Benefit hatred is out of control.

[carernotasaint]

www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-hatred-of-those-on-benefits-is-dangerously-out-of-control-7763793.html

This animosity to benefits claimants I think is driven by three factors:

1. Benefits have tended to rise with inflation (eg RPI or CPI) whereas recent years have seen low paid workers get no pay rise or pay rises that fell well behind the real rate of inflation.

1. Average house prices went from 3 x average salary at their lows to 6 x average salary at their peak so anyone on benefits who was housed by the state was receiving a valuable benefit that working people increasingly struggled to buy or rent out of after tax wages.

1. The notion of 'relative' poverty and not 'absolute' poverty has meant that benefits since the 1960s were increasingly benchmarked against what an average person consumed not on the basis of absolute need.

Combining these factors over the last decade has meant that some people on benefits now receive a total net income plus housing equal to or exceeding what people earning a wage take home after tax.

Not surprisingly, people on low income or minimum wage feel hard done by compared to some people who receive benefits and they wonder what the point of working is and whether people on benefits should receive less.

It is about fairness and equity and people feel it is unfair for anyone to earn more on benefits than if they were working.

I am doing academic research in this area and it is interesting to see that this exact arguement was being played out at the turn of the 20th Century when the benefits system was very rudimentary and income tax rates were only 8%.

There are plenty of people in absolute poverty. Shelter is a basic human need and we have homeless people in this country. Food is a basic human need and we have people relying on food banks or simply going hungry.

All poverty is relative - I don't see why the income of benefits claimants should be compared against people 60 years ago when this is never applied to anyone else. People in the 50s generally didn't have washing machines and loads didn't have TV - that was normal then, it isn't normal now, and women wouldn't be able to go out to work if all washing was done by hand. Plus benefits claimants need broadband these days or they will be unable to find work plus unable to get the best prices on utilities and shopping.

Being poor has always been really expensive. Terry Pratchett's satire is the Vimes theory of economy - that poor people have to buy cheap shoes that wear out quickly, whereas rich people can afford well-made shoes that last.

MoreBeta's analysis does not explain the current animosity towards disabled claimants whose benefit is there to enable them to do the things that non-disabled people can do for free- including holding down job and paying taxes. How can anyone think that someone who gets benefits to pay for their wheelchair is therefore unfairly earning more than someone who doesn't need a wheelchair in the first place?

I am old enough to remember when it was socially safe to attack gays, I am old enough to remember when single parents were considered fair game. And now the same thing seems to be happening to disabled people. Funnily enough, all these phases of stirring against a weak group in society have happened under Conservative governments.

I still think that a sizeable proportion of the population does not understand that DLA is NOT an out-of-work benefit, and I think much of this is down to the meeja, who choose to portray disability benefits in such a disingenuous light.
Free car, anyone? No, it's not - it's paid for by the claimant - but didn't stop the Daily Wail whinging on about it and stirring the flames of "It's not fair, why should they get a free car?" attitudes.

My ds has end stage renal failure and is waiting for a transplant,he refuses to give up work pays for all his meds and is currently appealing his dla.

Most of the critcisms, though, are not against those who are genuinely disabled. That is a bit of a side issue.
If I chose not to work we would get in housing benefit alone a 4 bed house and £18,000 a year. I regard that massively generous. I could hardly believe it when I saw it. That is on top of free prescriptions, unemployment benefits and whatever you get for children. When state provision is so much more generous than working people have people get resentful.

As MoreBeta says things have changed and the amounts people get on benefits have been more inflation proofed than private sector wages where it is not just 1% rises but in many cases no rises at all for years and even in some cases reduce your pay or you'll be redundant.

However I would never attack those lawfully working within a set of rules given to them whether it's a mumsnet poster claiming tax relief on her pension contribution (dirty little immoral tax avoider that she is) or someone claiming their child or housing or other benefit or someone at the other end of the scale employing their wife to claim her tax allowance and/or keeping their Irish nationality in order to pay less tax. The rules are the rules. Do not let us criticise those who work within the rules. Let us pat them on the back for doing the best for their families.

What we do need to do is change the rules where they are unfair such as by after a year unemployed making people work in some way for benefits or saying people the age of my older children if they are on benefits they can only rent a room in a shared house (as my daughter does because she works - if she did not work then under the benefits system she would be entitled to a place all to herself! in the Alison wonderland system of benefits.... although thankfully I think that one is changing). So it is where those who work often very very hard, 50 hour weeks etc are worse off than those who do not a single thing that people get resentful and of course I know that lots of people want to work and there are not enough jobs for them too.

My take on the benefits issue is this -

I work with vulnerable people. Many of them come from generations of having had a council house and been on benefits. They don't understand any other way of life. Getting an early night to get up and ready in time for an appt is sometimes not even on the cards. Its just a completely different way of life.

Therefore I have found that some people get in trouble such as alcohol, drugs, gangs, moving in and out with people quickly, getting in with the wrong crowd - and no idea that there is anything else out there.

