to not want people to judge those who recieve benefits????

[TidyTink]

Im a single mother of one,

i was working up until my DD (3) was born, rather than take a part time job that i knew i would always be stuck in i decided to get to college and study asubject that will lead me to a very hard working and well paid job so that i can fully support my DD in the future.

I hate recieving benefits and cannot wait untill i have finished my degree

Once i start at work i will be paying enough taxes in the future to more than cover the benefits ive recieved over the few yrs.

So why does everyone assume your a complete waste of space?? not all of us take advantage of the system!!!!

And of course the ten years I was working before, and five years after, having kids.

My tax as good as his LOL!

Isn't the whole problem with the UK/US model of capitalism/ city - short termism which leads to the boom/bust cycle?

Sounds like I know what I am talking about ha ha don't really. Just comes from a bit of studying economics and a strong feeling that current system does not work very well.

And the trickle down effect is non existent.

Vaguely remember that alternative models of capitalism exist. Would not have to be an immediate descent into communism as one poster suggested.

Xenia- "the basic rate tax band...that doesn't count" is what most people in this country live on. I'm quite certain you must have said that deliberately to be inflammatory.

xenia-i am interested in why you think its a good idea for those who are on IB because they are unable to work,to do some work?

i didnt see the news but i really cant wait to hear what new bullshit the government have come up with this time

and i know its going back a bit,but when i mentioned people taking out credit,i did specify those on low incomes,rather than those on benefits.its not possible to get credit when you are on benefits.most energy companies wont even let you have a quaterly meter,they would rather force you to pay out twice as much with a card or token meter.

i really dont think there are that many people who actually choose to live like that.

I am sure there aren't. A lot of people claiming IB are wrongly claiming it as the Government knows and is trying to address. Obviously those who genuinely are on it are entitled. That's a different matter.

But the principle that because you earn more you should pay a higher rate of tax never struck me as fair. They instead should say once you hit £X tax then you don't pay an on your upper income above that as you've done your bit for the country, more than you bit if you've worked really hard and paid a huge lot of tax.

no one can argue that those who are not entitled to it should get it. of course not - it is the way the Govt goes about addressing the fact that there are benefit cheats which needs looking at closely.

when is enough for your country? and wh should this only apply for wages - why can't this apply to taz on fuel for instance - someome who drives a lot - why can't they have a marker that once reached the govt can say "oh you pidenough tax on fuel there, well done - you have done your bit"

its a silly argument - and the tax that you pay today doesn't go into a little fund with your name at theside of it - it doesn't work tat way and it couldnt.

Sadly though the current clampdown is affectinga lot of people whoa re entitled- I know of one person refused DLA despite being paralysed fgrom the waste down- he's been getting it 20 years but an awful lot of people are now having their claims rejected as part of this clampdown. likewise a child I know whose family ahs lost their mobility car despite their childs ASD- related agoraphobia worsening.

It DOES affect those who need it, if it were otherwise soe asy to tell the difference then there wouldn't be the 'wrong' claims anyway would there?

I am on benefits.

I have been told that i would be worse off returning to work (in my current situation) than i would be to remain on benefits.

I am a qualified Social worker. I may however be slightly better off if i took a job paying just above minimum wage.

please tell me why i bothered training in a profession when i could "earn" more by sitting on the dole?

I hate being at home and am desperate to be at work but as my son is SN i have very little choice at the moment.

but hey, come judge me if you dare

It is well worth looking into OU degrees, I started 2yrs ago when we were on HB because we were in homeless accommodation (sky high rents), and last year, when we were off HB, and the DH on a good wage I still got the full grant for fees due to H/dependant allowances. Hopefully when I have finished, I will be able to earn a much better wage than I was when I stopped work because it was uneconomical (I'd have been paying more in childcare than I'd have earned)

I agree with Mamazon though, when we stop and do the sums, I think we are slightly better off financially with DH out of work, but pride/emotionally worse off, he is really mis as he is a worker by nature and bought up that it is a man's role to provide.

Xenia - the only reason you are paid as much as you are is because your salary takes into account the higher rate of tax.

