Benefit bashing

[LovelyBath77]

To think MN can be a bit benefit bashing at times. Even if people are rightfully claiming / ill / poor etc.

Recently, I have seen someone having a hard time although ill and having a baby and considering claiming tax credits. I also have had a hard time although illness (both me and DP) and low wage means claiming some tax credits.

I can understand the rage for those fraudulently claiming benefits or the like but why for those legitimately claiming? or AIBU?

We saved up to cover an extended maternity leave when we had our baby.

We moved to a cheap area so that we could actually afford a baby.

I can't afford to live in London or the SE as it's a massive luxury due to property and commuting costs.

The OP (and her husband) on that thread like many others who post didn't seem to have done any forward planning, but only thought about these things once she had become pregnant. As far as I'm concerned you plan to afford the life that you want and you need to make changes where required. Everyone seems to have this right to be able to live where they grew up. It doesn't work like that now. You can only live where you can afford and adjust your lifestyle to prioritise what is important to you.

Just to add that's my opinion for the OP not everyone on benefits. Benefits are needed for those that have fallen on hard times and people using them as a lifestyle choice takes away from those that really need it.

The op in the thread never said her condition was " chronic" and she works quite happily now. Yes she has an autoimmune disorder, but I think describing it as chronic like she's too sick to work is taking it too far.

There is plenty of work out there. Unemployment rates are extremely low (the lowest since 1975 I believe), though I know that there are regional and local variations. The problem is that there are not enough jobs paying high enough salaries to support families in a reasonable standard of living.

I agree that there are some unscrupulous employers who keep wages low because they will be topped up by in work benefits, and on the whole I think zero hours contracts are appalling, but neither do I think it is reasonable to expect employers to ensure that all their jobs pay enough to support a whole family. A living wage for a single 18 year old living at home with parents is very different from a living wage for a family of 6. With the best will in the world, someone doing a basic unskilled job in London is not going to earn enough to provide for four children and clearly it wouldn't be right to force employers to pay more than an employee is worth for employers to pay employees with children more than those without (for doing the same job). That is where the state should and does step in.

As with any system involving money (having just insured a car for a 17 year old to drive, I'm thinking in particular about car insurance, but there must be many examples) some people will exploit the system but stay within the rules. Some will commit fraud. Some will feel aggrieved because they see others doing this and know they would be better off themselves if they followed suit. Some won't care. But that doesn't mean that the whole system is necessarily broken.

We need a benefits system. Ours is not perfect and no doubt we should be seeking to improve it, but it could be a lot worse. We need to ensure that the vulnerable are protected, including those who are not mentally or physically capable of working (in the short or long term). We need to close loopholes and remove perverse incentives. We also need to ensure that those who are fit and healthy enough to work are better off if they do.

Tbh i have more contempt for rich people who evade tax by whatever means. Tight.
They somehow think that they are above sharing as they are more talented snd work harder than anyone else.

Tbh i have more contempt for rich people who evade tax by whatever means

Two wrongs don't make a right. Having "more contempt" for tax evaders doesn't make living off benefits as a lifestyle choice right. Both are very wrong.

I have known people on benefits who moan about people on benefits...they see no irony in this whatsoever.

Someone on full HB, CTax benefit along with a mix of others has a disposable income of someone earning well above minimum wage.

You're a bit behind the times, I'm afraid. CT benefit was abolished 2-3 years ago. Even people entitled to full HB often have to pay towards their rent. Because the local housing allowance was reduced to an average of the bottom 30% of local rents, then frozen for at least 2 years, it's very hard to find rented property in the south, especially in the south-east, where the full rent will be covered. Even in social housing, the benefit cap means that even a two-child, single-parent family can have to make a large contribution towards their rent out of their (paltry) benefits.

The only clients I have encountered who have incomes comparable to people in work are those households where there is long-term illness or disability. And it's often the high rents that make up the biggest chunk of their income, via housing benefit.

As far as I'm concerned you plan to afford the life that you want and you need to make changes where required.

Sometimes changes are forced on you though. No-one expects to become widowed, divorced, disabled but all these things can push someone into poverty almost overnight. Not everything can be planned for or mitigated against.

Lots of people still claim child tax credit Lakie not everyone claims universal credit yet.

Oh sorry was it council tax benefit ignore my above post Lakie!

Also waiting to hear on DLA claim which if granted will be at least an extra £80 a week.

If your child gets middle or higher rate care, you will be entitled to around £60 pw more in child tax credits (disabled child element). You will also be entitled to claim carer's allowance, and still get an income support top-up, which will increase the amount paid directly to you, for you, by £34-35 pw. Both of these can be backdated to the date that you applied for DLA , and the arrears can be a nice little windfall.

Good luck!

Sometimes changes are forced on you though. No-one expects to become widowed, divorced, disabled but all these things can push someone into poverty almost overnight. Not everything can be planned for or mitigated against

This is very different to choosing to have a child, quitting your job and having rhe tax payers make up the difference. That is a choice.

No one is disputing if you need to claim because you are too ill, or can't find work or are earning so low you need top up that you shouldn't claim, that's what benefits are for. What's being disputed is choosing to have a child, then quit your job for three years because you will be better off and don't want to miss your babies firsts.

The reason we see such vitriol for benefit claimants rather than the tax avoiding super rich bastards is because the former is in your face daily.

Media encourage families working ft with no benefits to look at their neighbours/colleagues bringing home the same amount of money for half the work.

