To think that being a single SAHM on benefits is not a 'lifestyle choice' but .........

[Littleredshoe]

basically scrounging ?

Surely being lucky enough to SAH with your children comes IF you can afford it? Either because you work part time, or have a partner who provides for you to do this.....

To just 'decide' that you 'prefer' not to work and live off benefits (when you are fit to work) is ridiculous and it makes me bl**dy angry that I pay tax to enable others to sit on their arses......

maybe I am ? But ......I bet there would be a lot less feckless teenage mothers if the 'right' to benefits and SAH was withdrawn.....

oh yes of course, I forgot, money's the only thing that matters.

Role modelling to your children and chucking out the loon who would have ensured their total mad as a box of frogs dysfunctionality is absolutely unimportant. As long as you're not claiming benefits, you're doing a good job as a parent.

Please see the Stately Homes threads.

Bella, you aren't really up to date with the thread we covered this ground a while ago.

Oh. i was probably banging my head against a wall at the time, sorry.

Littlewhizz,

Are you suggesting that a prent on benefits is a good role model?

Are think she was being sarky so put your wooden spoon away we're all done here.

katie

i'll decide when i'm done.

I'm just reading back. whispywhisp, eyes aren't classed as part of the body, as with teeth, feet and ears as far as the NHS is concerned. Not sure what the reasoning is behind prescriptions though.

wow.. 2 complete weirdo's arguing with each other now.. brilliant

troll wrestling.. lets get you both into some lycra and throw you into a jelly filled ring.

woohoo.

tinkerbellsmum....

All NHS charges (dental, eyes, prescriptions) should either be free for everyone or everyone should pay. It is wrong, imo, that some get it free and some have to pay.

We have to stagger these appts so we can afford to pay for them all. Sometimes I cancel them altogether because we simply don't have the money. Not ideal whatsoever.

Those on benefits don't pay presumably because they are deemed unable to pay due to no income etc etc...what about the likes of us who, yes, have an income but are as equally skint?

Haven't read whole thread (and it's clearly started by a troll to be inflammatory) but would just say:

Agree whispy about things like prescriptions - either we all pay or we all don't. The benefits system is so complex and full of inconsistencies. Our society has created a dependency culture so that sadly some people believe they are entitled to not work, even though they are physically and mentally able to, and that other people should have to work to pay tax to support this. Ridiculous!

I also think it's sad when this becomes polarised into a single parent/together parent or working parent/ SAHP debate. It shouldn't be. If it's deemed important enough for a parent to be at home when their child is under 5, for example, then this option should be available to ALL people. It's madness that a single parent is paid benefits to be able to look after their child but two parents who remain together may both have to go out to work to afford a roof over their heads. I'm not promoting the idea that a parent SHOULD need to be at home btw (I have always worked at least P/T) but that there should be consistency. What's right for one situation should be right for all. To argue that single parents are a special case because the children may have already suffered through a parent leaving is missing the point. I know many single parents who have very happy, settled lives, their children are well adjusted etc. And equally, there are many couples who remain together in crap, destructive relationships which are awful for the child. Life is so much more complex - it's not black and white and it's patronising to take the line of 'Poor single parent, they've got it so tough, of course they should be given lots of benefits to enable them to stay at home'. Also, there is huge amounts of evidence to show that going out to work is beneficial in all sorts of ways - raising self esteem, creating happier parents and thereby happier kids.

Bottom line is - our benefits system needs a total overhaul. People who are not in a position to work through illness or disability should be supported. people who choose not to work either because they are lazy,or because they have a sense of entitlement that once they have a child then some one else (ie the taxpayer) should pay for them to stay home, are being totally unreasonable. An overhaul of the welfare system would ideally make trying to live on benefits much less attractive to these types, and would make working much more beneficial. All it needs is making even the lowest status low skilled jobs financially MUCH better than living on benefits, and suddenly people would be motivated to work.

fvr...what a great post. Agree with you entirely.

..and before single parents who are on MN come back onto this thread defending their reasons for being on benefits let's not forget (and I've already mentioned this on this thread already) there are just as many others out there, who are not single parents, who claim benefits who could work. And before anyone asks 'who?'..just open your eyes and look around.

If someone is in genuine need of the financial support that benefits provide - ie those that CANNOT work, then I completely support them. It's those that CAN work who don't because they can't afford to, because the benefits they claim equals far more than what they'd receive in a working wage that I don't support....we all have to start somewhere with a job. We've all been on crappy wages but we've all got by, somehow. I agree the benefits system in this country needs a complete overhaul and then, perhaps, my husband's income tax each month may actually go down for a change...wishful thinking I think.

I agree, it's crazy that those things aren't classed as part of the body.

tinker...well, let's put it this way, without your eyes or teeth and with an illness that can only be cured by a magic potion only available on prescription...life would be pretty hard.

Not sure why you're trying to convince me, I don't work for the government or the NHS.

Not again.....

at UQD Brilliant!

It was either that or this one - I can't remember who on here to credit for that....

You mean you actually read the whole thread?

Will never call you lazy again!

Whole thread?! Me? Do you think I have a lot of time on my hands?

fwiw being a single parent on benefits is completely humiliating thanks to attitudes like the op.

To presume that the majority of us have "chosen" this path rather than been set on it by the actions of others. To presume that we are not trying to change our situation but thanks to the current economic climate it is near impossible (to note, I should have started a great job at the beginning of the year but the funding was cut and there went my job. Most other positions require weekend or evening shift patterns so where would I park my dts?)

I am doing my degree (finally!) and I also tutor at my sons school - voluntary as to be paid I couldn't afford to pay my rent etc. I also am a guide dog puppy walker. Oh and to note, when everyone else was enjoying a jolly at uni I was working, sometimes more than one job at a time, this is my first time "scrounging" so forgive me if I don't know the ropes properly.

Much as sitting on my backside all day sounds nice sometimes I just don't have enough hours in the day. The thing with benefits is, they are there to hold your hand through bad times and it is those who don't see it as that plus those with the OP's attitude who have the problem.

Two that was to UQD

"All mums should be SAHM if they possibly can, I do not believe in mothers of under 5's working full time at all, but especially not single mums.
Having said all that, I do believe they should reduce benefits, it's gone too far the other way now having seen some people claim more in benefits than we earn between 2 of us in a month is just plain wrong and I think that's what gets peoples backs up."

Well!! How to start unpicking this illiterate illogical nonsense?

I do not agree that all mums should be sahms - that's a fundamentally sexist point of view.

I have more time for the idea that children should be brought up by people who love them, ideally a parent, but in the world we live in that is just too difficult for many parents to achieve.

I can only (sincerely) pity the poverty of imagination, talent or ambition that might drive someone to live on benefits as a lifestyle choice.

It is illogical to demand that single parents simultaneously live at home and go out to work.

It is appalling that the men who go around casually impregnating women do not take full financial and emotional responsibility for the children they father.

It is illogical to demand that single parents simultaneously live at home and go out to work.

No it's not at all because that post was in response to others implying that single mums should be working, and my response to that is no they should not.
I get really angry at the benefit advisors who's first suggestion to anybody who walks in for advice is to get them straight back out to work. Little one's need to be with a parent, forging emotional bonds, mother or father. You can't put a price on that.

However the benefits system currently requires you to put nothing in before getting anything out and that needs to be stopped. It used to be that the income support payments were calculated to ensure that the people living off it could basically keep themselves alive and that was it.
These days if you have 3 children you would collect £60 in income support, £130 for your children, £190 per month in child benefit on top of rent and council tax being paid.
Tell me how that is fair ?
Figures from entitledto.co.uk have a look for yourself.