Why do you benefit bash?

[greyblanket76]

My family and I are working class and always have been. My friends are too and so are the people that I tend to socialise with/meet in everyday life. I've only been on MN since last year but have seen so many comments bashing people who are on/depend on benefits and I'd really like to know why?

Is this because some people on here think everyone that's on benefits is lazy and doesn't want to work therefore claim benefits? Or is it something else?

I'll talk about my situation and will keep it as brief as possible as I already know people will come in the comments to try and shame me. I'm early 20s and a single mum (didn't start out that way but your whole life can literally change overnight and that's what happened to me). I have one DC and I'm expecting another so I've been on maternity leave back to back as I'll have 2 under 2.

I've worked full time since I was 17 right up until I went on my first maternity leave. Due to the rate of SMP, I'm entitled to benefits as SMP doesn't even cover my rent which is £1200. I'm entitled to £1670 of UC which covers my rent and all my bills. During the first 9 months of my maternity leave I was receiving around £1507 UC (due to deductions) + £638 SMP = £2145 a month.
Once I give birth to my second DC, my UC entitlement should go from £1670 to £1907. This isn't 100% accurate but due to receiving SMP, let's say the deductions would be due £1700 UC + £638 SMP = £2388 a month. That would be excluding child benefit for both children btw.

When I was working full time, I was earning £1383 a month. I do plan to go back to work after my maternity leave ends as I genuinely love my work and have my whole career in front of me. However can people see the huge jump in difference between the two amounts? Nearly a grand in total! When returning back to work, I would be entitled to some benefits however because I'd be working full time, it wouldn't be a lot. That's why it's advised that you drop hours to work part time in order to get the most help available.

I've read my post back and hope it isn't too confusing but I just wanted some people who benefit bash to understand that sometimes life on benefits seems better especially as you have kids because you get so much more help. My mum keeps telling me to consider not working for a year or two just because I need to consider the quality of life my DC and I will have. I wouldn't be able to pay for rent AND childcare so what would I do? There's a lot that comes into play when deciding if you should go back to work or just be on benefits and I hope some people got that from this post. Seeing as this is an anonymous forum, if you judge/bash people on benefits, I'd really be interested to hear why. Posting in AIBU because I'm prepared to be flamed and have learnt not to take nasty comments to heart

I have to be honest the I live in zone 1 to be near friends and family rubbed me up the wrong way as a person who struggled due to living far from support. I had to live near my ex’s work. I now live far from family because I lived near his work, my kids were at school and settled and I can’t afford to live in an expensive area.

The idea that it’s a choice to stay on benefits also rubbed me up the wrong way. And that the op is being advised not to go back to work. But that’s not to do specifically with the op - that’s a system issue. It should never be worth it to stay on benefits. There should always be an advantage to going to work - and sometimes there just isn’t. Which is wrong.

Everyone saying someone on benefits gets more than they do in wages...
If you were in the same situation as OP (single parent, 2 children, £1200 pcm rent) It's highly likely you'd get benefits on top of your wage making you better off than OP
If you aren't in the same situation then it's not a good comparison imo. And yes I get the argument of op choosing to have 2 dc and others choosing to have 1 or none. But that was your choice. You could equally have had 2 dc and claimed benefits. (To top up a low wage I mean. No one should be planning a life on unemployment benefits)

For example when I'm well enough to go back to work I will still get UC, less than I do now but enough that i would feel as rich as Midas. Even accounting for the loss in CT support/free school meals I'll be better off working.

Good wind up, OP. Single mother, tick. In your 20s, tick. Pregnant again, tick. Worked only a few years but get enough benefits to keep a roof over your head - I am not against that. But you say it as though you've been hacking away at the coalface for 20 years 6 days a week.

What contributions do your children's fathers make? did you plan the 2nd pregnancy? Are you going back into the workplace?

