Fed up of my cousins comments about benefits and UC

[glassor2]

I’m a single mum of two kids, ages 13 and 5. My older son has a relationship with his dad, but my younger son’s dad moved away a couple of years ago and doesn’t see him often-usually once or twice a year. He doesn’t provide any financial support, and since he moves around for work (he used to live in Canada and now lives in Australia), it has been challenging to get child maintenance to chase him.

I work 3-4 days a week (sometimes more if there’s overtime available) and receive a top up from UC. My mum occasionally helps with child care, but she also has a full time job. It can be difficult handling everything on my own, but I manage.

Anyway, I have a family member I'm quite close to, and she often makes comments, not aimed at me, but towards people who claim UC. For example, she mentioned that it's unfair for her to pay almost £300 a month in tax while others can work part time and avoid paying anything (I don’t earn enough to pay tax) and that she has to pay more to subsidise the people that don't. She even told the entire family that she pays almost £400 a month, including national insurance, which made things awkward and nobody knew what to say.

From what I know, she doesn't earn a huge wage, so I can see why it would be frustrating for her to have to pay that much. It's a lot of money. However, it's not our fault, and if she's upset, her anger should be directed at the government, not at those who are rightfully claiming.

Everyone’s situation is different, and some people need help. I never chose to be a single parent, and I can't control the fact that my ex chose to leave and decided not to support his child financially. I'm doing my best, just like many others on UC are.

I don't think she's intentionally trying to upset me, but she is.

AIBU? How do I tackle this?

Well no, because there's a two child limit and you don't get benefits for a third or subsequent child. Which even by the Government's own research hasn't worked in achieving what it set out to do (to reduce the number of children that are born) but has only pushed more children into poverty.

There will always be people who make unwise choices, or are simply feckless, but I don't think it's reasonable, or fair, tfor their children to pay the price for having foolish or feckless parents.

Absolutely agree with all your points. I have a disabled daughter. If people were to dare to dismissively suggest she is too "lazy" to work or to that she should "make better choices," I'd be sorely tempted to knock their teeth down their throats. A right wing nut once seemed like he was working up to saying something of that nature, but he snapped his mouth shut, probably because he saw the murderous look on my face. 😄

Ooooh I like you ❤️ 👏🏼

I'm also intrigued by those saying that they are subsidising all of these feckless parents who are having children they can't afford. Do you all assume your taxes would reduce if people only had children they could afford? (I assume you would still be paying for disabled children, disabled parents and widowed parents?).

Tax doesn't work like that - your taxes wouldn't reduce. And in any case, we don't get to choose where our taxes go. I don't smoke, why should I subsidise those with smoking related illnesses? I'm not obese, likewise. I'm not infertile, why should I fund fertility treatment? If I'm vegan, why should I subsidise farmers, if I don't use a library, or drive a car, why should I contribute to those? I'm not old either and don't have any old people in my family, and in fact have a substantial pension, so maybe I shouldn't fund other people's pensions who haven't been as organised (and as rich) as me. I am a pacifist, I certainly don't agree to increase the spend on missiles and reduce foreign aid. I do want my taxes to fund asylum seekers, children with SEND, state schools and the bits of the NHS I use. But we can't pick and choose, and nor should we - that's not the basis of the way our state or our welfare state is run.

Ok. So experts wouldn’t advise someone living in poverty against having another child and the two child limit on benefits aim was to reduce the number of children that were born?

Does any of that not ring true for you? It’s just pure entitlement. What would happen if everyone thought like you and just took all the time with no regard for anyone else?

I’m Intrigued how you think taxes do work? Taxes absolutely would go down if people stopped rinsing the system and paid their own way.

All the things you mentioned are fine to discuss, start a thread on them.

Great points. We all subsidize things we may not agree with or have no personal stake in and you have given excellent examples. The same people moaning about subsidizing other people's children are also the beneficiaries of tax dollars in many ways themselves.

The two child limit was introduced by the Tories to reduce the welfare bill, not to reduce poverty. The other austerity measures introduced by the Tories pushed more children into poverty (child poverty was reducing in 2010 and if it had continued at the same rate, it would have been eradicated by now). The conservatives had little regard for child poverty which is why it is now at the levels it is. The conservatives did reduce the welfare bill for the poorest working age families but not (I think) overall.

