"Family Life on Benefits" A Case Study Courtesy of the BBC

[MrPants]

I know there have been hundreds of these posts recently, but is this case study typical? Linky is here.

My first thought was that the difference to the household budget, before and after the £26k cap, is going to be roughly the cost of her 200 fags per week habit - a habit which, I reckon costs around £70 per week, I couldn't justify financially.

My second thought was that, if you took away our two cars (needed to get us to work) and their additional associated costs, and the factor in that we pay a moderate mortgage rather than rent in massively subsidised social housing, their outgoings - or crucially, disposable income - look uncannily similar to our own.

I pay income tax in the middle rate and I'm middle class. It's taken me fourteen years of working very hard to get to the level I'm at in my career and my wife and I decided to wait until our careers were firmly established before starting our family and yet, I can still look at this family and think that I'd be better off if I was in their shoes. How can that be right?

What really grates though, is the emotive language used "If they do cut our benefit we are going to have to choose between eating and heating the house properly." Am I right in interpreting that statement as meaning "My wife could quit smoking but she'd rather our kids went unfed or cold"?

It's nice to know that my family is forced, through taxation (backed up with all the threats and force that the state can muster), to go without stuff just so that some unemployed family, who will never thank me for my hard work, generosity and sacrifices, can sit on their arses all day smoking themselves into an early grave.

"Please get your facts right before trolling."

Ahem. Child benefit changes haven't been implemented yet, so you are still receiving child benefit if your children are the right ages. If your children have now outgrown it, you've already received the full whack.

You are also getting tax relief at 40% on any pension investment, just to mention one other I know.

And of course that's before all the benefits in kind.

Like I said, I don't begrudge it you.

And weirdly I don't smoke or drink either, despite currently being on Incapacity Benefit. Who'da thort it?

What MrsDevere said.

And this family does have extenuating circumstances. The wife has a severe mental illness and they are a blended family. Granted, they could help themselves by quitting the booze and fags BUT there are many people being made homeless and being pushed into poverty that are not boozing and fagging it like crazy. What do they cut out?

MrPants I hope you don't claim child benefit because if you do can I have it back please? and what do you spend it on?

'Does no one admit to just going to work these days? Everybody seems to work down a coal mine.'

I have noticed this on here before. It seems to be the done thing to show off about how hard you have always worked - people who would never dream about boasting about how much money they have or how thin and pretty they are are happy to declare they have never known a moment's idleness.

However, to be fair, a lot of jobs that used to be quite easy and pleasant have had massively increased workloads in the last decade or so, and any job can feel like a slog and involve working all the hours there are if they keep piling on the pressure to improve output.

I have to agree with the drink and fag comments. £240 a week seems quite alot to spend on food and other things IMO and maybe ditch the Sky. I dont think they do too badly but it does sound like they are very cramped in their housing.

Do they not qualify for a larger house?

Yes I'm surprised they don't have a 8 bedroomed mansion tbh , maybe thats next weeks story

On one hand I sympathise with them. I think they are leading a bleak existence devoid of any ambition. On the other hand I feel frustration, jobless for 11 years and a very large family that is excessive by anyone's standards. They are caught in the benefits trap.

I've always been fairly anti schemes which make working a condition of receiving benefits but I'm coming round to the idea. Boosting people's confidence and giving them new skills is a good thing. A proper scheme would be costly to administer but worth it in the long run.

Of course people work hard, I wont dispute that.
But it ironic that the OP complains about emotive language used in the article and then goes on to use his own version.

I think the sense of entitlement people like to complain about is far more visable in some working families than in those on benefits.

People expect a prize for going out to work, a pat on the back for providing for their own children. Why?

To paraphrase Chris Rock 'I TAKE care of my kids! I pay for my Kids!' 'You are SUPPOSED to dumbass'

MrsH - would you REALLY love their lifestyle?

I wouldn't it sounds horrible.