I think for some people work would be a good thing. A standard sort of day, probably with people who aren't going to lamp them, doing something that gives them pleasure and a sense of belonging, getting more money more regularly, experiencing personal success.

I wish more people would come off benefits and get into work.

Fron a personal perspective, I struggle financially and feel resentful that some people feel they can do whatever they like and the council just has to pay. It is not their responsibility. I think that if the council said 'No we are not doing this for you, do it yourself' people would be helped more in life. Like crisis loans. People spend theirs on weed and then have no food and then have a shouting match with the dwp about why they can't have another crisis loan. I have sat there while people lie about what they did with the money, and then say they have a child, you have to help me! and then go off and do the same again, round and round, getting depressed and saying they are powerless.

I remember staying in every night cos I had no money, and starting right at the beginning with a job, and working my way up and saving for my first set of bedding and so on. I think that in some cases benefits make people feel they have the right to stuff straight away, and I dislike the fact that people see benefits as a choice and a right.

I also have seen disabled clients go through the worst hoops to get what they need. Thats not fair in the slightest.

I think all those who choose benefits should get off them, and those who need them should get a lot more.

Basically, in the world of vulnerable people, you have to be really bad, so if you are not that bad you are on your own. It needs to be less people claiming, more for each person.

Working would be great. The logistics of that would be a nightmare.

After being up all night with one of two of my kids that really don't sleep all night going to work would be nigh on impossible.

Taking them to hospital appointments - would the childcare be responsible for this? Given that many medical/educational reviews NEED to have a parent present. I've had three hospital appointments per week for the last three weeks, some weeks we don't have them but more often than not one child has a hospital appointment at the same time as another somewhere else, or a hospital appointment clashes with a therapy activity.

Both me and DH are running in different places at different times. These times are rarely consistent. What employer would tolerate me being off three days out of five for nearly a month (clinics overran, I was at hosp for four hours on most of these events).

I have one hobby for half an hour a week. Respite for two hours a week. Other than that in my down time I am a heap on the sofa. Whilst kids are at school I'm still picking up and ferrying to appointments, scheduling reviews, filling in forms. I don't have time or energy to work - my health has deteriorated (I have now been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and am undergoing cardiac investigations) and I hate to say it but I do think being a carer has contributed to this.

So yes, work would be wonderful. The logistics and cost behind it though are nightmarish. It's cheaper for the government to keep us home caring as we are with very little backup.

I completely agree with MoreBeta and Xenia. And Xenia that was by far the most measured, sensible and empathetic thing I have ever seen you post! Are you feeling ok?

Glitter, there are two issues, it seems to me. One about finding very flexible work, which is out there but not always easy to find on your own, and the other about the NHS being more sensitive to people's needs in terms of appointments and overall efficiency, so people don't have to give up work to sit around hospital while clinics overrun. Indeed perhaps hospitals are the wrong place for many of these appointments in the first place, and they should take place at times and in venues more suited to working parents and their children.

Glitter To play devils advocate (I do not know your DCs needs) I am often arriving at work on as little as 2-3hrs of sleep. From Jan through April I worked 80+ hours over 6 days of the week. DH studies when he gets home. Neither of us get 2 hours a week to do a hobby. If I am not working I am caring for DD, doing the housework etc.

I think sometimes what happens is people who don't have to care for the disabled don't understand that it isn't just the lack of sleep that makes it difficult. I imagine if you have a child who is disabled the demands are relentless. Personally I would like to see each disabled person have two carers as the care is 168 hours a week.

I think a major problem in the UK is the attitude of the NHS when it comes to scheduling appointments. Here in the US my GP, obn and DD's paediatrician are open from 7am through 8pm. When pregnant I only had to miss 2 hours of work due to dr appointments. None of my friends in the UK were able to do this and missed days of work even when seeing their midwife. I agree that there should be cooridination so you do one trip to the hospital when possible. Contrast this to DD who needed to see an ENT specialist and DH who needed an MRI. We were able to book both appointments at the same hospital, on a Saturday morning. DH took DD to her 9am appointment, was seen by 9.15am and DH went to his appointment on another floor at 9.45am and was seen 10am prompt (his appointment time). They were out of there by 10.45am. Yes the appointments are brisk but I prefer that to waiting for hours.

To an extent, the NHS collectively sees us as supplicants, and expects us to be grateful for any morsel we get. Whereas the reality is that we need a more businesslike, contemporary approach. It's absolutely reasonable for one of the NHS's primary functions to be keeping working people at work, for example. But from the way appointments and clinics are run, you would think that this is a monumental problem for them, stepping outside the 9-5 axis , and coming up with alternatives to piling them into massive outdated hospitals for the smallest of interventions or consultations.

Xenia: "If I chose not to work we would get in housing benefit alone a 4 bed house and £18,000 a year. I regard that massively generous."

