To think not everyone on benefits are taking the psss

[Greydrabday]

Background...
Me and OH both have worked until 6 months ago, when he became so unwell with his condition, he became unable to gto work.
I work 23 (going up to 28) hours per week.
So for the last 6 months we've been claiming UC to help with living costs.
OH is slowly getting better and looking for work now to get us back on our feet and not having to rely on the benefit system.
(we have a 1 year old too)

Isn't it funny how people's opinions change once they know you're claiming UC?
Had a run in with a friend today, who claims I have choose this path, I should work full time, and while I'm choosing this way, the tax payer (ie her) is paying for it.
That the people who are better off, have worked hard to get there...

Basically you're made to feel like scum if youre claiming any sort of help in the form of benefits or food parcels.

AIBU to think not everyone is taking the psss out the system, and some just genuinely need a helping hand until they are able to get on their feet??

Really quite upset at her comments.

She doesn't sound like a friend, a few of mine have been struggling to make ends meet and I happily helped them with their applications and seeing what they were entitled to; as I know they would do for me. Sure some people assume people on benefits are a certain way because of the media, papers and stereotypes, but thankfully it doesn't seem to be huge numbers.

And your debts... that's the biggest part for me. You've gotten into debt, why? I'm sorry but I believe benefits are there for those who are genuinely disabled.

Given that most people in the UK are not net contributors, I expect they’ve airway long since spent what they’ve put into the pot, so I don’t really go with that justification.

I prefer thinking that it doesn’t matter what you put into the pot - if you have genuine need, you should receive.

YANBU, and your friend is an arse. She should volunteer at a food bank, or at a CAB or similar, and see for herself how some people really struggle.

What is a scandal is that someone can work FT and still not earn enough to feed their family and keep a roof over their heads without state support. The taxpayer isn't subsidising claimants, but employers who pay shit wages, and landlords who profit from rental income paid at the taxpayer's expense.

You have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of, but I think your 'friend' does. I am very glad that (a relatively small!) portion of my earnings contributes towards the welfare of others who happen to be in less fortunate circumstances. I'd be even gladder if the tabloid press stopped painting perfectly decent people as scroungers and if their readers stopped believing that bullsh*t!

But why don’t people think about these things BEFORE they have children?Including the very real possibility that you may have a special needs kid?

So now we can't have children until we earn enough to cover 18 years of their lives (and some) without any recourse whatsoever to the benefits system. On top of that, we should make sure that if our children are born with a disability or illness, or develop one at a later date, we can also cover the full cost of living on one wage. We should also allow for our own deaths, disability, illness and marriage breakdown and ensure that as a couple, there is sufficient money in place to cover the cost of managing 2 houses for a full 18 years.

Only people with a trust fund or who have won the lottery will be able to manage that. The country would cease to function. Hey ho. Have it your own way.

The benefits system is a safety net and nobody tends to criticise when it's used in that way, in your circumstances there isn't a reason why you can't work full time so I can see why people may be critical, after all your lo has his dad at home already. I know people who are genuine claimants for illness/injury reasons and others who are workshy and work the system long term (think 20 years) so you can see why taxpayers who are struggling themselves can get angry. In your case it's short term, others not so much

I didn't have my kids out of an obligation to provide a work force. I believe working class people should be able to exercise their biological imperative to procreate just like any one else on the economic scale. I also think that we should have higher wages, a robust social housing system and pay benefits to sick people. I don't believe anybody should ever be so poor that they are criticised for having ONE child and told they are irresponsible and told they shouldn't have had that child if there was any chance that then might temporarily be in financial hardship due to poor health.

Of course people need it. That’s why it’s there - for when people are ill or struggling for whatever reason.

If you were both able bodied people who had spent 5 years claiming, without looking for work, that’s different. But you aren’t. You’ve just been having a bad patch.

Hope things keep getting better.

It’s not short term though, is it? The child is only 1, and as OP’s decision to work part time is driven by wanting to spend time with her child, she’ll presumably continue to do that as long as the benefit structure will support it.

I said above that I’d do the same, so it’s not a criticism. But don’t go thinking it’s short term!

@LakieLady 100% agree!

