Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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 18:18

The problem is that NMW is too low. Can't you see that?

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 18:19

Sorry x-post with darkest eyes. Slow. And eating.

LibertineLover · 05/04/2013 18:20

yes because it would have meant she couldn't pay her fucking electric, feed her kids MTS not because she didn't want to drive 18 miles, just admit you're a bit of a twat for calling her a scrounger under those circumstances.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/04/2013 18:21

Yet again darkesteyes you are misquoting me as I didn't actually say which was wrong, NMW or benefits, just that it can't be right that there is little or no difference between the 2

OP posts:
Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 18:24

And I'll tell you something else. And get flamed.

I would have taken a job if I had been £10 a week better off in my pocket. But other than that, nope.

I call that having a titter of wit. And putting my kids first. Not my "continuity on a cv"

GrowSomeCress · 05/04/2013 18:25

Raising NMW would be horribly bad for business, and the economy by extension.

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 18:26

Fair enough. But the fault is NOT with the people, like me, who have done the sums and realised it would leave them worse off.

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 18:27

Sorry. Fat fingers. Posted too soon.

If that's your views on NMW, fair enough. But the fault is NOT with people like me who worked it out and would be worse off going out to work.

MTSgroupie · 05/04/2013 18:28

Freddie - I made my comments based on what little i knew of your circumstances at the time. I apologize for any offense.

In my defense, I come from a WC town up north. When I travel back to visit relatives I see school 'friends' for whom benefits is a lifestyle choice. Some have never worked since leaving school years ago. The way they see it, why flip burgers for 40 hours a week when the state will give them money and a place to live for free. I'm living in a B&B far from home just so that I can pay the bills and the taxes that goes to supporting these baby machines.

This is obviously a hot button issue for me :)

FasterStronger · 05/04/2013 18:28

The problem is employers paying poverty wages.

No The problem is some employers paying poverty wages.

on MN its like all employers pay NMW.....

Want2bSupermum · 05/04/2013 18:28

MTS It isn't about castrating him it is about helping both women he was able to control leave. I would have thought that SS could have offered support to the women. This was a man who had been convicted of stabbing an exgf and was bearing children with two women at the same time. If that was part of his culture I could understand but it isn't and it wasn't.

Jake Thats my point. While getting kids dressed and attending school is relevant I am surprised no one was listening to the children. I am sure there would have been a few clues there.

Anyway, IMO the issue with benefits is that you shouldn't be worse off if you take a job. What a shame that Freddie turned down an opportunity because financially they were worse off. Also, there is no distinction made by the public regarding those that are supported due to disability or those that refuse to work. Everyone is on benefits.

I also think it is irresponsible to have more children when you are able bodied, in reciept of benefits and not working. So many taxpayers are not able to afford more than 1 or 2 children so limit the size of their family. However, you can't control this as limiting support for the parents only harms the child(ren).

Darkesteyes · 05/04/2013 18:30

Sorry bearbehind but you did start this thread with a particularly goady OP so you cant be too surprised when people assume you think a certain way.

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 18:30

Thank you MTS. I think we misunderstood each other, and I'm sure it sucks never seeming your DP. my DP lives away from me, and I can't move because of kids and schools so I do understand.

Darkesteyes · 05/04/2013 18:30

semantics Faster semantics.

LibertineLover · 05/04/2013 18:31

thing is want" those women had to want to leave.

JakeBullet · 05/04/2013 18:32

Thing is want that the children might have just accepted some stuff as normal. It doesn't sound as though they exhibited any signs of sexualised behaviour which you might expect if they were exposed to that stuff which means the likelihood is they didn't see it.

As it is the school describe them as normal and happy children which makes it all the sadder that they had Philpott for a Dad.

handcream · 05/04/2013 18:38

I'm on another thread and having had a close relative have relationships time and time again with controlling men. They lie, they cover up for them, my relative is not a SAHM at the behest of a partner. She was a professional women who was attracted to these men.

We tried and tried as a family to get her to leave, she fibbed and fibbed and eventually as it was causing her M&D terrible worry and stress we decided to say 'we are here for you when you need us'.

Eventually the relationship ended (by him!) and she then went after a few months into the same sort of relationship with another man....

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/04/2013 18:40

This wasn't supposed to be a goady thread (my choice of titles was not the wisest Blush) but it has been enlightening for me. The crux of the issue for me is highlighted by freddies situation, I would have done the same as she did TBH but that doesn't make it right.

I also see that increasing NMW is not an option given the shitty state of the economy so I've no idea what the answer is.

OP posts:
handcream · 05/04/2013 18:40

These children werent as far as I am aware abused. One apparently lived on chips and they went to bed in their school uniform (how sad is that!) but its not abuse is it...

DioneTheDiabolist · 05/04/2013 18:41

to you Bear it may seem that some people choose to live on benefits. They do not. You can't see mental health problems but they are debilitating. I live in a deprived area. I work in a different deprived area and I am in shock that many of these people are functioning at all.

They are doing their best. You are buying into the demonization of the poorest and weakest members of our society. Shame on you.

Freddiemisagreatshag · 05/04/2013 18:42

It's easy to talk in generalisations, but make it specific and it's much more difficult.

I usually avoid these thread because I know how I will be perceived.

But I also don't think any decent parent who was putting their kids first would have done any different.

Want2bSupermum · 05/04/2013 18:44

LLover and Jake Totally agree with you. I just find it surprising that the children were so normal and that both women didn't want to leave. How terribly sad that the children thought growing up like that is normal.

In anycase, I am conservative and was repulsed when Osborne made his comment. It was so inappropriate on so many levels. With regards to the list provided by the OP the only luxury is holidays. No one who is receiving benefits and unemployed should be allowed to go on holiday. You need to be available for work. I have no issues with someone who is working or disabled taking a holiday.

handcream · 05/04/2013 18:47

I am also not sure about Mick Philpott's sister. She says he should rot in hell and she was jumping around on TV saying justice was done.

Surely she was closer than any social worker to this and knew what was going on. Did she do anything about this, make any reports to SS. I suspect not. I think she is trying to protect herself tbh. Completely disown him and you will be fine, if you make any attempt to cover up for him or excuse what he has done. Well her life wouldnt be worth living.

And could I ask - who are the people who run past the vans as prisoners are being transfered, kicking and shouting abuse? Is this a rent a crowd?

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/04/2013 18:48

dione I made it very clear in my OP and subsequent posts that I was not referring to people who were medically unable to work, rather to people who chose not to work despite there being viable work opportunities for them.

I agree that it makes no sense to work for less than you would get in benefits though but that seems to be a whole other issue

OP posts:
twofingerstoGideon · 05/04/2013 18:50

OP, having read the whole thread I'm not wholly convinced you really want to explore why '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!?' because I haven't really seen you engage with any of the points that people have made.

However, I'll give you the benefit doubt and give you my own take on things. I don't earn a huge amount and can't afford Sky, cigarettes or alcohol (neither do I want these things). I pay tax and don't begrudge whatever small proportion might go towards benefits for people who need them, regardless of what they spend them on, because (a) I have no interest in dictating how other people manage their finances and (b) depriving other people does not make my own financial situation any better.

Do you think making other people poorer will make lower paid people richer somehow? I don't think it works like that. HTH.

Swipe left for the next trending thread