Opinions you have that aren't popular on mumsnet(2)

[Lockdowner35]

As the last thread reached 1000 posts

I will start

Jo Swinson would have do a better job than Boris on Coronavirus

Benefits should not be paid in cash but in the form of credits.

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother YES!

That Waitrose, M&Sand Ocado are very overrated and no different in quality to Tesco and Asda.

Taxation in this country goes against entrepreneurial spirit and hard work. The harder/smarter you work, the more you achieve, the more money you make, the more you get taxed. On the other hand, if you don't work as hard, and don't achieve as much, you can apply for benefits. Paid for by the high achievers' tax. No wonder people who make serious money leave or become residents of other countries.

The measure of any society is in how it treats its most vulnerable members.

But forcing those who do well to subsidize them is not right either.

But those who do well benefit from those at the other end of the scale, unless you're cleaning your own office and stacking your own supermarket shelves? Taxes go towards the running if the country and the government of the day decides how that money is divided up, its only right that some of it goes towards supporting the less well off. Would you expect non-drivers to say they don't want their taxes going towards roads or pro-lifers saying they don't want theirs going towards the NHS as it provides terminations or people in rural areas saying they don't want theirs spent on cities as they won't benefit? It doesn't work that way, we all pay in and we all benefit in some way.

@MissConductUS

Americans are just as smart and nice as people anywhere else.

Guess you haven't seen the news lately?

@dingoesatemybaby

That Waitrose, M&Sand Ocado are very overrated and no different in quality to Tesco and Asda.

TBH for me Waitrose wins out in terms of choice and overall experience. I consider it a treat to go there, it’s not my regular supermarket. They have Brazilian ground coffee which I can’t seem to find anywhere else, fantastic selection of whiskies and tables between the self checkouts that you can put your bag on without upsetting the machine.

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother

But forcing those who do well to subsidize them is not right either.

So how else are vulnerable people going to be looked after? I’m very fortunate to have a comfortable life, it’s only right that a fraction of that good fortune is used to support those who don’t have my advantages.

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother

Benefits should not be paid in cash but in the form of credits.

Honestly, I think this would kill at least 2 birds with one stone. Harder to misuse AND people would lose the "they spend it on ciggies not kids" arguments.

@FoxyTheFox

But those who do well benefit from those at the other end of the scale, unless you're cleaning your own office and stacking your own supermarket shelves? Taxes go towards the running if the country and the government of the day decides how that money is divided up, its only right that some of it goes towards supporting the less well off. Would you expect non-drivers to say they don't want their taxes going towards roads or pro-lifers saying they don't want theirs going towards the NHS as it provides terminations or people in rural areas saying they don't want theirs spent on cities as they won't benefit? It doesn't work that way, we all pay in and we all benefit in some way.

Some people choose to have less demanding jobs because they work around their other commitments. Not everyone wants to work 80 hours a week and have high stress levels because of work. I am very happy for my taxes to help those in need because they were born with a disability for example. But I don't want my tax money to pay towards branded shoes, mobile phone bills or Sky subscription for someone on benefits. Some tax money should of course go towards elements of the country we all benefit from. But we should be allowed to choose whether to support people who won't put working hard above everything else. If you look at data (the BBC published a chart which I can't find atm), the less you earn, the more you cost the state. If you are having someone else pay for (part of) your life costs, those subsidies shouldn't go on non-essentials IMO.

@VinylDetective I think we need to define 'vulnerable' here to ensure we mean the same thing. To me vulnerable is someone who didn't willingly choose to work fewer hours or to put having kids first, for example. Someone with a disability beyond their control (so not obesity due to greed) should absolutely be helped, for example.

But it then removes the dignity and choice from benefit claimants and forces them into the role of second class citizens who don't have access to cash and are easily identified as being in benefits by the fact their lives are restricted by the state. Whether we like it or not, once the money leaves the DWP/HMRC account and enters the claimants account it is then up to the claimants how it is spent and dictating to people how they should spend their money is a slippery slope. How long do you think it would be until one or more of the major supermarkets sets up a separate checkout lane for "credits customers" or restricts which products they can buy? This would push more people into poverty when their pride prevents them from lining up at the credits check out or from choosing the credits products. How long do you then think it would be before some bright spark decides that instead of credits we shouldn't give benefit claimants anything at all and should instead just house them in special institutions where they can carry out work in return for room and board? It creates a "them" and "us" culture and a disconnect between the haves and the have-nots. It totally disregards also that many benefits are in work benefits and used to top up low wages so not only would someone be working all day for a wage too low to actually live on, they would also then have it dictated to them what they could and couldn't spend that top-up on? And what of disabled or unwell people who are unable to work, do we also forces them onto credits instead of cash?

Just because someone does not write a post on MN which is grammatically perfect, it does not make them unintelligent. Intelligence is not defined by having excellent written or verbal skills.

Majority of people talk a lot of shite which is a waste of other people’s time. They say nothing of substance of depth but spend a lot of time just talking. If you don’t realise that, you’re part of the problem.

