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?

But surely, if you would get less working and stay on benefits then you're making what has been called "a lifestyle choice"?

twofingers I'm not sure how much more engaging I could have done, very few comments have been made saying people are happy to support the things I've listed. Comments have mainly said 'there but the grace of god go I' which I can appreciate or have i missed something?

Bear, I live this every day. I haven't met a single person who can work but actively chooses not to. I have met many people who are judged as such by people like you because their illness isn't visible.

Being on benefits sucks. No sane healthy person chooses them as a way of life.

3% of all benefits paid are Job Seekers Allowance ie paid to the unemployed.

Just so you know.

I'd rather we bashed employers who make large profits but don't pay their staff a living wage - they are subsidised indirectly by the state. Bashing the victims of the system rather than those who actually benefit from it seems pointless and horrible.

So I don't bash those in receipt of benefits because it would make me look like a thick twat who doesn't understand basic economics or where the money's actually going.

Dione - but we do know one - Mick Philpott. I must admit I know a few who feel it isnt worth their while going to work on a NMW when the benefits will pay out slightly more due to their circumstances. Not huge amounts more but enough to say it isnt worth it for them

Custardo

"i cannot for the life of me understand this obsession with the fuck all the poor are given - whilst no-one has even raised an eyebrow at tory party mobile phone emperor donators who don't pay their taxes in this country."

Hear hear.

On the same day that the right wing press pick over the corpses of the Phillpott children to push their anti-benefit agenda, the three bosses of HBOS operating in a 'culture of delusion and selfishness' have been found guilty of ripping off the taxpayers to the tune of £20 billion and NONE of them have so far been held legally accountable. 'Pressure is growing . . . ' yadda yadda but are any of them going to jail? Are they fuck. Oh and SSE the Energy Giants have been fined £4.5 million for 'conning' the public and yet the CEO Ian Marchant walks away with a golden handshake of £15 million.

I'm going to put my arse on the line here and say that there are people out there who would rather have benefits than work.

How do I know? Well not so long ago my company recruited for a part time position. We appointed someone who said she actually wanted full time hours but would stick with the part time. When any overtime came up and a full time post was available she then turned round and told us that: She wouldn't work more than 16 hours a week as she'd lost her benefits."

So there you have it. She didn't want to do a full time job because she wouldn't receive benefits anymore.

50% of the welfare bill goes on pensions. just saying.

How much we're you paying per hour paintyourbox? Was it a living wage?

Tsk MadameDefage. You and your facts! Don't you know they just get ignored on this thread?

I'm going to put my arse on the line here and say that there are people out there who will go to a lot of trouble to avoid paying their taxes. Even as far as employing specialist accountants to find loopholes. These loopholes are so lucrative that the expense of an accountant is worthwhile.

Not illegal, but hardly in the spirit of all in this together. Makes working 16 hours a week so you can claim some benefits look like a drop in the ocean though. Shame we're not bothered about developing a culture of pride in contributing fully to our society in our wealthy as well as our poor.

Our basic starts at £7.50 per hour.

We did later find out the real reason she didn't want the extra hours was because of her other cash in hand part-time job.

Hear hear sleepyhead.

So not the benefits at all then. £7.50 an hour is less than £15k a year. Not enough to support and house a family in most places.

That said I do support SMEs who could be employing fewer or no people if they had to pay more. Big profits and low wages is shitty.

Are we talking tax avoidance now? What about HMRC signing off on a deal that saved Goldman Sachs £20m in tax payments and another which cut Vodafone's tax bill from £8bn to £1.25 one rule for the rich and another for the poor and vulnerable who cannot fight for themselves.

paintyourboxFri 05-Apr-13 20:34:04

I'm going to put my arse on the line here and say that there are people out there who would rather have benefits than work.

How do I know? Well not so long ago my company recruited for a part time position. We appointed someone who said she actually wanted full time hours but would stick with the part time. When any overtime came up and a full time post was available she then turned round and told us that: She wouldn't work more than 16 hours a week as she'd lost her benefits."

So there you have it. She didn't want to do a full time job because she wouldn't receive benefits anymore.

IF the overtime that came up was intermittent and irregular it takes too long for the tax credits system to keep up with all the chopping and changing some employers do. And then claimants either get underpaid which causes hardship. Or overpaid which causes hardship when they have to pay it back later on.
Happened to my friend. She did a week of overtime and afterwards because of a tax credits backlog when she declared this overtime they stopped paying the tax credits for TWO MONTHS.
Things are not as black and white as low paying employers seem to think.

Bearbehind if putting NMW up is not the answer then poorer people wont spend.
Then you will have places like Peacocks and The Works closing down due to lack of custom. More unemployment.

darkest Peacocks and The Works aren't going to keep the economy going- increasing NMW just isn't feasible when the economy is on its arse.

We'd all love to earn more but if companies can't afford it, that in itself will cause unemployment.

paintyourbox if the overtime you were offering was intermittent and irregular but the hours in the cash in hand job were regular and guranteed.............well!

See Bearbehind i was right you do think a certain way. The economy wont improve if people DONT have money to spend. And you have the nerve to start a goady OP spouting stereotypes.
And how do you expect people to apply for jobs without a mobile phone. Most employers expect you to have one so they can ger hold of you when theyve finally got some hours for you

darkest I don't think in certain way but I am practical about the realities, where the fuck do you think companies can find the funds to pay a higher increased NMW from when they can barely survive as it is?

As I recall, you spouted 2 stereotypes at me, people on JSA who work more than the maximum allowed hours and flat screen tvs, neither of which I had ever even mentioned so don't accuse me of goading.

I am torn on this subject now, I think it's wrong there is minimal or even negative incentives to work in some instances but I agree the basic cost of living has increased so whatever your income, earned or benefits, doesn't go very far any more and I don't pretend to think I have the answers.

I'd love to hear your logic for how increasing NMR would improve the economy and increase spending. If companies can't afford to pay employees any more and our exports become so uncompetitive that they are priced out of the market- don't you think that will have a far more detrimental effect on people's spending power?

Textbook economics would say that £10 given to a poor person is more likely to be fed straight back into the economy than £10 given to a rich person.
I can't really be arsed to be googling it up right now as it's bedtime, but go ahead if you're interested. It is reasonably interesting. Honest.

I don't doubt the logic in that but the reality is the first tranche of job losses would be those who rely on the money the most so the money wouldn't feed into the economy.

Hahaha, HBOS, and do you hear in the press of the robbery of the people in Cyprus? Do you fuck!

And still, sheeple fall for this bullshit!

It's the poor on benefits who got us in this mess!

Are you really that fucking stupid and ignorant?

Boulevard it's called marginal propensity to consume I think. Poorer people spend a greater proportion than wealthier people.