Well £2,388 a month is only £350 less than my take home pay and I work 30 hours a week in a stressful quite senior level job with a degree, a masters and 10 years post qualification experience. I earn too much to be entitled to child benefit. I’ve only recently finished repaying my student loan. I have childcare costs and housing costs to pay for, same as other working parents. I couldn’t take as long as I’d like for maternity leave because £140 a week doesn’t touch the sides. So honestly, yes I instinctively feel it’s a bit fucked that the entitlement runs so high. I’m not against benefits but I’m against people being able to bring in nearly the same amount of money as me by not working. Probably makes me judgemental or whatever but fuck it.

You might have ended up in this position through no fault of your own (tbh that’s not clear) but plenty of people actively choose it. 2 children under 2 is always a choice unless multiples, no one has 2 unexpected pregnancies virtually back to back. It’s not bashing to say that I think benefits should be considerably more for those with absolutely no other choice (e.g. disabled) and less for those who are actively choosing their situation. I know there are many in the latter group, I’m related to quite a few.

£2,388 per month, net, is the equivalent of an almost £40k salary.

You are either extremely naïve or you're on the wind-up, OP.

@BobbinHood
Really well put.
This is exactly how I feel.
Keep benefits for those who need it z as no they should never reward someone over and above someone who is employed.

@ILikeYourButt most of what you describe was me; parents didn’t care whether I was at school, or anywhere else tbh. I was pregnant at 16.. had an abortion because it was stupid. Yet I’ve never claimed a benefit in my life other than child benefit for 6 months before DPs salary went > threshold which is stupid because two people can earn 55k (=110k) but only one can earn 60k .

I live in a deprived area and see the choices people make, sometimes it is peoples choices.

oK so I've zipped through OPs posts.
I'm still of the opinion that it's a goady post.
This bit stuck out:
It seems that people have this mindset that they 'pay' for those that are on benefits.

People who pay any kind of tax (and, yes, we all do) are paying for benefits. That is not a mindset that is reality. They pay for lots of other things including government waste, but don't pretend that if the overall tax take went down, benefits wouldn't be cut.

You may not mean it so, OP, but your posts do come across as full of entitlement and you barely acknowledge that of course people feel hard done to when they struggled to save up to have a child.

You are also being a bit disingenuous with spilling a whole life story about how life can upend in a moment (sure, i know) but very very coy about why the father of your children isn't paying. Have you gone to CMS (or whatever it's called now)

It is not easy. We are a rich society and we definitely should be looking after people. The disabled, the elderly, children. But the flipside of entitlements is responsibilities.

And sure - everyone's ire should be on an incompetent government with unfair laws and tax systems. But in the UK you keep voting for the tories. So what else are you going to do?

Not necessarily! I earn £1000 a month and get top ups of about £450 a month. That's not equivalent to a 30k salary!

OP (and others) is getting her rent paid, in one of the most expensive parts of the country. OP (and others who rent) are netting the equivalent of plus 30k gross per year.

@oopsIdiditagaintoo

Not necessarily! I earn £1000 a month and get top ups of about £450 a month. That's not equivalent to a 30k salary!

OP (and others) is getting her rent paid, in one of the most expensive parts of the country. OP (and others who rent) are netting the equivalent of plus 30k gross per year.

Yes, you're right. But there won't be much left over for luxuries as most of it goes on rent. Someone on £30k living in zone 1 London isn't going to be living the high life.

Everyone gets the same amount of benefits to live on - when I was unemployed with baby DS it was £70pw income support, £60pw child tax credit and £20pw child benefit. It's just the rent element that will be higher or lower depending on which area you're living in.

People who pay any kind of tax (and, yes, we all do) are paying for benefits.

Not quite. Net contributors are paying for benefits. Not all tax payers are net contributors.

Waxonwaxoff0 is an example of someone who works and pays taxes but gets back more than she pays in. Not everyone who is working is paying for benefits. I'd estimate that Waxonwaxoff0 is paying about £20 a month in and receives £450 a month back. That's in addition to free (at the point of service) healthcare, education etc.

@Mumofsend

I used to when I was ignorant and in a two-adult family earning a decent combined salary.

Then we realised my daughter is severely autistic, he did a runner because he couldn't cope. Next thing I know I'm fully reliant on benefits.