I don't know about your particular work but we shouldn't kid ourselves that we live in a meritocracy. When I hear people wanking on about the tax-payers, the implication is usually that those who earn high salaries are in some way superior. Some of them are in certain ways that our society/economy values - the very intelligent or creative specialists, the super-competitive and the entrepreneurs. Others are just in areas of the economy which support high wages.

We cannot all be highly paid and there are many people doing very valuable work, sometimes unpaid (such as caring), who are invisible because they are not rewarded monetarily for their work.

There are still areas of the world where a fast buck can be made but, for most people, the idea of the American Dream is over, the model is outdated. The planet is falling to bits, caused largely by capitalism and greed, and yet we are all still thinking as individuals and begrudging a few crumbs off the table for those who are less fortunate than ourselves?

But it is only natural (selection) and it will probably get worse. Pity our kids and grandchildren in the even more competitive, more complex world of the future!

Here's a trend I have noticed

If you earn less than £40k, you tend to think that "progressive" taxation is right and fair. Those that have more should pay more.

If you earn more than £40k, your perception is that you earn more generally because you work harder for longer, and it seems grossly unfair

I write as one who moved from the first camp into the second.

I don't think the OP is a waste of space however I note censoriously that she decided to have a child before being able to support it, and therefore relies on other people (ie me) to do that for her. That IMO is a lifestyle choice.

Which is nothing like the situations of illness, disability and governmental stupidity that have been described elsewhere on the thread.

if benefits are that good perhaps you should stay at home and claim them?

thsoe people who cannot se the extra unseen un measured benefits of working

I think it was aimed at me

You know benefits don't come out of thin air

If they didn't exist, what would happen

Bad things would happen to the people who suffer illness and stupidity

So society puts a safety net in place

It doesn't matter that that safety net is not a good or desirable place to be - it's still there and it still costs the state a lot of money

But the fact is that if that safety net were not there, there would be more self reliance and practical decision making

stupidity being governmental stupidity though come to think of it, innate stupidity must be a bit of a problem as well

i think it does matter that the safety net isn't a good or desirabl place to be.

i think it matters a lot

Erm why do you think that Custy?

When the very OP of this thread is a lesson that benefits provide a disincentive to proper and responsible planning and thinking?

WITWTMH and Quattro - you are assuming that TidyTink was a single mother when her child was born.

As I said, and your posts exemplify, people think they are superior because their lives are orderly and have gone according to carefully laid plans. We are not all so lucky. Nor are we all feckless.

Why are you spending long periods of time away from your children in order to support them? The merit and/or worthiness of this depends on the reasons.

If it is to afford luxuries such as a bigger house, private schooling, holidays, etc., there is no merit or moral superiority in that. It's just a lifestyle choice.

If it is because you are a single mother and want a better life for your children, and want to contribute more to society and the economy, in the future, then there is some merit in that, and that is what TidyTink is doing.

If you are married but neither of you earn a lot and so both have to work to afford to pay the bills, then there is some merit in that. The current system does appear to gave some bias towards single parents in comparison to low-earning couples.

But this shouldn't turn into a debate about single parents versus two parent families or SAHM versus working mothers. The government decides who deserves to be supported financially and for what reasons. Tidytink will have received money to study on this basis. Vote the government out if you don't like it but don't judge individuals for making decisions and trying to better themselves by taking advantage of whatever funding and financial support exists within the system.

"people think they are superior because their lives are orderly and have gone according to carefully laid plans. We are not all so lucky."

You have not dealt with the issue of lifestyle choice

Having children involves bringing them up - for most people

To bring them up you need a home

Homes cost money

So don't have them until you can afford them

Children are a responsibility

Because we live in society, I would rather pay for someone else's irresponsibililty than see the child go without

But I don't have to like it. I don't like other (expensive) forms of irresponsibility either. Wars in Iraq for example. Northern Rock

i have always been very infavour of the benefit system and naively thought that the dont want to work aspect was small and over exagerated by daily mail type articles, however i read something on mn recently (and i know some of you will know straight away what i am talking about) that has really got me rethinking. there are people that will happilly say i never want to get a job why should i? i have started to think that maybe benefits just encourage some people to coast through life with everyone else picking up the tab - thats not really fair is it?