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??

While i dont agree with the OP that large amounts of people are cheating the system, there is a definate group in society who do see benefits as a choice, not just as something to support them while not in work. Work in any social services dept or housing and you'll see this.

I dont see this as bashing 'poor' people, who need and deserve the benefits they are on, single parents, disabled etc. They are on them for good reason. Im not sure of what the answer is, as we're kneedeep in this issue at work at the moment, and its so easy to become cynical. But more focused attention needs to be put on the younger generation to stop seeing it as a choice.

If living on benefits is the better choice, you have to wonder how utterly shit the other options must be...

The fact is that there will always be an element of society who takes advantage of a social 'loophole' the rules can't be made for these people..but the majority of decent people ...tbh i pity them..I don't spend my time envying them or getting upset..tis a waste of time imo

tethersend - there are plenty here on MN who will testify to what the worse option is - it's being part of the working poor.

Being on benefits it SHIT
Being part of the working poor is even more Shit.

That is not the fault of the benefits claimants though - and it's easy to get the two issues mixed together - it's not one issue, it's two entirely separate ones.

I think the OP did make a clear difference between people who happen to end up on benefits and those who choose it as a career (i.e. don't ever have any intention to work out of sheer laziness).
It's those people that she is angry at.

alwayslookingforanswers- I think you misread me; That is exactly what I was getting at.

A choice between shit and more shit is not a real choice; some people talk as if claimants choose to be on benefits rather than take a well-paid city job. This is risible.

ahhh ignore my tirade then tether

she wants to be flamed and it's boring..wouldn't even waste my finger-tips decent people..

a lifstyle choice

sitting around watching Jeremy Kyle, eating fray bentos pies and donuts, shopping only in poundland, wearing primark, not learning to drive, not going abroad

till you die of heart disease aged 50

what a fucking no life

if there's any poor bastard like that I have nothing but sorrow and sympathy for them

no prob always... I blame the emoticons

ahh yes the emoticons - it was you're that misled me

I do not want to be flamed. I have read all the posts on here, and tbh, I do agree that carers of the elderly, sick, disabled should indeed be supported. I can also see from reading these posts that it would be grossly unfair to deny these people the right to vote.
I also want to say that I believe that where one parent stays home to look after children, so the other parent can go to work, then the parent that stays at home should also be entitled to vote.
I am inclined to agree after reading these posts that people who have become unemployed through no fault of their own, and are actively seeking employment should also be entitled to vote.
Maybe I should have said I do not believe that someone who has never ever worked in their life, and contributes nothing to society, and by this I mean, they do not engage in voluntary work, nor do they care for anyone, but instead they sit on their bums all day waiting for the next giro, and churning out children to avoid going to work, and although I can see the irony in that, since when they have children, they then do have someone they have to care for, it is the people who knowingly choose to have children whilst dependent on the state and expecting the state to pick up the bill for as many children as they wish to have, that IMO should not be entitled to vote. (And yes, I do believe there are many many people who fit that criteria, even if it is not as many as the DM would have us believe.

I also believe it is a travesty that some people who have been conditioned to live a life on benefits, then pass that awful conditioning onto their children.

I feel so sorry for the children that are brought up in abject poverty, but angry beyond words at the parents who knowingly plan to have children and bestow onto those children those corrupt values, that work is never worth it, and ambition or living a more comfortable life than their parents is neither attainable nor desirable.

There are many many people who fit this category.

I have a friend who works for the DWP, and she comes across this regularly, same faces every week for years on end, and she believes these people are frightened to go to work, so much so, that they would rather their children live in abject poverty for their whole childhood than face their fears.

I have children, and I have had to face some unpleasant uncomfortable situations, as most parents have through the course of their parenting, but honestly, I could not sleep at night knowing my children were going without, or having their heads filled with a wrongfully placed sense of entitlement to a life on benefit, if I could change it by facing my fears and setting a good example, and by showing my children a good 'work ethic' if it was fear that drove me to remain on benefit forever in the first place.

I didn't expect people on here to agree with me, but IME although benefits is not much money at all, and the mystery as to how people on benefits survive is a very real one, there are many people who choose to live on benefits, and still manage to afford to run a car, smoke, drink, have internet access, sky tv, games consoles, mobile phones, takeaways etc etc, and these are things which some working parents cannot afford. How can that be right or fair??

