Why are so many people on MN so anti benefit bashing?

[Bearbehind]

Genuine question- although I am well aware I will probably get flamed for this.

Osbourne's comments in the wake of the Philpotts's about benefits supporting lifestyles which are disagreeable to most tax payers today has touched a nerve with many for varying reasons.

I've always been of the opinion that benefits should be sufficient for the basic necessities but shouldn't cover luxuries like cigarettes, alcohol, Sky, mobile phones or holidays, as they shouldn't be an alternative to working (obviously only for those people capable of working) yet so many threads on here say its none of our business to question what benefits are spent on?

Why is it so many people are happy for their taxes to fund the luxuries listed above for others when they can't afford some of them for themselves after paying tax!? Am I missing something?

Most people on MN are parents. Most parents are in receipt of benefits.

Both Lisa and Mairead were in employment

I thought Goadyfuckers threads were against the talk guidelines?

You shouldn't 'bash' people who are in less than ideal circumstances.

Jesus. Christ.

Here we go again.

Freya But IMO that comes under 'not available for work' for a finite period, not spending your whole life on benefits.

Kiriwara I was referring to the principle rather than the specifics of the Philpotts's case.

So people too disabled to work shouldn't be allowed a mobile phone or a holiday?

There's an idea which is widespread that getting benefits means you sit back on your sofa watching JKyle swigging champers.

The reality is families struggle on a day to days basis with little freedom as every penny is accounted for. And little thought is given to the reasons why people are entitled to the benefits.

Isn't it something like the top 5% earn 40% of the income in this country? And gas companies and banks still give out millions in bonuses?? But that's ok, let's moan about Mrs so and so spending her small amount of benefits in relation on sky tv so she actually has some form of entertainment in her life instead of staring at the four walls until she dies.

My personal gripe is that I save my local authority £9000 a week. In order to do this I have to claim benefits.

I won't be treated as sub human because of that. I get enough of that in RL.

I'm working and yet I still claim 'benefits' I'm watching Sky on my wide screen TV and shopping online using my internet connection.

Do you 'KNOW' how many families in the UK are claiming benefits for 10+ children?

You don't receive child benefit then OP ?

Actually, don't bother answering cos it's fecking tedious.

Why SHOULD we 'benefit bash'?

What can it accomplish? What would be the reasons for doing it?

That's probably a better question to ask yourself.

Because it's not 'benefit' bashing, is it?

It's people bashing.

I am sure nobody would have a problem at all with debating the issue of the welfare state and the best way forward for it.

But people don't do that.

It's all 'scrougers' this and 'shouldn't have had kids' that and sweeping generalisations spouted by the hard of thinking based on the Gospel According To The Daily Mail.

everyone on benefits has 20 kids and a 100" flat screen tv and leans out of their bedroom window, lambert & butler in mouth, yelling "Fuck The Workers!"

When people are described in horrible ways, no reasonable discussion can be had.

Because being on benefits isn't fun and you don't kick people when they are already down.

A holiday isn't a luxury if you spend all the rest of the year single handedly caring for a sick/disabled loved one.

Sky isn't a luxury if you're disabled and housebound. My dad cannot even get out of bed anymore and has round the clock carers. His one pleasure is watching Sky Sports 24/7. But people like you want to take it away from him.

Sense of superiority, mrs c.
If they are vile enough about it, they won't be in that situation.

From a former home owning higher rate taxpayer who lost the lot.

HTH

OK - bashing is the wrong term and this isn't a goadyfucker thread- its a genuine question because it isn't what I think is the norm but I'm not so ignorant to assume what I think is always right so I'm trying to understand other's opinions.

A isn't helping me understand

Think the point you are missing OP is that the majority of the welfare budget goes on pensions and to people in work ie TAXPAYERS.

"If he were wont to die he should do it and decrease the surplus population."
...
"Who are you to say who shall live and who shall die? It may be, in the sight of God, you are less worthy to live than this poor man's child"

A Christmas Carol
Charles Dickens

How we have not evolved and still despise the poor and blame them for their plight. How little charity we have. How sad.

FYI I'm not on benefits but can't afford a lot of the luxuries you describe. There are some and everyone agrees who exploit the system but they are a minority.

People are anti bashing as anyone could end up reliant on welfare. If your issue is with those who do not try to get out of this then fair enough but otherwise

Fret to say - YABVU.
Your OP is quite vile.

I think bashing people that are down - like people claiming DLA as one example - is hideous.

I think the Daily Mail hysteria that everyone on benefits is a scrounger is hideous.

What I can't understand is a flat out denial that there is a minority of people for whom a life on benefits is a lifestyle choice and the debate that should be ha around that.

I have not read all the comments; but I would rather not bash benefits.

I would rather bash brash jumped up cock sucking immoral rich bankers.

True fact, Wannabe.

Bear, it is bad because it is bloody nasty, that is why. Does there need to be any other reason?

And of course it doesn't stop at those unfortunate enough to be unemployed, the bashing continues about carers, the disabled, pretty much anyone who receives some financial support.