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?

to do the fewest hours for the biggest gain

This is what they want though - so more people are 'working' so the unemployment figures look better

People are basically job sharing - with tax credit top ups -

There aren't more jobs or more money coming in - just more people doing the same work

Madness

Were you not entitled to child benefit/family allowance lucysky? They've been around for a very long and weren't means tested until recently.

We need to remember that the government and our economy for that matter doesn't care about individuals, it cares about the good of society (won't go into the politics of Politics!). Whether two families work PT or one family work FT, as long as they spend that's what matters. The fact the PT families rely on the taxes payed by the FT family is irrelevant.

Of course, it becomes a matter of morals and principles when considering individual choices.

I am a benefit basher, but like most, would never think of bashing those families when both work FT (but entitled because of high childcare costs) or those who claim because of circumstances beyond their control for a limited time. I have an issue with those who purposely look for 24h work and show no interest of increasing such hours as long as they can claim, or those who claim CA and then all related benefits when it is obvious they are not providing 35 hours of care a week, that is in addition to the care that all parents/partner provide out of love.

The governments of the last 10 years are responsible for the finger pointing at benefit claimants. Its started with single parents on Income Support, moved onto Incapacity Claimants and then Tax Credits claimants. The governments likes under employment, it works in favour of big business who can reduce their wages bill whilst boosting their profit margins.

There are not enough jobs for every person who are deemed by government as fit to be undertaking full time work. The solution is a shorter working week for employees.

swingofthings
those who claim CA and then all related benefits when it is obvious they are not providing 35 hours of care a week, that is in addition to the care that all parents/partner provide out of love.

Providing care out of love doesn't pay the bills, nor does CA but it does help a bit.

We pay our taxes in good times so that we can claim when we need to. As a single parent going back to work full time after mat leave the only way I could support us was through tax credits/child benefits etc. I claimed what I was allowed and as soon as I was no longer entitled, I stopped them. It wasn't much and it wasn't for long.

However, this enabled me to go back to work in turn enabling me to get better roles and in turn enabling me to more than double my salary in two years. That is the purpose of them, to help you to get back on your feet and people should not be vilified for accepting help they are entitled to.

I've been on benefits long term (over 18 years) and I think there's definitely evidence of more benefit bashing these days, on MN and elsewhere. I get an adequate amount as there are multiple disabilities in the family and I'm a carer, and I have a council house so my rent gets covered in full as it's relatively low, plus all transport costs are paid for. So people see that I'm not scrimping all the time, I can afford holidays (although my most recent ones were paid for by a disabled charity) and nice things and they think they could be getting more if they were on benefits. Well yes they could, but only if they had to deal with severe disabilities in themselves and their child.

A lot of people claim to be supportive of disabled people claiming benefits but then they question our eligibility, because our disabilities are invisible. Or they think I should be pushing myself to work at least part time, just to show that I'm making an effort, when in fact every day life being a carer and managing my disabilities requires an enormous effort that others can't see.

Many of the parents at DDs school think that working has nothing to do with them.
They think people who work are stupid, they think they have great lives just hanging around and going shopping everyday.
They are genuinely shocked that some people choose to work.

Obviously they are clueless, they don't have a great quality of life, no cars, no holidays, no savings, there is no ambition to do better.

That's their choice, however my problem is the poor example they set.
My next door neighbours always worked - their children have not because 'they have kids' and now their children (and their children) are following the same path - much harder to work when you have never seen anyone do it. These are the ones who struggle to get their kids to school everyday (I regularly see neighbours granddaughter in her PJs at 10am)

I think benefits are a fabulous idea - i think often they are going to the wrong people. Fewer people should get them and get more.

Providing care out of love doesn't pay the bills, nor does CA but it does help a bit
Maybe it should be an universal benefit then? No issues with claimants who give up a good job to take on caring duties, actually should be paid much more, but those mums who have been SAHM but then claim the additional benefit because they can and pretend that they would otherwise work, mmmm....

The governments of the last 10 years are responsible for the finger pointing at benefit claimants.
I blame the people who think that because something is available, they should jump at it, even if they don't truly need it. DD could claim for additional time for her exams because of an eye problem that can't be corrected. However, as she says, her condition doesn't slow her down, so why should she. Indeed, why should people grab anything just because they can?

I work 24 hours a week and get tax credit top ups as a single parent. I work 2 long night shifts as that way I don't have to pay for childcare - my ExH or my parents have DS overnight while I am at work. I can't do more than 2 shifts a week (well I could but I'd be physically exhausted and wouldn't be able to get out of bed). I could get a daytime job but it works out that if I did that then I'd have to claim MORE in tax credits than I do now to pay for childcare costs (exh and my parents work full time in the day) as I currently don't need to claim for those. It suits me for now.

People claiming benefits doesn't bother me one bit to be honest. In the long run people who work full time are better off. People on benefits long term have no financial security, no savings, no pension. Unlikely to ever own their own home. I see nothing enviable about that.

I think are enough jobs - just google care work or support work and you'll be inuandated - but that the majority of jobs aren't paid nearly well enough for the work they do. For example my mum is carer and gets paid less than me (a cashier at Tesco, so hardly rolling in it but more than minimum wage). That is why so many families are finding it a struggle. Even in big businesses (supermarkets etc) that pay above the minimum wage, staff want something more. Especially the younger ones who stay there to fund uni, or use it as a stopgap while volunteering/trying to get into the career they really want to be in. Certain jobs (carers, nurses, police even) are not paid enough. How can it be right that a carer takes home around 15k and a graduate assistant at a uni over 22k? There are plenty of jobs out there - it's that they don't pay anywhere near enough. Or, are zero hour or 'flexi' contracts which some companies are great about giving overtime - some aren't.