Butterfly... 1234.
Debts from uni, that I used to better myself years ago.
As people have said, life moves fast and isn't always straight forward. Things can change quickly without warning.

I haven't got into debt suddenly since being on UC, I've always paid my debts, my bills and rent.

That's very nasty of her. I also have also worked - I was a nurse - I certainly worked very hard. But it is extremely stressful and that contributed to my mental break down 2.5 years ago. I've been in hospital since then so have had to claim UC. I am scraping by and have got into debt as UC make it so damn hard to get anything out of them. Financially it is a horrible existence. Anyone that would like to swap with me so they could be a 'lazy, work-shy, layabout' is very welcome.

I think there are many people who fail to realise that despite their best laid plans and budgeting, it only takes one recession/redundancy/death/illness/natural disaster etc to put you in a position you never thought you would be in.

I’ve been financially on my knees and utilised the benefit system to keep my family fed. I’ve also been fortunate enough to now earn good money and be able to contribute back into the tax pot.

There is a massive difference between benefits as a lifestyle choice (which is suspect very few people actually do choose), and using benefits as a step up.

@Ellisandra

She said in the OP that her OH was too sick to work and is now getting better and looking for work so I would say that is very short term, yes.

The view that benefits should ‘only’ be for one type of person is a simplistic one. Life isn’t black and white, as nice as that would be.

Agree with LakieLady landlords and businesses are the benefit scroungers. Working people shouldn’t need benefits

Of course most people are using them because they need them. The vast majority of people are on out of work benefits for less than 6 months iirc, very few people 'live' off them, and I think benefit sanctions is not only cruel but ineffective as my theory is that those few people who seem to be "living off benefits' probably only manage because most of their income is something dodgy, so benefits are just extra pocket money & they can manage without it. Unlike disabled people who get sanctioned because they were too ill to make an appointment

Ellisandra....
It is short term.
When my OH was well and working near full time. And I was doing 23 hours (upping to 28 in the next few weeks), we were managing fine.

So yes I will continue to be part time and survive until he's in school.

I'd Defo rather have my bills. And rent paid, and he left with 100 spare a month, than work full time and be left with less because we're paying for childcare.

We managed before with us both working, so we will again once OH gets a job again.

@WitchesGlove - I did have quite a lot in savings before I became unwell but that disappeared very quickly. I couldn't guess that I would become so unwell and need hospitilisation for an extended time.

WitchesGlove

10 kids is a bit much. However just because someone has to work for a pittance as do many people in this country does not mean they have to sacrifice having children to the altar of feudalist capitalism of nowadays.
Low paid workers often work extremely hard and are severely underpaid. If the government wasnt subsidising big companies and instead focused on enforcing fair pay those people wouldnt even need benefits! It is disgusting. And all so some billionares can have even more billions.

Of course it’s true that no-one knows the future, and you can conceive as a millionaire and give birth as a pauper. But that’s pretty extreme! But you can certainly conceive as a couple both working full time and give birth as one too ill to work and the other unable to find work. Not extreme at all.

Just because things may change, doesn’t mean you throw up your hands and say it’s pointless planning financially for a baby.

No, most of us can’t save up enough to cover every eventuality.

But for many people, it is the lack of a buffer for a short period that causes the long term issue. When you have no buffer, you might take out a loan on punitive interest to cover the credit card you maxed out on even worse interest. God forbid a payday loan. You miss repayments and it’s not long before you can’t get any good interest rates, and you’re paying back lots of interest.

It doesn’t take a lot to tip the balance - and next thing you know you’re in work again and your wages WOULD have been enough - but you’re sinking because of the debt repayments.

Having a buffer can stop that spiral. Not a trust fund to cover 18 years of child rearing. But 2 months wages.

Some people can’t save 2 months wages, I know that.

But plenty of people COULD - but don’t. Then go ahead and have a child.

To say that those people should have saved a buffer first is not supporting an ideology that only the rich are allowed to have children.

Not suggesting this is the OP though!

I think ops “friend” AKA Butterly has found this thread

@Greydrabday did you not set your baby is 1? Even if that’s 18 months and he’s a n oldest in the year baby, he’s approx three years away from starting school. That is not short term.

Well, she’s NOT paying for you, as you and your DP have been paying into the system. Your df is a twat!