Sense of entitlement to the benefit system

[user1482079332]

I might be abit antagonistic here but wondered if my opinion is shared at all. I grew up on welfare, Very poor at times no food or electricity. Fast forward, Im now a single mum getting ready to go back to work. I have been offered a job full time that will mean I earn alot more in the future, it's worth the short term sacrifice of juggling it all and being skint for awhile . Prior to this I was making arrangements to go back to work part time in a very low paying job. I couldn't get over how much I would receive in benefits working only 16hours a week. There was very little financial incentive to work full time and admittedly if I didn't have this job opportunity I would more than likely stay part time and receive enough in benefits that's I'm on equivalent my previous full time job salary before I had a baby. I can't help but think this creates dependency and entitlement. I had a friend recently earn more and she complained that her benefits had been reduced as a result. I think the benefits system in this country Is a mess and there should be more incentive to work full time than part time if your fit and well.

You have to pay for everything out of it though ajand if I read correctly? So say:

£200 a month food
£25 a month car tax
£50 a month car insurance
£50 a month phones/ wifi
£100 a month petrol
£150 a month gas & elec
£15 a month tv license
£30 a month water
£50 a month insurances
£200 a month contingency for clothing/ emergencies

Doesn't leave you with much?

Now I know people will say you should get rid of your phone and eat gruel, and there is an argument for that in some cases (I did all that as a student!) but when you're going to be poor long term you can't live on the breadline. People shouldn't be doing that for years. Clothes wear out, boilers break, tenancies end and so on. Keeping people on the breadline is more expensive in the long term and lowers everyone's standard of living.

That said, as I said above, working should always be the gold standard. But whilst employers don't pay enough and the government steps in benefits will be more attractive for some

BUT, was it really up to anyone else to pay for that study? I get paid better than my ex-husband who didn't have the luxury of working part time and studying in his spare time.

I am proud to live in a society that gave you the opportunity to advance yourself. That is how things should operate in a wealthy economy.

olliegarch you said...."but tax credits are nothing to do with tax as those in receipt of them are not paying income tax at all. "

Which is a completely incorrect statement. You may have meant something different but I can assure you, unless you earn so low you don't pay tax, (not sure of threshold) but the vast majority of people in receipt of tax credits are paying several hundred a month in income tax. If you have children you have to be earning quite a bit before you stop getting them. Particularly if you are a single parent.

Also I suppose the thing to remember is that whenever there is a system there will always be a way of taking advantage of it. It's imposssble to build a system which can't be breeched. We could just as easily say we should stop tax dodging but it won't happen because again, it's a system

If I worked 40 hours in my job, it still wouldnt leave me enough to live on this my rent is ridiculous and still the cheapest in this area. I wouldnt get much help for rent, and still have to pay a lot of council tax. Might get tax credits but wouldnt be a lot. Then I'd have to factor in childcare.

It's not ideal, but I didnt ask for this life. I wont make my daughter's life harder than it needs to be, by working full time so I can feel superior. Also I'd have to actually find the child care.

Instasista
It leaves you with £730 a month, as well as £200 for contingencies (which I know is necessary).

The vast majority of people do not get anything like "loads" in benefits. Its not even subsistance, but it makes more sense to allow single mums to work part time and do their own childcare. What do you expect very young children to do if a single parent is forced to work full time before their child is old enough to be left. As it is, unless your child has a disability, a single parent is expected to look for full time work from when their youngest child is seven

And your're right - there is always a way of getting around a system - tax dodgers fill me with contempt - whether a large organisation or an individual. It's why I don't pay cash for anything.

I don't think it's much to be honest. I spend more than that on bills, admittedly I have credit card and car loan repayments, but so do many many people.

Another "userlotsofnumbers" username and simplistic goady, insulting our intelligence thread. I've lost count of these recently. Yes there is an election on, no we are not stupid, please go away. There are plenty of genuine political discussions on here, threads like this really annoy me.

(Also tbf just seen that OP was earning part of that through her job and subsequently some
Of those benefits have been cut so not sure if you can get that now)

I think 'eligible' and 'entitled' are two different things for sure.

"I agree with Instasista - I wouldn't call that loaded. It may be manageable but it isn't excessive."

I think I explained why I shouldn't have used that word. I meant for the amount of work I did in comparison to my husband at the time or the hours I do now it was a lot for the work I did. It was also nearly 8 years ago so £400 a week went a lot further.

I do not, for example, think as an able-bodied worker it was necessarily fair that I could get away with so few hours and not worry at all about covering my bills when there is a poster on here who is disabled, who doesn't have that choice who is struggling. If it had been today I would have had to work full time and find childcare. It would have been worse for me and the kids BUT that's not really anyone else's problem is it? That is not to say I am not grateful for the safety net at the time. I just mean I didn't HAVE to do extra hours so I didn't (shoot me I know)

"I don't think it's much to be honest. I spend more than that on bills, admittedly I have credit card and car loan repayments, but so do many many people."

