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

Mumsnet is nothing more than a large number of people, each with their own views.
It represents society.
Whatever you find out there, you find on here.

So whatever the reasons are in real life, they're the same reasons on here.

“Alright. Quit your job then, go on benefits and live a great life.”

Wouldn’t sit well with my morals unfortunately.

@Lollipop858

I think a lot of it is down to “benefit porn” as I like to call it. All of those channel 5 programmes that enforce a certain stereotype and people fall for it and believe everyone is the same, we’re all just fat people with 30 kids slobbing around all day eating takeaways on their tax money. The media have a huge part in the blame game for that too. In addition to that people need to think about the root cause of the reasons the people on those programs are the way they are - there is a lot at play, it’s not just as simple as work shy and lazy.

In reality, benefits as a single parent or single person don’t stretch to constant take outs, new phones and computers etc - it’s just not doable. So there is either some playing the system going on OR crime. Because as someone on benefits with children I can tell you, it’s not the fun relaxing existence people like to portray.

1000%! Do you remember that show 'Benefits Street' on Channel 4? That was such a ridiculous portrayal of people on benefits and I'm yet to meet someone who actually lives like that

@GlamorousHeifer

So you 'claim' around 24k a year in benefits and can't possibly understand why that might piss people off? If your in your early 20's you have paid basically nothing into the system yet. Never mind, I'm sure you'll go on to great things and pay it all back over your illustrious career.....I'm sure I'll be able to find some stats that point out that single mums in their early 20's claiming benefits go on to have the best and most financially rewarding careers out there

So now you're slagging off people who work low paid jobs? Because even those who don't claim benefits won't be net contributors.

@Lemonlady22

You have worked since 17, now early 20s so what 6 , 7 years of tax a d NI if earnings over £12,000...I've worked since 17, to 60, never claimed a bean. You get near on £2000 a month, I've had to take early retirement due to ill health and have had to fight for over 18 months to be able to claim contributions based esa (42 plus year of contributions)..which I get for 1 year which is £ 75.00 a week...thats why I'm fed up with the system. Never mind I've got 7+ years until I retire. It's a piss take in many ways.

I'm 66 and have also worked since I was 17. Having lost my partner suddenly just over a year ago, I can't afford to retire despite having a small occupational pension as well as my state pension. My p/t earnings cover the bills but would mean my standard of living would be shite. I wouldn't qualify for any benefits or even a quid off my council tax.

I'll have to sell the house and move somewhere cheaper and either live on the left over equity or buy somewhere to rent to enable me to retire. And next year I'll start paying NI on my earnings again.

Do I resent people on getting benefits and getting more money than I do after almost 50 years of working?

No I fucking don't. I'm a welfare rights officer and I know only too well how bloody awful life on benefits is, where every extra £1 you earn seems to lose you 50p somewhere else and how people are in a constant state of anxiety with the constant round of assessments and reviews for ill-health and disability benefits. And they often only get PIP after spending a year on a tiny income while they apply, get assessed, get turned down and then have to appeal.

Forty per cent of people on UC are working. They can't earn enough to pay their exorbitant rents and childcare costs without financial support. Someone getting £2k a month is probably paying 50% or more of that straight out in rent.

And the amount they get for their rent is probably well below what they need, because the maximum allowance is based on an average of the bottom 30% of local rents.

It all looks rosy on paper, but the reality is very different.

Your op shows exactly why people don’t like the benefits system and can feel animosity to people taking advantage of it. Of course you’re going to take the easy route when you’ve found yourself pregnant with no security, but you can’t pretend that you didn’t have choices and brush away the consequences with ‘life can change overnight’.

It understandably feels very unfair to people who are struggling to pay for childcare for young children, or who feel they can’t afford a first or second child when there are others who have the SAHM lifestyle they want for free.

I think in general, taxpayers feel much better about the benefits system and it’s claimants now that we have UC instead of tax credits.

@greyblanket76

I think many people have put it better than me as I haven't really worded my point well. But that's exactly it. It's just a rough figure and I'm sure I can apply for working tax credit when I go back to work but how can I get more money being on benefits than working full time? That doesn't make any sense and all it'll do is convince people to stay on benefits longer or drop their hours down to the bare minimum which prevents them progressing in their career. I shouldn't have to choose between 'should I just stay home on benefits or should I try and make it work working full time.'