I wish more people did think like me actually, I think the country would be a kinder place and, if I was in power, there'd be fewer children in poverty.

(and fwiw I don't know why you're assuming that I'm taking anything but I'm personally very happy for the taxes I pay to be used to alleviate child poverty).

@MuckFusk Only net tax payers subsidise things they don’t agree with, the other 53% don’t subsidise anything.

Yet the same people who want that tend to be the ones who complain the most about crime. They aren't very bright.

Nope. Everybody pays sales tax.

?

People weren't having that many kids back then out of choice

That's what you said, which due to the way it was worded looked like the opposite of what you meant. Apologizes for the misunderstanding.

A simple statement. What is confusing about it? You call it VAT in the UK but a sales tax, also known as a goods and services tax, is what it is and while a few types of goods are exempt, most are not. So everybody is a taxpayer even without paying a dime in income tax.

Deflection duly noted. You don't have an argument against the substance of what I said, so you resort to "people won't like hearing that." People generally don't like hearing truths that reflect badly on them. I'm not obligated to make people feel better about their character flaws.

Have you taken a survey involving a representative sample of the population to confirm most people agree with you? Even if you had, just google argumentum ad populum/ bandwagon fallacy to discover why it wouldn't matter in the context of this discussion.

Btw, you have also misrepresented what I said, so there's another lapse in logic. I said nothing about people who "choose to work part-time." That's your characterization, not mine.

I’m absolutely not, these are logical conclusions to what you’re arguing. If parents have absolute financial responsibility for their kids, and they can’t afford them then this is what happens. The fact that you think this is being ‘theatrical’ suggests you haven't the foggiest idea about the living situations of some people. I’m afraid I don’t recall saying anything about Shetland ponies but I don’t recommend you ride one anywhere unless you are very small. They won’t enjoy it.

The fundamental difference in our argument is that you think society is deteriorating because of people claiming benefits. I think it’s because the wealthy are making it very very difficult for the rest of us to enjoy a comfortable standard of living. I think where societal problems are apparent it’s generally more prudent to look to the people with wealth and power as possible solutions rather than the most vulnerable. If that feels like a huge logic leap to you I honestly don’t know what else to say.

Just so we’re clear and understand each other let’s simplify things. Is your argument that people with less money shouldn’t have kids? If so (and so I’m not accused again of theatrics) what are your solutions to:

• people who’s circumstances change going from solvent to struggling (bearing in mind a huge chunk of us are only a few paydays away from being in this position)?
• if you agree there are circumstances where benefits are necessary, who and how do you think we assess who is worthy of money and who isn’t? (the deserving vs the undeserving poor if you like).
• and as I’m being theatrical apparently, you made the argument that people who have kids ‘irresponsibly’ would be less inclined to do so if there was no welfare state. So in these cases, what precisely do you think will happen to the kids who are born to families who don’t have the means to feed, shelter and clothe them without state help? How many generations do you think it will take for that message to get out and what happens to the kids who are already here?
• do you acknowledge that getting pregnant isn’t always a consensual activity? What do you propose in these situations?

IMO if you struggle to answer any of those questions, you also need to acknowledge it’s not as straightforward as you’re making out.

Ok.

Agree to disagree. Go well

@Frazzled83 I do partly agree with you and partly don’t . As you say many of us don’t have a crystal ball in life and unpredictable shit happens and help is needed, short term or long term , but I don’t agree that all problems are caused by the wealthy - and how do we deem wealthy - assets or income? As to my mind you can Asa family earn £150k or so in the south east and south west and south in general and not exactly be wealthy due to housing and rent situation, alongside higher rate tax etc , often leaving you worse off than others on lower incomes but in cheaper areas.Leaving aside the fact that ‘shit happens’ though and decisions were made at a point when choices seemed sensible , there are a fair amount of irresponsible people who have never not been in the shit but do expect the state to pay for and sort out all their constant fuck ups.im going to be honest and admit I had a termination when I got pregnant with my now H after I had only known him around 9 weeks - neither of us was in a great position at the time housing wise , job wise or money wise and so I felt it was for the best - I didn’t think yay that will get me higher up the housing list in north London etc - I think itsall good being a kind and fair person but there are people who simply have no qualms about getting by on other people’s dollar who aren’t disabled, aren’t incapable of work - they simply can’t be arsed to take responsibility for life choices .