The problem is that many jobs are soooo poorly paid, there is little motivation to move off benefits. If the benefits cap was being introduced with a significant rise in the minimum wage, and the job market was more healthy, then it would seem a little less Victorian. It all smacks of the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor to me - we are moving back to a period where the wealthy could decide who was 'worthy' of support based on their own moral standards (often double standards!)

I'm far from jealous. No idea where the idea that I'm jealous has come from.

All I'm trying to say is that in current times when working families are being told they must make cut backs, it's only fair that those on benefits also do so. Why? Because it's the working families which have to support those who cannot/do not.

And in this example the family CLEARLY can make some cuts. So this guy claims the govt benefits cap will result in his family having to choose heating or eating is clearly untrue.

They can easily make some cuts (just like many of us have) without really sacrificing their standard of living.

It's funny. If I as a working member of public posted the same situation here, I'd be quickly told I am doing pretty well to be able to afford 200 fags, 24 cans of lager,a trip to the pub and > £120 a month on mobile phones! And that I'm being ridiculous that I am claiming I cannot heat my home or feed my family.

Yet when it's a family on benefits, all of a sudden it's ok and any criticism is because I'm a rabid right wing Tory???

So if we're talking if the benefit cap is still fair? If this is the kind of family the government are targetting then yes...it's fair.

"there's always the workhouse". I sadly suspect some would be glad to see the return of these places.

He's not choosing between heating and eating, he's choosing between looking after his family properly or drink and fags. Can he not see how ridiculous he sounds?

And as for this "Says Ray: "The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago - there's a total lack of work in my area of expertise."

What? 10 years ago when he was 35? My dh is having to retrain at the age of 56. He's already turned his hand to most things in his working life, engineering, publican, worked in a bakery, blimey if he followed Ray's philosophy he'd still be waiting to get back his job as a bus conductor!

They can make cuts but this bloke is an easy and dare I say it chosen specially for the likes of us to discuss. The fags might reduce, if they are helping her cope though then the cost to society might be far more than it saves. Just saying.

Pesky phone, last post makes no sense. This family will adjust but are a poor choice for this news article.

I can show you lots of families claiming benefits but most are not representative of the family in this article.

All have their own story to tell.

I used to visit a girl years ago with 8 children. Home was chaotic and all the kids struggled.

At some point social services got involved and then Mums history became known. It was horrific - her childhood made me cry. It wasn't surprising that she struggled as an adult. I know not everyone abused as a child ends up this way but some do simply be size they never find a way out.

My point is that anyone looking in from the outside would just see a woman with 8 children living on benefits. The BBC could easily have used her case for people to pick apart but all it would give is cold and hard financial input NOT the background.

And by the way, I agree that this family could clearly make cuts to Sky, cigs, alcohol etc (as long as they're not rehoused somewhere less cramped, at which point rent will go up).

But that's why this family have been chosen. To help us pretend that all families hit by the cap will look like this. When as Dilly and MrsDV have so eloquently pointed out, plenty don't.

Then perhaps families like this should be even more ashamed then that their stupidness is causing other families to suffer/get villified.

The fact is all the time benefits give a lifestyle to some which is practically the same as those on a higher tax bracket the public really are going to have very little sympathy.

Would just like to add there is masses of work in IT at the moment,this particular man really could go out and get a job but lets face it he has precious little incentive to.

His rent and water is a third of what we pay thanks to subsidies -£1K and £60 a month.Free school dinners will be a wacking amount too on top.

I don't think that is fair, there is not masses of work in IT atm, it depends on what your specialism is. I know of two friends in IT who have ALWAYS worked who have both been out of work for 12 months + now. Times are hard for people and some of those people are or were previous taxpayers, seeing as there seems to be an obsession with it

If you are prepared to move,commute,branch out there is plenty.It's on the list of safe jobs to have at the moment.

Sorry some people expect jobs to land in their laps with no effort or inconvenience.Our benefit system is hugely to blame for this.

But he's been out of work for more then 10 years, since the height of the IT boom.

If his benefits weren't so good he'd have got a job long ago.