With that being said, if someone chooses to stay on benefits because they won't even be able to pay their rent and bills let alone afford to buy food for themselves and DC if they worked full time, why benefit shame? It isn't their fault that's how the system works. That's what I was trying to get at so thanks for the comments that were basically saying the same thing

Ultimately your problem will come when you're late 30s and you lose the child element or dependent element of UC, and if you haven't pursued a career, you'll struggle to get back into a job which will keep you going, at a decent rate of pay, until you're 70. Because don't be in any doubt that that will be the retirement age... If you are sensible now, you'll be able to make some pension contributions. And get the feckless father to pay for his kids given that he's 50% of the reason you are in the position you're in. Good luck.

I'll bite. I couldn't afford to have two under two in my early 20s. I was at uni so I had an abortion. That enabled me to give my kids a great life. Don't bash people who make different choices to you.

Benefits should be set at x% of NMW that way everybody that works is better off than those that don't, and everytime benefits go up, people that work for a low wage get a pay rise too.

Seeing as minimum wage already isn't high enough to live on without benefit top-ups, you'd be intentionally forcing people into poverty.

Also, once more, 40% of benefit claimants are already working.

@MrsGHarrison87

People who plan aren’t ‘perfect’ just doing what most should.

You have taken that posters comment badly as you fall into the same category, 4 kids, on benefits, husband doesn’t earn much either. There were points in your life when making better choices would have elevated your reliance on benefits and you, and the OP didn’t take them.

Life is a series of choices, unfortunately some peoples bad ones impact others

I don't, but I think it's because the system seems so unfair. I've never been a high earner but ensured I had a house and some savings before having children, however, when unexpected circumstances meant I needed benefits through no fault of my own it was not sufficient because they wouldn't help with the mortgage so we ended up in a financial mess. At the same time I saw people living in rented property having their full rent paid for with benefits money, standing outside the school gates with cigarettes in their hand talking about nights out whilst I was having to use credit cards for the groceries. That was a long time ago but the system still seems to have anomalies in it which seem unfair for some.
Back to your circumstances now, I kind of agree with your mother, it would be very difficult to be a single parent and work with two under 2 years old dependent a lot on the babies and whether you had family help/childcare but I suspect as your only 20 your mother is still working. Two of mine didn't sleep through the night til they were 4 yrs old and the other I thought was brilliant because he did at 1👏there is no way I could have managed work as well as all the to and fro with school/pre school (besides the cost as there was no help with nursery fees in my day). I went back to working as soon as my youngest was 4 and at school and worked full time from then ensuring I saved to pay off my mortgage as a priority.

@HTH1

Ok, let’s take a (fictional) example of two sisters, A and B.

A has a baby and works long hours in a low paying job when she would love nothing more than to be a SAHM. Chucking it in and going on benefits is not an option as A has a huge mortgage on her starter property and has to live really frugally. A would love to have another DC but could never afford it, with the childcare costs on top of the mortgage.

B has a baby and works 0 hours, instead enjoying her time with her DC. Each time she has another baby, she gets more money (unlike A who gets less) and eligible for a larger free council property. B can afford lots of luxuries which A cannot stretch to.

C has a baby and is a high earner who is also not eligible for benefits and does not enjoy her job but sticks it out for the money. C would like to spend her money on her own family and not on B having luxuries which are not available to C, at C’s expense.

@HTH1 this is what I mean though. What luxuries are these that sister B is enjoying? Sister A has a mortgage which is cheaper then private renting no? Just because sister B is eligible for a larger council property doesn't mean she won't still be private renting and bidding for 10+ years... so the calculations don't make sense

@Batshittery

It sounds like you're intentionally trying to wind people up

I thought the same . Op could have just said why do people benefit bash and wrote something general but instead op has chosen to go on about how better of she believes she will be whilst not working.

I think op is benefit bashing whilst trying to hide beside a mask

@greyblanket76 I think it's disgusting as you say your life can literally change over night anyones can...

SAHM relying on husband's wage, what if he died with no life insurance?

2 working parents, one of them loses their job? How will they pay the rent? Feed the children?