Whilst I do not begrudge anyone support from the state whilst they are seeking employment, to live on benefits for years and years, for no other reason than because they can, even when work is available, they still choose to live on benefits, that is wrong imo.

My DWP friend has come across many ladies who have openly admitted that they would rather have another baby than go to work, even though they are not in a relationship.

Don't the children of these people deserve better?

One lady was asked to go to the jobcentre because her youngest was about to turn 12 years old, and she was adamant that instead of going to work, or retrain, she would have another baby. My DWP friend remembers this lady particularly because her notes clearly showed she was 56 years old. She had had her last child at 45.

Any parent that cannot see what is wrong with teaching their children that a life on benefit is preferable to an honest day's work is not a worthy parent imo.

problem is thought is that the majority of those that have been brought up in a family with no real idea of choices, on benefits etc etc etc will probably have a low educational achievement. Meaning that they'd probably end up in the minimum wage jobs - where they end up as the working poor. Even worse off than their parents were on benefits.

In monetary terms quite frequently minimum wage work isn't "worth it" in financial terms.

Often all a low paid job brings is lower standard of living (lower than that they'd already been brought up in), poor working conditions, and the bonus of not having to go and sign on every week.

My DH (apart from the last 8 months) has worked for almost his entire 9yrs in this country. He got his first job a few weeks after arriving here. He comes from a country with no welfare system, and did find himself unemployed - and therefore with no income, for an extended period of time when he was still in his home country.

He's always had a strong work ethic, but it's only the boredom that he's finding being at home all the time (not that he doesn't like spending time at home with me and the DS's - but more that he's been used to working all his life) that has prompted him to keep looking for work. Certainly the prospect of struggling to get by each month on an even greater scale has had no positive impact on him.

and the same faces your friends sees every week for years on end who are frightened to go to work are probably frightened (in some cases) of being worse off when they go back to work- and who wouldn't! Years ago when DH had a well paid job we were concerned when he had a drop in salary - and it was still a very comfortable salary he was going to be on.

I can tell you from where I'm sitting (and where DH is sitting) that the prospect of him being back in work and things becoming even harder financially doesn't exactly fill us with delight.

YABVU

I agree with those who say what about the super rich etc (is it really fair what high earners are paid, footballers, MPs expenses etc) and totally agree with dollius excellent post about people who 'can't easily function within the capitalist model we insist on promoting.'

I am a SAHM and would rather look after my kids while they are little, why should a lone mother be denied that choice (if she wants it) when it costs often less than 'helping' them get back to work?

Most people I know on benefits are not loaded at all.

so people who cheat the system - in short.

well i dont think anyone would dissagree that those people who wilfully cheat th system are wrong

what we have to look at further is whyt here is a society where (for those people who cheat as a lifestyle ) they think it is good enough. why is that the height of ambition for them and their children

why is this?

i believe taking away anyones right to vote is very dangerous ground

the working classes fought and died for the right to vote and taking that away - is horrible.

likleyhood of cheats voting not good i would wager but totally not the principle of the thing.

so what is it that makes 'churning out children' the height ...the dizzy grant height of ambition for a teenager on a council estate < lets go with the stereotype>

shit parenting (fault of govt, society and parent)

... probably a victim of shit parenting themselves, they are looking for someone to love them confusing attention and sex with love

they are looking for someone to love - to produce a child and have romantacised ideas about dressing up a baby and loving it.

getting out! getting out of their current environment where there is physical and or emotional abuse.

shit education. (Who is at fault?govt, schools and parents and society).

becuae of lack of parental support and love in the home
combined with - lack of resources and funding, high class sizes and in large schools the 'zoo' mentality of keeping them somewhere rather than teaching them anything.
in turn combined with the culture that it is uncool to learn.

this all leads to a young person who has no ambition. There is no big plan, no parent wanting them to do well at their exams.

sure people pull themselves up by the bootstraps and do well despite some or all of the circumstances above - they have ambition inspite of what they haven't been taught.

some will never see that far. will never have a dream for themselves or their children.

and you want to condemn those children to remain that way with a short sighted view that doesn't take into account one bit that the fault lays in part at the door of the govt and society and its culture.

