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?

[mselastic]

Benefits seem so diverse- if you lose your job you only get unemployment benefit and no help towards your mortgage. Scary if you get made redundant and are older.

Then my neighbours- generations of the family don't work and never will.

[Lot666]

I can see the OP's point.
I've always worked and I don't personally know many people who do claim benefits. However, of the few I do know:

1. One person claimed very little (basic entitlement I suppose) and was advised to go and see a lady living on a local council estate who would "sort her benefits out" . End result - the person I know now has so much money coming in every month that she herself says it's unbelievable. She can now afford top price theatre tickets and taxis there and back on a regular basis.
2. Another couple I know of my own age (50s) claim what they refer to as "reverse benefits" which I believe means they both claim to have ailments whereby each can claim benefits as the other's carer. Despite both being "too disabled to work" they run little business from home which requires physical labour (think gardening or decorating). They too have more money than they know what to do with and eat out most nights.

The people in both these examples have more disposable income than me and yet I have worked full-time for over 35 years.
I also agree with a previous poster that there is an element that only wants a maximum of 16 hours paid work because that's the level of hours that entitles a single parent to "benefits" - that's a rational reaction to the thresholds.

When I was in my 30s, with a young child I worked two jobs to pay my bills - 30 hours a week as an NHS nurse and another 30 hours a week working nights in a care home. So I worked 60 hours a week for years and years (whilst bringing up a child), yet these days people work 16 hours a week and claim tax credits - just shameful in my opinion.

[OCSockOrphanage]

There does seem to be an element that only wants a maximum of 16 hours paid work because that's the level of hours that entitles a single parent to "benefits"; that's a rational reaction to the thresholds. When those benefits are worth more than the earnings from 38 hours a week, according to wage rates locally, it skews the calculations.

[Mummylin]

This is a ZOMBIE thread from 2013 !

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

Didnt you have a whole thread asking that queen

How did it go

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

She was having a go at the hypocrisy when some of them have a go at benefit claimants

Well thats a relief, I thought she was having a pop at me

[Thequeenbee2017]

New to commenting but I have watched mumsnet for a while and alot of what I see is bashing, from various Victorian pearl clutching wallflowers ooo how dare kids make noise to the foul mouthed individuals - forgive me if I am wrong I THOUGHT that mumsnet was supposed to be a place for advice not bashing?? Am I missing something?

[AniMac]

It's a shocking state of affairs. My 15 year old son is autistic and dyspraxic, totally dependent on me, in a special school, under the care of speech and language therapists, an OT, a mental health unit and is in the process of having his dla reviewed because he is nearly 16.

At the moment, i'm in limbo. If his claim gets turned down, we'll lose the extra cash but more importantly, MOST importantly, I lose my position as his carer. That means he will have no supervision when outdoors (potentially life threatening), no help at home with cutting up his food, washing him, brushing his teeth, helping him get dressed, tying his laces, comforting him during the night when he has woken up in a wet bed.

I'm living and breathing this dla claim, with no idea what the future holds for my beautiful boy, no idea if the DWP will take any notice of the medical reports and do you know what he is worrying about? He is worried that people will hate him because he gets a benefit that "people with jobs are being made to pay me". I cried when I saw the worry etched onto his face and then vehemently told him he was never to worry about that, that he was 100% entitled to it and that I saved the government money by providing 24/7 care for £77 per week.

It makes me so angry that people can ask such an inflammatory question.

Oh God yes, I love this easy life on benefits.