I don't think many people realise

1. how easily life can change overnight
2. how limiting life on benefits is
3. how limited entitlement to benefits is

It upsets me greatly how demonised benefit claimants are, when things like 4.3 billion being written off in fraudulent furlough claims or the tax avoidance by the wealthy raise nothing like the adverse response.

Very true. Good post.

@BobbinHood

Well £2,388 a month is only £350 less than my take home pay and I work 30 hours a week in a stressful quite senior level job with a degree, a masters and 10 years post qualification experience. I earn too much to be entitled to child benefit. I’ve only recently finished repaying my student loan. I have childcare costs and housing costs to pay for, same as other working parents. I couldn’t take as long as I’d like for maternity leave because £140 a week doesn’t touch the sides. So honestly, yes I instinctively feel it’s a bit fucked that the entitlement runs so high. I’m not against benefits but I’m against people being able to bring in nearly the same amount of money as me by not working. Probably makes me judgemental or whatever but fuck it.

You might have ended up in this position through no fault of your own (tbh that’s not clear) but plenty of people actively choose it. 2 children under 2 is always a choice unless multiples, no one has 2 unexpected pregnancies virtually back to back. It’s not bashing to say that I think benefits should be considerably more for those with absolutely no other choice (e.g. disabled) and less for those who are actively choosing their situation. I know there are many in the latter group, I’m related to quite a few.

Exactly this. The system is wrong. And that's why people "benefit bash". Plus mumsnet is a bit strange in that the general consensus seems to be that those that pay in shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on what their tax money is being used for.

@oopsIdiditagaintoo

People who pay any kind of tax (and, yes, we all do) are paying for benefits.

Not quite. Net contributors are paying for benefits. Not all tax payers are net contributors.

Waxonwaxoff0 is an example of someone who works and pays taxes but gets back more than she pays in. Not everyone who is working is paying for benefits. I'd estimate that Waxonwaxoff0 is paying about £20 a month in and receives £450 a month back. That's in addition to free (at the point of service) healthcare, education etc.

It's about £30pm NI contributions. I don't pay income tax as I don't earn enough, just NI.

I think it was estimated that to be a net contributer you have to be on more than £30k so many low paid workers won't be net contributers.

@BobbinHood put it so well...

That's exactly how I feel.

The main reason why people benefits-bash is that humans are hardwired to respond very strongly to perceived unfairness. Not inequality as such (we seem to accept hierarchies of power, assets, money quite easily) but when we perceive an unfairness, we respond strongly against it. And the benefits / financial system in the U.K. is perfect for doing this. We don’t ‘bash’ the fact that a footballer is paid millions of £££ more than a nurse or a teacher, but we do bash people like the OP because she is perceived to be ‘unfairly’ taking benefits / taxpayer’s money, rather than working (at a loss) to provide for her family as others do.

The real problem here is low wages and high property prices. Until salaries are raised to the level where lower income earners are genuinely better off working than they are on benefits, there will always be people in the OPs position. Ditto housing - as long as the housing market is primarily that - a market - we (the tax payer) are going to be popping up low income earners.

Single parent families ... The economic system is basically set up for families with two parents and an expectation that both parents will meet the costs of child rearing - whether that’s by working or caring or whatever. When one parent goes AWOL or isn’t involved for whatever reason the financial gap has to be plugged by someone - in this case by the tax payer. Personal decisions about picking decent partners, getting pregnant, living situations… that’s when it gets really messy and judgemental.

It’s a shit system and it breeds accusations of unfairness.

I think it was estimated that to be a net contributer you have to be on more than £30k so many low paid workers won't be net contributers.

Yes, I read it's about 30k (with no dependents) too. I have absolutely no issue with those that earn more subsidising those that don't. Not everyone can be a high earner. I do however have an issue with the OP's entitlement and I think non working benefits should be saved for those who can't work (ie the disabled and elderly), not people like OP who think others should pay because she wants to be a full time mummy.

