to truly believe that there are too many people making living on benefits a lifestyle choice?

[preparestobeflamed]

While I really do feel for people, who through no fault of their own, find themselves on benefits, struggling to bring up their children on a pittance, am I the only one who truly believes that for a large number of people, living on benefits is a lifestyle choice??

It may just be the people I know, but I have one friend who refuses to work - no children or partner, another friend who from leaving school decided she was going to have children, has had 2 children by unknown fathers so far, and all at the tax payers expense and is now planning her 3rd, to some unsuspecting man she hopes to meet on a night out, and another friend who is due her 4th baby anyday, by a man who pays her no child support whatsoever, even though he is a high earner working full time and who lives in the next town with his mum and dad. She believes he will move in one day, i think not and when he does stay with her, she makes it public knowledge that she is continuing to claim she is an unemployed single parent to continue getting all the benefits, even when he has stayed for months and all those mentioned have the opinion that they are entitled to live off of benefits for as long as they live.

They just feel so entitled it's untrue!!!!

I am beginning to believe that people who do not pay tax should not be entitled to vote, since why should these people who do not contribute a penny to the system, and possibly may never contribute a penny to the system, be able to have a say as to how the money the country generates is spent????

I also am of the belief that anybody who does not have dependents, is not elderly, sick or disabled should not receive any benefit unless it is contribution based benefit.

Am I really BU??

Am I the only one who gets so angry at these lazy people, who live off of their children for as long as they can, and in some cases, are swayed to have children because they do not want to work??

Well, of course, scarlet, that's why posters use terms like 'usually' or 'many' instead of 'all' or 'every'.

Scarlet, I was going to respond "probably a bit of both, but" then Expat came in and gave the other reason - lower expenses.

And maybe because the alternative of staying home is worse.

I have nothing against immigrants - in fact I am one in another country so would be hypocritcal to be anything other than FOR free movement of labour. But there is a real issue that employers can get away with paying less and still find willing employees at a pay level that would not keep a UK family. This needs to be stopped.

But how exactly would employers be stopped from offerimg low wages? Increase the minimum wage? How many more jobs would then be driven overseas? Think of how many jobs have already been outsourced from the UK - such as call centres and IT jobs. Then think of the companies who would just look for a cheaper labour economy and move there wholesale.

I don't know the answer. But I do think that the welfare state is unsustainable as it stands and that, sooner or later, some very hard decisions are going to have to be taken.

People start to pay taxes on income at around £6500 per annum. Is it really fair that people earning such a pittance should pay taxes to subsidise those who are unwilling to work?

oh f*ck off prepare - if you'd actually been reading all the posts I (briefly) explained our situation last night.

scarletlilybug- Don't worry, those earning less than 20k pa's bit of tax can go on hospitals or artillery or something. Meanwhile, only those earning over 100k pa can subsidise the welfare state.

Because that's how taxes work, right?

Right?

I think the argument is going in circles now...

Increase the tax threshold? It is ridiculous to me that you have to pay the tax, then claim it back if you're on a low income. Subsidise child care or make it tax deductible totally - not just salary sacrifice schemes. More flexible tax codes that take into account your family circumstances?

Can I ask what you all think of this.

I think it is surprisingly enlightened - so, what am I missing?

Duncan-Smith on dysfunctional families

interesting article - and I agree wholeheartedly with the last paragraph. Far too often, as can been seen in threads like these, it is only the "symptoms" of the problems that people can seen and want to deal with, not the causes

Excellent article. And reflective of the point that many of us have been making in that simply taking everything at face value, making sweeping statementss and blaming those at the bottom for all of society's ills withoutaddressing the root causes is hopeless.

I am scratching myself at finding myself in agreement with IDS. (Holy Lord! whatever next?)

It's so much easier for us to dismiss the poor and disenfranchised isn't it? So much easier, neater, to just say "Oh, they're lazy scum" than to actually have to turn the looking glass upon ourselves, and wonder how we as a caring community/society can affect change.