so ask yourself next time you see them with their 4 kids in their council house

why do you envy them so, why do you begrudge them that lufestyle, that lack of future

why is that good enough for them? why is that good enough?

then count yourself lucky that you wre probably better parented, educated and had more chances in life.

excellent post custard

one thing that does get on my tits is the argument below about not being able to afford to work

its short sighted

short term pain for long term gain

and employment has other benefits other than monetary.

going from a job to another job has been proven to be easier than going from unemployment to a job

experience, job history, skills - all need to be built up and they cant if you don't take that leap.

cheers always

true - but it doesn't always work like that. DH's previous job (before he became unemployed) was supposed to be a "short term pain for long term gain" one..............4 1/2yrs after he got it he was still no further towards finding a better job and our finances were up shit creek (nearly had the house repossessed - only temporarily saved because they settled for the interest only payments when we've been on benefits - who knows what will happen when he's back in work....) and he slogged his guts out, was working in sales and was one of the top sale people for the company - still got him no-where. We're hoping that this current job - which he's "nearly" got will lead to better things...........

BUT - for all the reasons you cited below (or above depending on which way you're reading the thread) some people won't have the foresight to see past the short term pain. And short term pain can mean loss of home and possessions for some.

Jellybeans If a woman is in a relationship, that she believes will last, and between her and her DP/DH, they can afford to have children, without the state supporting them (and by that I mean JSA/IS)and they then decide to have children, great.

If after becoming pregnant, or after having the children, the couple find that they lose their job/s, and therefore need to rely on state support, or the relationship breaks down, resulting in the PWC going on benefits, then I do not have a problem with that at all.

What I am referring to is the people who have every intention from pre conception, to having their children and themselves wholly supported by the state.

Why would anyone choose to have children whilst they were on benefit, if it is the common belief (at least on here) that it is a crap life???

Why should a lone mother be entitled to have other people pay for her to stay at home, when there are thousands upon thousands of working mothers in relationships who do not have that choice??
It is not a right to have children, it is a priviledge, and as such, why the hell should anyone else have to pay for other women to have children and be a SAHM, if their intention is to be supported by the state from the start, especially since an awful lot of these women who are indirectly supporting lone parents on the dole, cannot afford to have their own children.

Should they just keep working to pay for other people to stay home with their kids??

I do not agree that it often costs less to support a lone parent on benefit, than it costs to help them get back to work either.

Lone parent with one child = £136.30 per week
Rent and council tax = £125 per week??
This amounts to a whopping £13587 per year.
If you take into account that people who make being on benefit a 'career' choice will be claiming these benefits for at least 7 years, that amounts to £95K

I fail to see how it could realistically cost more than that to 'help' a person back into work.

Apart from all that, my OP was not solely aimed at single parents, but I agree that single parents who choose to increase their families whilst surviving solely on JSA/IS are totally out of order IMO.

i cant get my head round how you were better off him being unemployed - and as homeowners.

i t ake it the debt was becuase of the unemployment which carried on when he got a job -

so were you actualyl better off when he got a job - but the debt gained due to unemployment made it harder?

it's a long story lol. Basically debt was there from previously (won't go into how - it's complicated - and no it wasn't reckless spending - well only a tiny fraction of it) and was continuing to increase as the job he'd taken with the thought of "short term pain for long term gain" hadn't actually started to produce the long term gain after the 4 1/2yrs before he lost the job. House was nearly at repossession stage (had already got the final letter) but they agreed to stop proceedings so long a the interest only payments (that we get because he's on benefits) continued.

Lets just say they've not been very "helpful" (the least helpful of all the creditors - most of which have now agreed to smaller repayments) and we're under no illusions that as soon as he starts working again they'll immediately demand the full monthly payments plus extra to pay off the arrears.

I'm just hoping to God that (if he gets this job - got the final selection next Friday) the figures the entitledto website gave me are roughly the right ones - as we should just be able to scrape through

It's all bloody complicated - and I could actually write a novel on the full details - I'll just be glad in 11yrs and 3 months (presuming entitled are near enough right and he keeps this job) we'll be back on the straight and narrow........

good luck to your dh - it sounds like your about due some!