[ttosca]

Conservative claims about benefits are not just spin, they're making it up

Government ministers like Iain Duncan Smith and Grant Shapps are misrepresenting official statistics for political gain

--

In the past three weeks, readers of mainstream UK newspapers have learned a number of things about the UK social security system and those who rely on it. They have learned that 878,000 claimants have left employment and support allowance (ESA) to avoid a tough new medical assessment; that thousands have rushed to make claims for disability living allowance (DLA) before a new, more rigorous, assessment is put in place; and that one in four of those set to be affected by the government's benefit cap have moved into work in response to the policy. These stories have a number of things in common. Each is based on an official statistic. Each tells us about how claimants have responded to welfare policy changes. Each includes a statement from a member of the government. And each is demonstrably inaccurate.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/15/conservative-claims-about-benefits-not-spin

[boxershorts]

you need to reword your headline ambiguos

[boxershorts]

mrs G yes, up to a point. But many rich women work because they are bored

[boxershorts]

Osbourne has an objectionable lifestyle Millionaire living off public money

[boxershorts]

I think mumsnet has its share of benefit bashers and chinese mums

[alemci]

Mrs Growbag if people are stay at home mums and their DH's earn loads then isn't it fair enough, they are not getting any subsidies such as CB and their DH are paying income tax and NI.

They may do voluntary work or stuff for the school that working parents cannot manage.

I have a friend like this who has a massive house with a cleaner and has never really worked but her DP's were wealthy and she married an older man who earned a good salary.

I suppose they should appreciate how fortunate they are to be able not to have to work.

[FasterStronger]

also many people are enabled to earn their salaries by people they employ - CM, nannies, cleaners, house keepers etc.

and they don't get a tax break because they need someone else's work to help them.

[Fargo86]

Don't any single people earn 100k a year?

[Want2bSupermum]

darkesteyes Thats my point. The women/men who stay home to raise their family and enable their OH to earn GBP100k a year are contributing to the economy. If they went out to work would their OH be able to bring home GBP100k. This is what is wrong with the tax system in the UK. Income should be taxed on a household basis as it is here in the US. It is the only way to place a value on the work that a SAHP does.

[Cherriesarered]

The point is that Phillpott was not necessarily abusing the system. The system was paying him based upon his and his families circumstances. The issue for many people is that is it right to keep giving people benefits based on how many children they have. If a couple earns £56k and has 4 children, they don't get an extra say £5k when they have another child. So it is not realistic for the state to do this, it doesn't foster responsibility!
I've worked in social services for many years and there are some people who I would not say are abusing the system but because they have never ever worked just expect the state to provide everything, even though they could contribute if the system expected them to.

[MadameDefarge]

well you know cherries until you are prepared to do a bit of research around the actual figures of how many families with eight or more kids are wholly supported by benefits its not really worth engaging, is it? You have a computer I am guessing (but assuming) why not go online and have a little peek at the multitude of information available?

[MadameDefarge]

Why conflate the two issues though? A tiny percentage of people 'abuse' the system in that way. Whether he was a fabulous father to a lot of kids while being on benefits or a murderer is neither here nor there. Please don't mix the two up. That is exactly what I am objecting to. One rotten apple and the whole barrel is rotten? hardly.

[Cherriesarered]

I think Osbourne had a point. Phillpott was getting £56 000 in benefits per year for his "extended" family. All paid into his account. That's quite alot of money for not working.

That aside, the fact that he beat and stabbed his former girlfriend and seriously injured her mother shows that he had no regard for women.

The fact that he was let out of prison to go on and father several children then kill them shows how pathetic our legal system is in preventing domestic abuse and violence against women and children.

[MadameDefarge]

I have started a thread in AIBU about the welfare budget breakdown. It gives I hope a pretty good idea of where the money goes. there are in fact two pie charts, the second is a bit more detailed.

[FasterStronger]

the reason banks have power is that they pay about 10% of the total tax take.

it would be very bad for the UK if they left.

so before we put more pressure on banks, we need growth in other industries. we need an industrial strategy.

[Darkesteyes]

Want to be supermum i dont think Mrs Growbag was having a go at SAHMs with older children.
She was having a go at the hypocrisy when some of them have a go at benefit claimants.
I do realise that they dont all do that but a minority of them do.
Ive seen it on this site in the past.

[sleepyhead]

Oh absolutely. It's a scandal that regulation was actually relaxed in the years leading up to the crash. The finance industry was/is an enormously powerful lobby. It's dubious that any government can truly claim to be making independent decisions - especially the UK with our over-reliance on the industry in London.

The banks say "jump or we're leaving". The government (of whatever colour) says "how high Sir?"