I must confess, that I am guilty of the same kind of thing. I railed and cried and shrieked at the baby P case. I literally couldn't watch the news after a while, and I raged at his mother, both inwardly and publicly. When the details of her childhood were released, I am ashamed to say that I thought "Fuck her" but....I don't know, something has broken in our society. Something has broken and we need to find a way to fix it rather than railing against the victims. (Please note, I am aware that I have gone off on a tangent, and I am NOT calling Tracey Connolley a victim -although in a sense she was- and I still find the whole case a frightening and abhorrent thing)

Ugh. I still believe that the poorest in our society deserve to be looked after. I also believe that to stop benefit payments to those who won't work is wrong, and I believe that because...after all...who is going to make that judgement call?

Yes, although I would add to D-S's idea about educating mothers, that we should also stop segregating these people with our ridiculous obsession with class, private education etc. Put more social housing in rich areas and make everyone attend their local state schools. I really believe that would improve life for everyone - those at the bottom because the bar would be raised for them, and the rest of us because there would eventually be greater social harmony, less crime, more tolerance of differences etc.

My dad says I am hopeslessly naive and maybe I am. It just seems so obvious to me.

I really do agree though dollius. And it's the media as well, which perpetuates these snobby attitudes.
I find it worrying i nthe extreme that few people can read between the lines eg, benefit scroungers= scum instead of =disadvantaged after generations of poverty.
I do also believe that it's about rediscovering a sense of responsibility and kindness to each other. If we had a real sense of community and were geniunely bothered about each other, instead of wrapped up in our own lives and judging anyone different, we might be more understanding. And if people feel they are understood and cared for, they are more likely to want to break out because they feel supported. At the moment, it's a self fulfilling prophesy, people are labelled the underclass, benefit theives and so on so they live up to that. And why the hell wouldn't they, really?
I jsut think a little kindness and a general sense of open-mindedness would go along way.
(Apologies for typing in last post; had violently hiccupping DD in arms)

dollius Have thought exactly that for years! Maybe we are hopelessly naive.... but that discussion is a whole other thread

lol whoisasking - I felt the same way - it's not normal I grew up a proper Labour girl - now gone off to the Lib Dem's because of Labour's track record. Recent council elections I ahd the choice of Tory or Labour - so I went and voted and spoiled my paper as I wanted neither

Ha Ha always I'm a dyed in the wool Labour supporter. In the London mayoral elections I ws so frustrated a drew a big cock (complete with hairy balls) on the paper...and look who we got?

I voted green in the European elections. I cannot contine to back the Labour governement and it breaks my little socialist soul!

LOL at whoisasking!

oh I wish I'd thought of doing something like that - I just doodled on mine LOL

interesting article but what he is suggesting will cost a great deal of money. I bet that same paper will be railing against 'public spending' and 'schemes for the poor' etc etc within the week.
One of the comments struck me - the poster wanted a return to the 'nuclear family'. a, that will mean educating men to show some commitment and b, I actually think the extended family is a better model.
But then you'd need decent house prices and jobs in your home town.

So let me get this right....you know three people who, by your own account, are abusing the system.

I know of more than three MP's who have taken the piss out of this county and at the taxpayers' expense. I however, do not think that all MPs are robbing barstewards.

Sweeping generalisations are dangerous.

I work, I pay tax. I also do not have a problem with how other people choose to live their lives.

lets talk moats

Sorry, went on a (rare) night out last night. In response to someone who asked why the guy with ten kids wasn't pressured into getting a job - his argument was that his wife wouldn't be able to cope with them all if he wasn't there.
I want to move to Utopia then I won't have to think about these things.

I believe strongly that with rights come responsibilities. By responsibilities I mean that if you become pregnant then you and the father have the responsibility to bring the child up.
Every body is given free contraception if they ask.

If you do not have paid work then you should volunteer if you are able and of working age.
We should start with the expectation that all able bodied persons that are not carer's should not receive benefits unless they can prove exceptional need or have contributed to society in some way.

If you are in receipt of benefits and have never contributed to society these should be seen as a hand up not a hand out e.g. not an entitlement but an exception.

I do not include people laid off in their 50s who have contributed all their lives or people who are truly ill or caring for some one.

As for removing the vote of people who do not contribute to society then once again it is about rights and responsibilities. What right to vote should you have if you have not put any thing in to society, Although it would be hard to decide who votes, but for example criminals could have their vote removed until their term has run and not just whilst they were in prison.

Sorry if people don`t like this but we need to stop the rot now before the UK falls any further in to the murk.

beastoftheeast-

I'm afraid the job of deciding who deserves benefits and who doesn't has already been taken by the OP.

Sorry.