Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

389 replies

Bearbehind · 04/04/2013 19:09

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?

OP posts:
Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 17:24

But. In my position. Where going out to work was a tenner a week on paper but fuck all in RL and actually a negative, would you have taken the job?

MTSgroupie · 05/04/2013 17:27

Freddie - If I was in your situation I too would have chosen to stay on benefits but sorry mate but you still are a scrounger.

To me a safety net is exactly that. It's for people who have no other options. It shouldn't be there so that people like you can decide that you are better off turning down a job. It is ridiculous that we have Africans and Eastern Europeans doing jobs that the indigenous population don't want to do because it makes more sense to stay on benefits.

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 17:30

BTW I am not on benefits anymore. Well, apart from child benefit.

I do have a decent, well paid job now and I don't for one second regret turning down that job.

And I defy anyone who had been in my position to not have done the same.

GrowSomeCress · 05/04/2013 17:30

I don't know Freddie, as I've not been in that in position.
Obviously if I were living hand to mouth the loss of £20 would dent physical living significantly.
But at the same time working I feel would be psychologically a better option - feeling like I was doing something every day, getting up for a reason etc

JakeBullet · 05/04/2013 17:31

MTS sorry mate but I think scrounger is an offensive term.

Freddie is NOT a "scrounger" but a HUMAN BEING (in case you missed it) who was at that point unable to find a job which would support her family.

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 17:32

MTS - I maybe WAS a scrounger. I am not now. And I don't think it's being a scrounger to put your family first. Because that's why I did it. For that extra £80 a month for my kids.

And I was spending every spare minute applying for jobs, loads of jobs that were shite and crap and well below my qualifications. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of jobs. Most of which I didn't even get a dear john for.

So I certainly wasn't sitting on my arse expecting a living handed to me, but no fucking way on the face of god's green earth was I going to go out to a job and knock my pan in and hand the government £20 a week for the fucking privilege.

Darkesteyes · 05/04/2013 17:33

£80 pounds a month is a HELL of a lot to lose.
But i guess Freddie could have paid his/her council tax with pride.
Hey ive an idea. The Gov could issue pride vouchers and people in Freddies previous position could pay their council tax with those. Hmm

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 17:39

And how very fucking DARE anyone on here call me a scrounger?

At one point I had 3 P/T NMW jobs to make ends meet. I worked every hour god sent doing a receptionist job, working in a chippy and working in a shop. Because it was all I could get.

I am anything but a fucking scrounger and I find the statement that I am offensive and disgusting.

Darkesteyes · 05/04/2013 17:50

Freddie you wernt a scrounger. You didnt take that job because it wasnt economically viable for you to do so.

Want2bSupermum · 05/04/2013 17:51

The reason the welfare bill in the UK is so high is because of the high cost of housing and council tax. I thought Osbornes comments were off base because social services should have been on top of that family. Society failed those children as that man should not have been allowed to manipulate those women. The home environment that was described is not a healthy environment for children to grow up in. Sod the cost of 'keeping' this family which IMO is minimal in the grand scheme of things. I want to know why taxpayer funded social services didn't step in to stop this man reproducing. Why did his girlfriends stick around? I find it hard to believe that a woman wants to bear that many children or share a man with someone else. The real crime is that these women were being abused by this man and given what has been reported in the press I am surprised the authorities were not all over this family regarding the well being of the children.

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 17:53

Exactly darkest eyes. And I went in and saw the benefits advisor and she said the same thing.

And anyone on here who would have taken that job and been eighty quid a month worse off needs to go and get a fucking grip because they really aren't quite wise.

MTSgroupie · 05/04/2013 17:54

No. Freddie was unable to find a job that paid more than her/his benefits. Subtle difference.

During my working life I have had to go where the work was. I spent 2 years literally driving half way round the M25 every day at a cost of £150 pw in petrol, 5 hours round trip. For another job for a year I drove down to Dorset on a Monday morning and back on a Friday evening and stayed in a B&B at a cost £250 pw plus £60 in petrol.

My motivation? DP couldn't work. Benefits wouldn't be enough to pay for the mortgage. I had no choice, short of down sizing, but to spend 5 hours a day on the M25 or spend a sizeable chunk of income on a B&B far from home. During this period what was left was just about enough to pay the bills.

So no, I don't have much empathy/sympathy for people like Freddie who turned down a job because of the driving and parking costs.

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 17:56

MTS I would have traveled and stayed away all week. Who would you have suggested look after my children?

JakeBullet · 05/04/2013 17:57

Want...firstly I think you have the wrog thread.

Secondly the children according to all who knew them were clean, appropriately dressed, well nourished and attended school regularly. Without covert surveillance which only a court can authorise what exactly do you think social services would have seen? Six apparently well cared for children.....even Ann Widdicombe acknowledged this when she did her programme. Socil services could have done precisely NOTHING without evidence and there wasn't any.
All the stuff at trial was as a result of covert surveillance and there are strict laws surrounding that. A social worker wouldn't have been given the right to do this based on what was known at the time.

MTSgroupie · 05/04/2013 17:59

Why didn't social services step in and stop this man reproducing??? Seriously want2b?

Did you expect SS to castrate the man? Or did you expect SS to exercise some tough love ie if you can't afford to feed your many children then tough.

JakeBullet · 05/04/2013 18:02

MTS, I will say again, the term "scroungers" is offensive and disgusting...and if I may say...used by arseholes.

What about me? I cant find a job that covers the cost of childcare because my child is autistic. Does that make me a scrounger too?

MTSgroupie · 05/04/2013 18:03

Freddie - Errm... you turned down the 18 miles round trip job but you would've taken a long distance job if you had childcare sorted???

JakeBullet · 05/04/2013 18:04

...and I think Freddie pointed out that there would not have been enough to pay the bills had he/she taken this job.

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 18:05

No mts. You misunderstood. What I am saying is that I could not travel because I had children. Who I couldn't leave alone in the evenings and overnight. No husband to take care of them for me.

JakeBullet · 05/04/2013 18:06

MTS...you said that in the same situation you would have chosen to stay on benefits too. Confused

Freddie is a human being with a life ....all our lives have their own costs and as such we make a decision if a job is offered about whether it will allow us to y the bills. If it doesn't then its a non starter and it doesn't make someone wrong to say that.

MTSgroupie · 05/04/2013 18:07

Jake - why do some people insist on taking any.comments to an extreme? Saying that a person is a scrounger for turning down a job because the petrol and parking cost made it not worth while their whole is not saying that ALL benefit claimants are scroungers. Jeeze!

Darkesteyes · 05/04/2013 18:12

NO MTS you called Freddie a scrounger which they arent.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/04/2013 18:12

The fact that freddie didn't take a job which would have made her worse off by working (i agree that there is not much incentive to do so other than for continuity on a cv) it does illustrate the problem that if benefits are the same or more than a NMW job with reasonable commuting costs, then something is very wrong.

OP posts:
Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 18:12

So even though you would do the same, I'm a scrounger for making sure my kids have the most amount of income that was available to me and them at that particular point in time ?

How the fuck does that work?

Darkesteyes · 05/04/2013 18:16

No bearbehind the problem is the national minimum wage. The problem is employers paying poverty wages.
In real terms the minimum wage is now worth what it was in 2004. But council tax petrol are not at 2004 levels

Swipe left for the next trending thread