The snowflake generation is real and embarrassing.

Social media is the worlds biggest downfall. It’s destroying lives.

People do get jealous and can behave badly as a result. When you point out to them that they are behaving badly because they are jealous, that’s ok.
It doesn’t make you a prude. It’s fact.

There are certain car makes and models that seem to attract very poor drivers consistently.

Unless there is an illness involved, there is no excuse for being overweight. None.
No, I won’t tell you that you look nice because that’s a lie, therefore I will say nothing

People shouldn’t have kids if they don’t have the means to raise them. The U.K. make it too easy to have kids and live off benefits. If there was a tougher regime, I bet you birth numbers would drop off. It’s just mean not being able to provide for them from beginning.

The harder/smarter you work, the more you achieve, the more money you make

In theory. But the theory rests on decent wages being paid, which they often aren't. Some people work their arses off for a pittance and still don't have enough to live on.

[quote BarryWhiteIsMyBrother]@VinylDetective I think we need to define 'vulnerable' here to ensure we mean the same thing. To me vulnerable is someone who didn't willingly choose to work fewer hours or to put having kids first, for example. Someone with a disability beyond their control (so not obesity due to greed) should absolutely be helped, for example.[/quote]
I chose a job that didn’t demand I worked 80 hour weeks, I was fortunate because the hours I worked were very well paid. There are plenty of people who work bloody hard in badly paid jobs and the last ten months have highlighted that it’s the poorest paid who keep the wheels turning. Society wouldn’t miss some of the highest paid workers, their contribution is financial.

And some people don't have the means or the ability to work harder/smarter.

Too many 'keyworker' children are going to school during lockdown.
Lidl and Aldi are no cheaper or of better quality than Tesco's.
Cities are ok, but not as good as the countryside for bringing up children.
Formula is fine if you can't breastfeed, no need for anyone to feel pressure.
Many doctors are overpaid.
Ducks are better than chickens.
Winter is better than summer.
Open plan is a rubbish layout for a house.
Being healthy is good but a little sugar wont kill you.
I still like Cadbury's chocolate.
Sorry.

Stepparents are, by and large, good people doing the best they can in what is in many ways the hardest parenting role there is.

@FestiveFruitloop then they should try to get a better job. Or get a second job (I'm talking from experience - at one point I had four jobs simultaneously). Say you're in retail. How many people complain about working in retail rather than trying to do well, and move up the ladder? Or try to get a sales job where you can get 'extra' money via commissions? Same with hospitality - start with a waiting job, work hard, show willingness, and move up the ladder. Once you're in management you can move across to other industries. Yes it might not work around other commitments but if you want to earn well often that's what you need to do.

@VinylDetective were you fortunate or smart? ALso, when you say 'Society wouldn’t miss some of the highest paid workers, their contribution is financial.' without money how would the world work?

@FoxyTheFox would you say that's the majority of people who claim benefit? Why would you say they don't have the means or the ability? Can you elaborate on what those reasons would be? Because if they are 'personal' commitments then we are back to my point that if you want to earn well often you need to put work before personal stuff.

Because if they are 'personal' commitments then we are back to my point that if you want to earn well often you need to put work before personal stuff.

True dat. I'd like to earn more. But to do so means I would need to give up so much more of my life /energy. Which I'm not prepared to do. So I earn less instead.

@Orlania good for you to be honest about it. So many people aren't.

would you say that's the majority of people who claim benefit? Why would you say they don't have the means or the ability? Can you elaborate on what those reasons would be?

Because it's true, the majority of Tax Credits and Universal Credits are paid to people in work.

The reasons why some people might not have the means or ability to move up the ladder are varied but include lack of education, lack of opportunities, lack of skills, caring commitments, health considerations including mental health, financial considerations (e.g., lack of pay progression), and so on. Not everyone has the privilege of being educated, literate, and numerate, not everyone has the fortitude to climb the ladder, not everyone has access to opportunities without systematic or societal barriers blocking their way, saying people should just get on and do shows the level of privilege you yourself have benefited from. Then from a practical point of view we need cleaners, we need shop assistants, we need street sweepers, we need labourers, we need porters, and couriers and teaching assistants. To sneer at people for being low paid and to imply that they should "better themselves" or should work multiple jobs like automatons rather than actual human beings diminishes the importance of the work they do and implies they are less deserving of even a basic level of existence than someone who has managed to get a promotion or a place on a training course.

Perhaps instead you should direct your ire at employers who think it is acceptable to pay low wages and then rely on the state to top-up those wages to a livable level?

were you fortunate or smart? ALso, when you say 'Society wouldn’t miss some of the highest paid workers, their contribution is financial.' without money how would the world work?

I was fortunate. There are plenty of people as intelligent as me who could only dream of the money I earned.

You’ve just agreed with me. We need money to make the world work. We need people in traditionally low paid jobs to make the world work. The highest paid are often those whose practical contribution to society is the least so they provide the cash.