@Tealightsandd

What an odd response to my comment, in which I was highlighting the similarities in my experiences and another poster's. Not sure how you've made the leap from me saying "your post resonated and we had similar experiences" to "education cures disabilities". Very odd indeed.

Lots of comments here on top ups in work. I think it is disgusting that large companies can get away with paying such low wages that the government tops it up, therefore allowing Tesco etc to make huge profits. We are all effectively paying for this. Top ups for public roles yes as we all benefit but not large companies. It should be public service and small businesses with a small profit margin i.e local shop to keep our high streets accessible. Search the huge profits supermarkets etc make it is obscene.
Cap rents also allow landlords to make a profit but again not an obscene one. We are literally keeping the wealthy in society richer and creating a divide.
Also work or training to welfare for those truly able and again not in poundland propping up companies but actual opportunities.
Trotting out figures for the small percentage of claimants will not stop hard working sacrificing people less resentful about huge amounts of benefits given however you argue it. Make these men pay too.

Benefits are there for those who need them, when you need them. Many of us think we'll never need to claim benefits, but you never know what's round the corner. At the age of 26, I was in an abusive relationship and needed to get out. Tax credits and housing benefit meant I was able to do so and could feed and clothe my children (Their father, like so many, managed to get away without paying a penny). Once they were of school age, I returned to work full time and for the last 15 years have paid tax every month, putting money back in the system.

DC1 is claiming ESA at the money as her mental health means she is unable to work right now. But she'll return to work in the future.

For most people, benefits are not forever, they're there a safety net for a difficult time (although of course some people will never be able to work dure to disability, etc).

The amount the OP gets looks high on the face of it, but £1200 of that is rent so needs to be ignored - individuals can't help the fact that housing costs are astronomical in this country and there's a massive shortage of social housing.

yes, pp are right, sorry, Net contributors are the ones who pay for all.

And I do so gladly. (although i don't live in the UK so it's different where i am)

@Hospedia

However, I do have specific annoyance with people like my arsehole neighbour downstairs. Who I know blags her way out of having to work because she doesn’t want to and makes my life a fucking misery by being an antisocial noisy, selfish, ignorant bitch who resorts to shouting out threats to stab you, if you politely ask her to keep the noise down at 4am. Knowing that my hard earned cash goes towards keeping her living below me and making my life hell, pisses me off.

Antisocial behaviour aside, which is completely unacceptable and unfair on you, would you want someone like that looking after your elderly Nan in a care home or knocking on your door with your Amazon parcel or serving lunches at your kids school or cleaning around your bed in the hospital?

As unpleasant as it sounds (and I apologise for my phrasing of this, I don't mean it to be so blunt), there are some people who lead such chaotic lives that the chaos itself becomes an impediment and - as things currently stand - it is worth the cost of UC for them to not be out there working. It's shit and the system is massively failing these people, early intervention starting in childhood could help them as could a benefit system that lifts people up rather than shoving them down and keeping them down (it's called the poverty trap for a reason) but people won't vote for that because it costs money and they've been conditioned to believe that spending money on these people is bad - the irony being that not spending the money is exactly what creates this situation in the first place.

You’re missing my point.

It’s not the lack of job that is annoying me.

It’s her behaviour whilst she’s at home, that’s pissing me off and the fact that I’m essentially paying to be subjected to this behaviour.

The neighbour I had before her was the same. We put up with her for 6 years. Now they’ve moved this dickhead in.

I don’t care if you’re not working and my money helps to house you, if you are a decent neighbour who behaves in a decent manner.

That's an enormous amount of money for free!!

I pay an exorbitant amount of tax and reading this today it feels like I woke up this morning at 5:30am to slog my way into London on a train packed like a can of sardines...in order to sponsor multiple families like yours!!

So I'm not going to bash the people who take the benefits they're "entitled to" (that phrase pisses me off big time!!), but I've had enough of paying for others to CTFO!!

Seriously contemplating going part-time to 3 days down from 5 days a week, as the emotional and physical burden would reduce enormously and I wouldn't see so much money disappear!