Or Lordy no, I’m talking the top 1% here - the millionaires and billionaires. Trust me, if 20 year old me had known what mine and my husbands combined earnings would be in our 40s she would have been DELIGHTED, but the reality of childcare costs; interest rates and feeding the little monsters means I feel far from wealthy. I know we’re lucky and much better off than many and for that I’m grateful, but I’m talking the stupid rich https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-grab-nearly-twice-as-much-new-wealth-as-rest-of-the-world-put-together/

I absolutely commend you for owning a decision that was the right one for you and in similar circumstances I’m as certain as I can be I’d have made the same choice. But I also appreciate that’s because I had so much opportunity at my feet for further education and career prospects. Not everyone is so lucky. I also had parents who helped me to know my worth and instilled a good work ethic and, again, not all will be so lucky. I went to primary school in an area that was (& still is) very deprived & life has panned out quite differently for me to many of my peers. But I don’t think that’s all down to my hard work, there’s been a lot of luck and privilege as well.

I guess for me, the welfare state when it works well, alongside good education opportunities and other interventions to close the gap (which we haven’t got at the moment sadly) helps people to be more socially mobile as I have been. There will ALWAYS be grifters, but life on the dole is not an easy one and I tend to think well shit, if that’s the best in life you can imagine then daaaaamn life must suck! But I also remember having to queue with my mom to ‘sign on’ and the shame and humiliation she felt around that - all circumstances beyond her control - and I would never ever ever want anyone to feel that for needing help because she’s the strongest most brilliant woman I know. Life was just fucking hard for a bit.

@Frazzled83 I’m also originally from a midlands mining town but live in Bath- so I’ve seen it from all sides - and we still rent at63 due to the aforementioned ‘shit happens’ - I’ve known families back in my home town in dire circumstances through crap and others in the shit through their own fecklessness, so I do try to see things from all angles and so I can also see why a lot of middle and moderately high earners aren’t as generous in spirit as you sound. my thing about the real richest you mention is that they have lots of options in life , one of which is not to be here , and whilst plenty will say no great loss if they are paying minimal tax , not being here means zero either , the way certain business etc is structured means it’s easy to minimise contributions - my own view is that we need to tax corporations like Amazon who make sure their tax base is ‘elsewhere’ a small transaction tax on every transaction based on online business done in this country . Same applies to eBay or SHEIN etc or any corporation of size not paying their corporation tax in the UK . Target the corporations ( who won’t leave - UK is one of its most successful markets’ ) - much harder targeting individuals in my opinion

Absolutely and thanks for the discussion. It was nothing personal, btw. I wasn't talking about you, which is why I spoke of a a hypothetical selfish person who grumbles about people on benefits. I don't know you and have no reason to think that describes you.

@Crikeyalmighty
I think itsall good being a kind and fair person but there are people who simply have no qualms about getting by on other people’s dollar who aren’t disabled, aren’t incapable of work - they simply can’t be arsed to take responsibility for life choices.

They certainly exist, but probably in far lower numbers than many people seem to assume. After all, if you were capable of living a better lifestyle, why would you choose to live the crap lifestyle being on benefits offers? It makes me think there's some kind of psychological problem at play.
In any case, their children aren't to blame and shouldn't have to suffer for it. Short of forcibly sterilizing people or forced abortions, which I'm sure we can all agree would be a horrifying abuse of human rights, what is the solution for supporting the children of the feckless besides benefits?
I would love it if just one person could answer that question with a practical suggestion.
So I'm opening it up to all. Does anyone have a solution which doesn't involve children going hungry/homeless and doesn't violate anyone's fundamental rights?

@MuckFusk yep I don’t disagree with that too - I certainly think free breakfast clubs and free school meals of decent quality all round would be a good thing - that way there’s no stigma on who is getting and who isn’t . I think socially provided fun holiday clubs - free to all in holidays with free good quality packed lunches provided would be a good thing ( why shouldn’t those who do earn well and often pay considerable amounts of tax get some’free’ too .

it sounds a lot but actually relative to many things that cost far more wouldn’t be that cost prohibitive to do if centrally allocated ( not local council) -
I think it kind of has to be done away from the home so the help gets to the kids - because unfortunately if you did it in vouchers etc for every responsible loving parent, there’s a twat selling vouchers cheap for cash etc .

its really hard to target kids specifically because of course until a certain age it’s very much tied in with parental choice and actions.