No one would turn down benefits if it was the only way their child had a roof over their head and food in their tummy!

To answer your question in a more general way, human societies rely on cooperation for survival. When societies were smaller, you knew everyone and so it was very difficult not to honour your commitments to the group.
Now societies are so large it is impossible to know if everyone is 'pulling their weight', and contributing to the survival of the group. This makes people suspicious and aggressive against those who may be taking from group resources but not contributing in turn. There is not really anything that can be done about it, so I wouldn't focus on it too much.

[quote greyblanket76]@urghhhhh33 your situation definitely makes a lot of sense and I can see why your DH feels that way. He earns over the threshold so you're not entitled to any financial help but you still live month to month due to bills and nursery fees. It's as if it's a never ending cycle. I also agree with the first sentence! I saw someone on here say 'I'm funding your life and you're still complaining about the amount of benefits you get.' I found that really ignorant and couldn't actually believe what I was reading[/quote]

I find those types of MN posters hilarious, not funding the governments wine and cheese party's they're funding the £1200 someone gets a month

@Waxonwaxoff0, I'm sorry. Where exactly did I say that? I criticised a young woman having barely worked before having two children and claiming 24k a year in benefits.
I stand by what I said, however you choose to interpret it.

I must be claiming benefits all wrong because I’m just scraping by. According to people on this thread I should be rolling in it.

[quote Hmum0fthree]@greyblanket76 I think it's disgusting as you say your life can literally change over night anyones can...

SAHM relying on husband's wage, what if he died with no life insurance?

2 working parents, one of them loses their job? How will they pay the rent? Feed the children?

No one would turn down benefits if it was the only way their child had a roof over their head and food in their tummy![/quote]
The point is people should have life insurance

There is a very small list of actual life changing circumstances where pre planning and making better choices wouldn’t negate the impact

Nothing you listed would fall into that

It’s plain stupidity to not have life insurance

Because there is an element of people thinking about life choices. You have two under 2. Your second isn't even born and you are single.

How long were you married before you started trying for children? Does the divorce settlement cover property and childcare? Probably not as I'm guessing you were not together long, not married, no savings, only renting and in a relatively low paid job but you had two children in quick succession.

It could be argued that you could have done more to make your situation more stable and less likely to need state support.

@nanabow

I've never benefit bashed. But f***ck me those figures are a real kick in the teeth.

Especially as someone that's currently struggling by on SMP of around £600 a month and had to save and save and save to be able to afford to have a baby. Then will have to return to work when they are 6months because my savings will run out.

Suppose the difference is I'm paying a mortgage which is an asset, rather than rent. But then again you might get a council house that you can right to buy... with your rent (as paid by UC) deducted off the sale price.

I actually want to cry.

OP said her rent is £1200 so it's extremely unlikely she has a council house.

@greyblanket76

“@HTH1 this is what I mean though. What luxuries are these that sister B is enjoying? Sister A has a mortgage which is cheaper then private renting no? Just because sister B is eligible for a larger council property doesn't mean she won't still be private renting and bidding for 10+ years... so the calculations don't make sense”.

B isn’t paying any rent (she gets UC for that) and all of her living expenses are paid for with money left over. You said that yourself; if you were B, you would get £1,000 per month more than if you were A. I’m sure anyone here could think of the luxuries your extra £1,000 (or more when you factor in travel costs, childcare etc) would buy.

Because we have all been subjected to decades of rightwing propaganda to the effect that the poor are all workshy and make bad choices, so it's fine for rich people to pay the bare minimum in taxes (and indeed in wages, if they are employers).
Because the propaganda is designed to keep the just-about-getting-by from ever questioning why the rich are able to hoard so much wealth.
Because a lot of middle-class or thereabouts people have very little imagination, don't think about stuff outside their own bubbles very much, and have never realised how easily they could end up in poverty - it really doesn't take very much. If you are working in a job with an adequate wage but either you become ill/injured and can no longer work, or a member of your household becomes too ill/injured to work or to look after themselves without 24/7 assistance, then you're fucked. What savings you have will soon disappear (especially if you live somewhere without anything like adequate state-funded care assistance) and you will then find out just how ungenerous the benefit system actually is - and how many hoops you will have to jump through, over and over again, to keep yourself and your family fed and warm and housed.