They see this each day, they don't equate Tarquin McTaxavoider on his super yacht as being the real demon because it's so far removed from their own lives (if that even makes sense )

It's a difficult situation - the vast majority of anyone claiming credits etc does need them as a temporary support and that's fine.
What isn't fine is the example on here (won't link as don't want to TAAT) a few weeks back about a healthy family who were as a couple with 1 child who were choosing to work a total of about 16 hours a week between them so they could 'potter' and 'garden' but were able to do this because of tax credits.
That pissed me off, when we've got disabled people being forced off benefits, people using food banks etc.
I do feel that's the general 'meh' ness of the country at the moment though. A host of Goverments with shit leaderships have led to a real sense of entitlement in all areas of the public sector. Depressing.

The op in the thread never said her condition was " chronic" and she works quite happily now. Yes she has an autoimmune disorder, but I think describing it as chronic like she's too sick to work is taking it too far.

That isn't what "chronic" means

Like most people, I hold mixed views;
1.) Disabled and long-term ill people should have access to benefits and be prevented from going into poverty. This amount should be reasonable and liveable and ensure it doesn't negatively impact their health. The hoops people are jumping through at the moment are despicable.
2.) Unemployed people should have access to JSA and not be sanctioned for ridiculous things.
3.) Low income adults should not be below the poverty line. I include single adults (who are generally the ones left out and worst off) as well as parents.
4.) Children should not face any poverty, regardless of any decisions their parents may make. Therefore, as a society, we need to make sure parents have access to what they need.
However,
5.) I have much more mixed views on the parents who choose not to work because they want to be their children (not talking about little children or babies) and expect the state to pay for it. I'm categorically not talking about people who have difficult circumstances like single parents or parents of children with SEN.

There is a huge amount of (seemingly accepted) snobbery and judgement on here towards people who claim benefits.

It's actually one of the worst things about MN.

People sit in their ivory towers and pour scorn on others.

YY.

The "we have a joint income of £130k but have chosen to have one child because that's all we can afford on £130k" comment yesterday (on the thread by the OP whose husband has just left her pregnant with four DC) must be the award winning example of that genre.

Huge judgement and a lack of realism spoken from a place of privilege.

But presumably we'll be drawing our state pensions and using the NHS if it still exists when this young woman is working and paying taxes. Her husband will be contributing too and possibly even her child.

We shall be benefitting at the expense of the tax payer at that point, she will be paying her taxes.

I don't see a problem with her having three years to raise her child at the expense of the present tax payer.
She plans to go back to work when the thirty hours of free childcare provision becomes available to her. At such point she will still be benefitting from tax payers' money.
It not as if she will be a net contributor is it?

I really don't see a practical or economic issue here.

It is completely ideological in focus and malicious in execution.

The op in the thread never said her condition was " chronic" and she works quite happily now. Yes she has an autoimmune disorder, but I think describing it as chronic like she's too sick to work is taking it too far.

That isn't what "chronic" means confused

Indeed, chronic means long term, as opposed to acute which does not.

Hth.

Seriously I don't agree Crunchy I don't think it's the ones that have a lavish lifestyle or even comfortable lifestyle that 'benefit bash ' on here i think its those people who work full time but on low wages or acverage wages (and loads of outgoings) that can see that there's not much difference in their disposable income and the disposable income of those on benefits that get pissed off with the system.

I agree. Its nothing to do with ivory towers, that's just an insult to counter with.

Neither are those claiming in the majority vulnerable. Some will be but the majority are claiming through choices they made. Nobody forced them, they just believe they are entitled so claim and do less.

Surely we want better for future children? They should be studying hard and reaching for the skies not sitting on the internet working out how to net the most benefits for the least effort. The cycle needs to break and we need a government strong enough to do it.

Presumably those in their ivory towers won't claim their state pension though MissAlabama. They won't want to burden taxpayers into subsidising their choice of retirement lifestyle when they could just WORK and continue to support themselves. If they're fit and healthy at 70, surely the there's no legitimate excuse for them to choose not to work?

It's the whole range. From posters who say "My DP works hard for just £16k and we scrimp to manage on that. Why should they get X, Y, Z for less effort" Through to very well off posters who seem to believe effort always equals reward.

The thing they have in common is that they are all missing about bits of the picture.

They believe they're entitled because they ARE entitled. If you don't like that take it up with the government. It's not the fault of people legitimately claiming.

Feral, I don't think most people (who work) who are on tax credits are on them briefly. I think it tends to be longer term as so many people even working full time on the minimum wage are living in areas where rents are high and cannot get pay rises. Tony Blair wanted most families claiming benefits as that tends to suit socialism - to make us all claimants depending on the state, even people up to £60k (one of my relatives) or £50k got some tax credits. It is of course thankfully lower now and also the single person tax allowance went up as it was silly we were paying an average £2k out in tax credits and then taking back £1k back in tax -a pointless merrygoround of money.

I don't blame anyone entitled to tax credits from taking them nor in working their hours to do the fewest hours for the biggest gain. If the system incentives people to work shorter hours the system needs to change not blame the person.

I have never had these incentives as when I had my babies there was very little support - just the 6 weeks at 90% pay (and I had not been employed long enough ( 2 years in those days) even to get that!! I had to use holiday. Then with the last children I was self employed so again nothing and no childcare help of any kind ever bt in a sense that helped me - I just had to keep on working full time always for over 30 years now without a single break and the lack of benefits and the lack of incentive to work part time meant I remained a primary earner, took on second jobs, pushed for promotion and ended up earning quite a bit as I was not incentivised by a socialist state to work short hours and leave the career track. Don't even get child benefit any more and knowing my luck by the time I am nearly 70 the state pension will be gone too.

Always just rely on yourself. The state and men are usually a bad bet to rely on.