Really? For someone who earns, iirc, about £200k a year, I don't see how you're in a position to judge £18k as "generous".

Disability always takes these threads off topic. Leave that to one side. Many people on benefits are not disabled or looking after a disabled child or relative.

Many women in full time work have been up all night with their own babies but they know it will not last so it is durable. I went back when the children were 2 weeks old, 2 weeks off work. Like others who work hard it has obviousyl paid off for me. The older children's baby clothes etc were 100% jumble sales, second hand stuff etc, The things that many working single parents do like getting up I think it will be around 4.30am for me on Wednesday, to catch a train for work are not easy and if you feel there are people in society for whom you are in effect working and it is not just because they are down on their luck but because they have decided they cannot be up all night with a child and then get up early and then work a 14 hour day... that can feel a bit unfair. In my case it doesn't as I earn a lot but if I were a squeezed middle person I would feel it to be unfair. On the question of employers no one employs me. If I don't generate work we don't eat. If I'm sick we don't get paid.

As I said above you cannot blame people for doing what they are entitled to but you can try to make a system which incentives people to work and perhaps provide some kind of structured into work system of voluntary work for benefits and the like.

The doctors' appointments are certainly a very significant part of what makes it so difficult to work as a carer. I have managed to work part time, but really only because I am in a job where many of the work hours are flexible.

And if your child has a fluctuating condition that makes it harder still: almost impossible to arrange childcare if you don't know from one day to another whether your child will be at school or bedridden. There aren't any standby childminders who can just come rushing in to babysit a bedridden child on a moment's notice- and obviously bosses don't like it if you let them down on a weekly basis.

As I said I have managed it but only because of the nature of dh's and my jobs and the very understanding attitude of dh's boss. And tbh after 8 years of juggling, I am worn down. I would never let my work go because it means so much to me to be able to work, but my health has suffered and I know I can never work to the standard I might have been able to.

Sorry, cross-posted, Xenia.

Voidka that is a ridiculous thing to say. IDS hates people... actually, what he says is very compassionate.

The problem with the welfare system is the way it is structured. OF COURSE wealth needs to be redistributed to the poorest - but HOW?

And how in a way that does not reward bad choices or absolve people of their responsibility? [This is called moral hazard].

If you are interested in this, google Charles Murray. He is an American economist, and I think he has a very good solution.

The only animosity is to the massive massive increase in people with mental disabilities - there are legions of people supposedly "depressed" who only swapped to that benefit because the payments are higher. I doubt anyone resents the genuine disabled getting benefits. It just cannot be the case that we have had a 50% rise in people unable to work because of depression. It defies belief. They are on the make (not all but a good few).

I agree with Xenia, disability should be excluded from this debate - obviously no-one expects a person with disabled children to be WOH unless they want to and are able to
I also agree with Xenia that like other working parents, being up all night with babies is something we have had to do, and then go to work the next day. DS2 did not sleep through the nght for 2 1/2 years, and many of those nights he was screaming. I had and have a full time job, and was often like a zombie, but just had to carry on.

I don't know if people being on disability benefits is taking it off topic. They are the ones being disproportionately affected by the cuts, and I believe disproportionately suffering abuse as a result of being on benefits.

I get two hours a week respite because being a full time carer, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week does not have lunch breaks, you do not get reliable sleep or five weeks a year holiday.

Carer envy. Nice. You try what I'm doing and then envy me the respite I have had for all of six months and is only provided because my volunteer does it for free.

Nobody really gets this do they? This is not standard parenting.

Anyway I'm backing out now, I don't have more time and tbh my stress levels could do without it.

My sleep deprivation is seven years and counting.

Being unable to use the toilet without the door open - and not just into the toddler years - because they can't cope with not being able to see you. Limiting your diet because they can't stand certain food smells. Constant dealing with continence issues.

It's not just the NHS it's the local education authority, reviews are with them too. Up until recently dealing with constant exclusions from school due to behaviours related to their conditions..... Being told to remove your child from childcare because they have bitten or hurt another child so that's another childcare option gone.

Maybe with one child with additional needs we could work, both part time between us. But we have THREE. So hospital appointments, educational reviews TIMES THREE.

It's funny though, self same person that calls me benefit scrounging scum (to my face, in RL) admires the 'single' mums that claim with a partner living with them...

MrsGuy

Did you miss the bit where Xenia said those parents know getting up with a baby wont last so its durable?

A disabled child with night time care needs is forever

So sorry but what a 'normal' parent goes through with a 'normal' child isnt comparable even if they work a 14 hr day!

I will say that I was rather suprised that the benefit cap was placed at GBP35K. That is serious money! More than I earnt from a job in London at an investment bank in 2003. I don't blame the receiptients but the system. Our MP's should be ashamed of themselves.

When I say benefits I refer to those who are able to work. For those who are disabled there should not be a limit.

the vast majority of people on benefits get nothing near the average wage though, only atypical cases like very large families.