high

It is understood that other proposals to abolish or severely restrict the carer's allowance have been dropped after opposition from the prime minister.
Financially, that's not anything special, it's a pittance and if you are on any other benefits it counts as 'money you already have coming in'. It is useful for other things though. Having said that, I don't believe a bloody word that this government says, they'll renege on every deal at some point.
Your other pont, yes, people are always going to be ill and disabled, dh will never be able to work again, he'd love to, but he'd love to be able to walk again, wash himself again, dress himself etc and not be in constant pain. He's 44. Ain't going to happen so in the meantime, we manage on the meagre crumbs the government deigns to throw our way.

I see lots of people from all walks of life with disabilities. Most older people aren't aware of what they are entitled to. Lots if them have worked very hard but perhaps don't qualify for certain types of support! Others know exactly what they are entitled to and haven't ever made a contribution. The system does rebalancing because for some specific groups, the amount of benefits that were provided under labour, totally was a disincentive to return to work. But the cuts to disabled just shouldn't happen!

unclaimed benefits

Cherries, under PIP many people with disabilities don't qualify for any support.

I read a quote byCamilla Batmanghelidjh (spelling?) this morning that reminded me of this thread. she runs Kids Company, a charity that works with the most deprived young people

â??At some point, the two shall meet and when you get a very violated individual meeting a very well-cared for individual, the violated individualâ??s rage will bring down the well-cared for individual. Thatâ??s what people havenâ??t understood yet.â?

my view on benefits is selfish but longterm. i do not want my kids lives made more dangerous by the results of deprivation on other peoples kids.

The gap between rich and poor has been growing for decades now, and Labour's answer was benefits. It's a bad answer, but it is better than just allowing the poorer amongst us to sink.

I am not convinced it was. it has allowed to think it is a good answer without solving some of the underlying problems. even now, with the last election, there is was relatively little talk about how to solve our biggest problem (lack of housing) because people are so focussed on housing benefits.

people keep making the point welfare is there for all us of just in case we fall on bad times. That's clearly not what welfare is for in this country. we aren't at all expected to support ourselves, and occasionally dip into the welfare system. There are people getting housing benefit for years.

SleepOneDay

Epic post . . and I agree with most.

Cuts seem to be genuine

No surprise though Dawn

I'm not sure how this will "incentivise" people's disabilities to disappear so they can work. Utter bastards

£30 a week loss is huge! No thought given to the fact that costs when ill or disabled are higher.

This thread has really been an eye opener for me.
It has made me question my spending habits, and I am making changes.
I would be really interested in the Xmas box scheme if we could get something arranged with mnhq. Great idea.
Thanks to all who have posted. I know it's hard to talk about this stuff at times (I am quite ashamed of my childhood poverty) but it's so important that we do, so that people don't forget.
X

Baddz???

And why do people on 100k expect help with the cost of childcare or get 30 hours for 3 year olds next year. If theh can't afford to pay for childcare than clearly they need money management lessons.

Oh crap.
Wrong thread!

Sorry!

That was tongue in cheek btw and I haven't read whole thread