Yes but do you work? Insta?

It's an interesting point street. I've been fairly lucky in life, my grandparents, like most people of their generation from working class families rented from the council and therefore had reduced rent. They worked, but worked in semi skilled jobs with excellent pension plans. They had lots of advantages but also lots of disadvantages- the biggest being lack of choice and freedom.

My parents were baby boomers, first generation homeowners and I was off to uni and getting a "good"
Job.

In theory, I could do a different job, and earn less and have more time with my children (say if I went part time)

In reality I just want more and more money. It's interesting that some people here have said they purposely didn't work more because they could survive on benefits and bring up their children.

I don't judge them so please don't judge me as a money mad child neglecter- but I am wondering what makes those attitudes. Is it a background of benefits? Benefits don't really enter my head. I have been very poor and we didn't qualify for them (we lost a huge amount of money during the recession and were only marginally employed for years) so I suppose I just think they're for "other people"

I can't imagine envying that lack of choice or freedom (not saying anyone here does, more referring to the general concept of benefit bashing)

Yes street I work but I would have to make all those repayments if I lost my job which was my point really.

"I don't judge them so please don't judge me as a money mad child neglecter- but I am wondering what makes those attitudes."

HA! No judging here I work 50 plus hours a week now and I have a 20 month old and two older kids (but then I have a husband to help)

The only reason I worked less hours during that short period of my life was because my children were 2 and 4 and I didn't want them going from having a mum with them full time to going through a divorce and being put into care full time. I felt it would be too traumatic for them. Absolutely nothing to do with a benefits background. It was simply that I earned enough and got enough top ups to see to my immediate financial needs and the children's emotional needs. As soon as I was 'able' I returned full time to a better-paid job.
I am just saying that I would have been 'able' sooner if I couldn't afford to keep my home. Which in some ways I am grateful for and in other ways I know is a bit unfair.

Could anyone point me in the direction of these magic benefits that allow you to live the life of Riley? When I was on maternity leave and DH lost his job we couldn't afford to live. Heat or food situation, that was claming everything we were entiteled too.

Now he's working we're only just in the positive each month, but a single unexpected bill and we're stuffed. Fortunatley he's due regular pay increases so we will finally be ok.

"Yes street I work but I would have to make all those repayments if I lost my job which was my point really."

I know but therefore my point is, it seems a lot if you are not really earning it? I pay out more now but there are two earners here now and I feel like what we have we fully deserve. Do you think that sounds a lot if you were working say 20 hours a week? I felt undeserving and felt...ok not 'loaded' (bad choice of words) but comfortable.

No I am nodding along with everything you say street. Personally I think it's brilliant that the state gave you the time and space to care for your children after a traumatic time but I do understand your point

cuppa, I can only speak about a few years ago but the system seemed to be in favour of single parents in work than a couple or someone out of work and / or childless. I know benefits have been slashed I would not like to be in the same situation again.

I don't know the exact ins and outs of how it's administrated, but surely there should be a sliding scale of hours Vs welfare payments, so there isn't this apparent cliff edge at 16 hours?

And a link to actual earnings. My hours dropped from 16-14 and cost me tax credits - but I was earning £20 per hour.

I can think of many positives of the Citizens Wage, which might really have to come to pass if an increasingly large number of jobs are lost to AI and mechanisation. It would for one thing deal with the benefits trap.

However, it's the very jobs that we need people to do that would suffer under this system. Wouldn't anyone rather be in receipt of a citizen's wage than work in a care home?

The other thing is Insta that I was studying with the OU, some of which was undertaken before tuition fees. That's enabled me to get a much much better job than the service industry job I had with less student debt than I would have had had I begun today.

On the one hand, I pay more into the economy now than I would have ever managed to do previously. On the other hand, those opportunities would not have been afforded to me had I stayed married, they are not afforded to my ex who is still in a poorly paid job and I have been 'rewarded' for a marriage break up and for doing less hours. I would not have studied had I been forced to work full time.

It's really difficult. My bum is hurting sitting on the fence here.

The people who benefit most from the system the way it is at the moment, are the employers who won't pay living wages. I'm convinced that benefits payments do more to subsidise those low-paying employers than they do to help the claimants. Employers who pay wages below a certain level, e.g. the living wage, should not only pay the taxes they're actually responsible for under our laws, but they should also refund to the government (i.e. the taxpayers) the subsidy they've had via the benefits paid to the claimant.

And one of the most vile things that's ever been invented to exploit the worker, is the zero-hours contract. These should simply be banned. If an employer wants someone to be available to work, the employer should be paying for that person's time. Whether the employer actually uses that person's time or not is irrelevant. Zero hours contracts are a very recent invention and they can be got rid of as quickly as they came. When I was running my typesetting business my clients were paying for my time devoted to consultations and discussions, etc, but it wasn't billed directly, it was included in overheads. They were still paying for my time because I couldn't use that time for anything else. If you frame it in terms of something that every employer understands - lost opportunity cost - the argument becomes irrefutable.