I do think our perception of poverty has changed more now though. We have become a more consumer society and expect more, and I include myself in that. Just as the average lifestyle has changed over the last 50 years, so has the poverty threshold. If a person or a child doesn't enjoy an 'average lifestyle' they can be classed as living in poverty. During my childhood I would have been classed as living in poverty. I didn't. I was fed, clothed, had a roof over my head and was loved. I'm not saying poverty doesn't exist because quite clearly it does, but what we class as poverty has changed and in my experience and view, very few people in Britain live in real, absolute poverty.

I think the media plays on people's anger with the 'scrounger' and 'benefit britain' programmes, making taxpayers mad because they're 'paying taxes for these people'. It's just turning people against people. Personally, I don't mind so much paying tax for people who need it BUT I hate the thought of my taxes going on an MP's 2nd or 3rd home or foreign holiday. A lot of people are rightly angry, it's just the anger is directed at the wrong people.

Don't forget, benefits isn't that much. I claimed jobseekers last year. For 250 quid a month, I was told by someone my own age (so what life experience did they have) that I wasn't looking hard enough for a job. Yes I was. I've always respected authority, but the jobcentre staff and systems were beyond a joke. Threatened with getting sanctioned for being ill and missing an appointment. People on benefits have to jump through lots of bloody hoops to get them, and the money they do get isn't exactly millions. I would suggest that people 'on benefits' who can 'afford flat screens, 3 holidays abroad a year, all new designer gear etc' are either in a shit ton of debt, or on the fiddle (eg doing cash in hand jobs). I seriously doubt they can afford it just off their benefits.

As to the argument that it's bad to only work under 16 hours or whatever the threashold is, to get ctc, well I would. So would lots of people I know. Why would I put myself at a disadvantage to work more and earn the same, or less? Most benefits don't work like that ime, just ctc. The system does need to change but lets not villify people for doing exactly what most of us would given the chance - make the best of a bad situation

What I don't understand is why people can't be more flexible. Ok if your hours don't work and childcare costs a lot then why not give up your job and get another one that can start later even if just for a few hours a night. There are loads of these types of jobs nowadays. This is what my parents did for 8 years 6 days a week. Dad worked 8-4 and mum worked 5-10 and they split the childcare. People just don't seem to want to make these sacrifices anymore. Benefits are not intended to support a lifestyle choice for me. They are for people who have fallen on hard times not people who have chosen to make life hard for themselves.

That only works if there are two if you and those shifts are available locally @Hunted68

The people who struggle most are always single parents. And it's getting worse because key living costs are going up so fast (particularly housing and childcare).

I was a single parent briefly 20 years ago but I wouldn't be one now for all the tea in China. Not even on my current, very comfortable, earnings.

Madein, lots of people thankfully have too much pride, like to be self reliant, don't want their children raised on benefits so wouldn't work the bare minimum.

I agree the system needs change, a big one. Assistance with childcare costs only would benefit society a great deal more. Children would see a work ethic daily, parents would have to be prepared to work if they want children and we create more employment with nurseries etc. People would still be free to work part time or not at all but would simply have to self fund that luxury. Puts everyone on an even keel and would mean a better future for the children. Less would be born into households of none workers or short term relationships once the gravy train stops.

Who in their right mind would work 10 extra hours just to be £15 better off?

But the point is they should. If you are able to work then you should.

Anyway, UC will be here soon and claimants will have to have interviews in order to keep their claims.

I agree serfterf. It's not aimed at single parents and of course wouldn't work. I was more talking about the person who decides to give up work to have a baby because it costs too much for childcare. It might not work everywhere but there are lots of jobs now with unsocial hours. A lot of people just don't want to do them.

We'll all be on benefits one day. How many of you will be claiming State Pension?

Even when you don't necessarily need it?

There's more to life than work and chasing the next promotion. I didn't have children so i could put them in full time childcare. I don't think there is anything shameful in prioritising your very young children for a few years and the government is willing to help with that. If you don't like it then lobby the government.

(Purple, I did indeed get child benefit in the past. Not sure the state pension will still be there when I'm 67 and it's taxable too but we shall see. I think I will get about 125 a week before tax so about £56 a week after tax for my 44 years of contributions)

Hunted68 you seem to be reminiscing rather than offering practical advice for TODAY. Things were a lot different when I was a child too.... oh the good old days.
Fact is you had 2 parents and they lived in a generation where there were less people and more jobs. Get your head out of the clouds. Where I live there are 5 people to 1 job, and that's including the jobs I can't do because they don't fit in with school hours.

My comment was not about single parents as I have already qualified above. It is about someone who has a job who is giving it up to claim benefits. My personal opinion is that benefits were not for this reason. Somewhere along the line benefits have been too easy to claim and now everyone on benefits is paying the price with the cuts when many actually "need" them rather than just "want" them.

Obviously some people will agree with this and some will disagree.

Lucy- why would you pay so much tax? Are you likely to be a 45% taxpayer in retirement?

Why would be paying half your pension in tax Lucy?

I can't get over the fact people earning £40000 a year are getting tax credits.

It's just so ridiculous. You can see why it annoys people.