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 !

Why the fuck should people not feel entitled to food, clothing and shelter?

fedupbutfine has it exactly right!

i find it easily a price worth paying to live in a safer socially cohesive society. its selfish really

If undeserving benefit claimants aren't committing fraud by claiming benefits, then they are deserving and therefore there is no problem.

That's a matter of opinion though. Personally, I don't think people who choose to work fewer hours, or who choose to be SAHPs should be entitled to benefits. I think they should be entitled to free childcare so that they can earn their own money, and that may even cost more for all I know, but people who are healthy enough to pay their own way should be expected to do so.

re inheritance tax, you say "Why do people get so entitled to other people's money ? There are people shouting for 100% inheritance tax." To me the people who act entitled to an inheritance or other money from their parents fit your category of entitled people, but you seem to be making the opposite point.

I can agree with much of your post FedUp, but I think most people want a benefits system that provides for people in genuine need because of things they couldn't have prevented, and obviously no one wants a society where children are uneducated and living on the streets etc. but we don't need such a generous benefits system like the one we had under labour to achieve those things. We could have all of those things in society alongside an expectation that people provide for themselves as far as possible.

I don't think there us a single person in the UK, let alone mumsnet, who has an answer to solve these problems in a way that is fair to all and ensures that the genuinly vulnerable are protected.

What was so generous about it?

PIP isn't easy to get. It is for people who can't cook a meal, can't go to the toilet themselves, can't wash themselves.

I'm wondering how my mum would have fitted into OPs idea of supporting people for a year until they get back in their feet and then supporting them no further.
My mum had 7 children very close in age whilst married to my dad. They ran a reasonably successful business and only claimed child benefit (it wad universal then). My dad had an affair and left when the youngest child was 2. The business closed as my mum had done the admin from home and my dad was the skilled worker. My mum couldn't afford childcare for 7 children so she couldn't work until the youngest was old enough to not need childcare (which was much more than a year).
What would she have gone under OPs idea of only supporting people who fall on hard times for one year?

My mum now works three minimum wage jobs totalling 60 hours per week and cares for an elderly relative for 20+ hours a week. Her own health is suffering as a result.

My dad didn't pay maintenance either as he deliberately wanted the business to close so he didn't have to support us children or my mum.

In reality, the people who cream off many, many more millions from others than all those on benefits, are the top bankers (and the whole banking system), landed gentry, and suchlike. In contrast, what's spent on benefits (and generally given to people who were born in less fortunate circumstances) is peanuts.
Penfolds5 - how do the 'landed gentry' cream of many many more millions from others?

I'm a bit confused by the posts about people not relying on family anymore, so rely on social services. Those that access social services usually have the most severe and complex needs, there is very stringent criteria to meet. My own child who is severely disabled with medical needs cannot be left with anyone who isn't medically trained. My mother lives miles away anyway but for arguments sake, she wouldn't be able to look after her anyway, it's too much for someone with no experience to cope with, it would be unsafe. I was left without respite for eighteen months when we moved house and none of us could cope, our family was a breaking point and I was on the verge of a breakdown and I did and do hold my local authority responsible for that. People get a lot less respite than you can imagine. I care 24/7 for my teenage child and that often means hardly any sleep (I got 3 hours last night for example) we get two nights respite a month and I actually just sleep all the way through it, because I can.

I do believe we are entitled to that help and support. I've had to give up a full time job to care full time and I'm sorry if offends you, but I believe I'm entitled to carers allowance too. I have put into the tax system and my husband pays tax and so does all my family and I'm pretty sure none of them resent the fact I get a small monetary recognition for the sacrifices I make. I didn't choose this.

We don't claim any other benefits, my daughter claims DLA,but believe me it doesn't come anywhere near to covering the additional costs. Unfortunately if you have a severe disability, it's expensive.

I don't think you have to be a bleeding heart liberal to have the moral fibre to believe those most vulnerable in our society are supported, but reading some of the comments on here is worrying.

What was so generous about it?

People being allowed to choose to have a SAHP or work part time even though they couldn't afford to support their children on their own income is generous.

People already getting benefits to support their children being given more money and more housing benefit when they have more children despite being unable to afford the ones they already have is generous.

"Bishop Not true. I have seen threads that clearly say they aren’t talking about disabled people but yet they still pop up! This isn’t even a thread about the cuts – its about entitled people complaining but not willing to improve their situation. And I have already said this does not apply to disabled people. As such, I will not be responding to those comments anymore ; you can refer to my previous post for my opinion on the matter"

God, this really pisses me off. I am a disabled person, please can you explain exactly why I am not allowed to engage on a goady fuckery thread? My views and experiences are just as relevant and deserving of being heard as everybody else. It's just that you don't want to hear them. It's just an arrogant and condescending way of silencing uncomfortable truths. I'll post wherever the hell I want. You can choose not to engage, but you cannot stop me or anyone else from posting.

And yep, hiding behind a namechange on a thread like this is extremely cowardly. You clearly haven't got the bollocks to actually own the goady crap you are posting. I hate the thought that I could be unknowingly engaging with someone who thinks like you on another thread.

At least have the courage of your convictions, OP. You're either too embarrassed to properly own these views under your usual name (and I can see why) or you're being deliberately goady.

Hear hear OP! Don't have children if you can't afford to feed them- simple!

Andante57

Here's a starting place for all those subsidies for wealthy landowners:

farmsubsidy.openspending.org/GB/

The UK and Germany lobbied against those payments being capped. Apparently the proposed cap of £250,000 a year just wasn't enough.

Owllady I was one of the posters who mentioned social services/carers and if my post came across as implying that someone in your position shouldn't get carers allowance, I'm very very sorry, because I've worded it badly and that wasn't what I meant at all. The very opposite in fact. The situation with respite for carers is a total disgrace as far as I'm concerned.

My point was essentially that on the one hand we are told to rely on family, not the state, and yet on the other we are to told that wanting to be near extended family (for whatever reason) is entitled, and you have no 'right' to want to stay near them. So you're dammed if you do and damned if you don't.

Ptole
What is wrong with the benefit system allowing a sahp, families don't receive anything for a sahp neither and they don't claim the childcare element of tc because they can't/ don't need to.
A family is given x amount whether they have a shp or not.
I don't see how it will save any money tbh.