MSE News: 'I'm on benefits but I'm no scrounger'

Oneday77

Hi Ross,

I'm glads to see your posting and clearing up many points raised since yor story was published. I know that I can be a benefits basher but I hope the 2 posts I placed pretty early in the thread didn't come across that way. You have a valid entitlement to the benefits and I in no way said other wise. My issue and from a few posts I read were on how the story came across, not necessarily your fault. The article as a whole pointed out that if you are not working for a valid medical reason then why should anyone judge you, they shouldn't.
The article acheived that goal but the gaps, that you have since filled in, made it look inacurate. Benefits in the main get a bad press, all tarred with the same brush due to generations of families seeing it as a way of life. It is wrong and just like slavery and women's rights times will change. Racism is also a big topic right now, some day the world will move on and wonder why there were any ill feelings. Until then good luck to you.

Mupette

thedrsmisses

I am so sorry that you have had to come onto this forum to justify your family.
I wish your family well for the future and hope things get better,

signed

Another 'benefits scrounger'

Piers125

Some of the people replying to this post seem to know an awful lot about the benefits system. I'm sure some cannot work for various reasons and I have no problem with them claiming benefits, but I also think it's fair to say that some people won't work when they can. They have ruined the system for any genuine claimant like the man above. I have recently had to claim benefits after over 20 years of work and am already tired of being treated like a useless scrounger because of real scroungers. I am only getting about £2000 a year in benefits and I really would much rather be working again. I think it's worth remembering that basic benefits, like JSA, are only supposed to keep you going until you find work. They're not supposed to provide you with a liveable income long-term.

auntie_sal

I just can't believe that people can label this man a 'benefit scrounger' when it is quite obvious that he has a health problem. I admit the ones who say they have things like a 'bad back' or 'depression' can be targeted unfairly as its hard to see whether such things are truly disabling, when they may in fact be a genuine case. But on one TV programme I watched, a woman was having trouble paying the fuel bills, and the programme was to give people tips on how to feed their family cheaply. the woman said 'I don't see why my children should go without (games consuls and designer clothes) just because I am a single mum on benefits' And that is the trouble some people get your back up by expecting to live to the same standard as those who work and do overtime for the extras. It can't and shouldn't be the case, the same as now I am a pensioner I have to lower my living standards.

smellycat_2

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Stop being professionally offended on behalf of others.

A significant number of posters have pointed out, for example, that if £11K is all he's getting at the moment, then he's probably not getting all the help he's eligible for.

A great demonstration of being unsupportive and resorting to offensiveness.
It's a shame when people feel the need to act like this.

zagfles

iamthedoctor77 wrote: »

Please remember, my article was about quashing the myth that we all get £26k a year and the discrimination some of us have to put up with. I wasn't bleeting about not getting enough. That doesn't alter the fact that it is harder to keep a family afloat on £11k a year than it is a full time wage.

I don't think there is such a myth, I remember when the benefits cap was first announced a lot of people were shocked that anyone on benefits got £26k, let alone most or all.

I find the opposite problem with benefits and tax credits, that people underestimate what they'd be entitled to, and the earnings thresholds. People go on about fraudulent claims but it's likely that the govt saves more money through people not claiming what they're entitled to than they lose through fraud. And one of the reasons is people assuming "I earn too much", or "it's not worth claiming as it'll only be a pittance".

I know someone earning close to £20,000 and getting housing benefit, and someone on over £40,000 getting a few thousand in tax credits. But how many others are in similar positions and not claiming because they assume they aren't entitled?

That sort of myth also needs challenging - recently the benefits board has been full of people thinking they won't get tax credits if they earn over £26k (not true if more than 1 child), and single parents panicing they'll lose their WTC because they only work 16 hours (not true - the hours change only applies to couples).

Articles which give an impression of low benefits entitlement are just as bad as articles which claim all benefit claimants are living in the lap of luxury. And your article did exactly that - I realise that wasn't your intention or your point - but people will read it and from it assume a level of benefits for a family in your situation.

Typically an out of work family with 2 kids would get around £14-20k in benefits & tax credits, and that's without any disability benefits. It would be unusual to be entitled to much less, unless they have significant savings or capital.

This is why early in the thread I posted what I thought you ought to be getting in benefits. Not to imply that you are a liar as some have suggested or rubbish your article - and I apologise if it came across that way. Nor did I go scurrying off to entitledto to check - I know the approx figures off the top of my head (yes I am that sad) and instantly knew it sounded far too low.

I appreciate you may not want to disuss your benefits but I seriously suggest you make sure you're getting everything you're entitled to - and I can recommend the benefits board - but maybe use a different AE...

Good luck whatever...

RoughRook

ladyelaine wrote: »

Everybody should have to do 'something' for their benefits, no matter how small their input. Not only would it weed out the work-shy but it would give meaning to those who want to work.

I agree. If they want to work then give them 'work' i.e employment. Employment and not sub-minimum wage or sub-market value benefits for work. As you say yourself, employment "would give meaning to those who want to work."
But if there is this work available for "everybody ...... to do something", then why is no employment available to do such work by those who want to work ?

And, imagine that all these millions of unemployed people could all somehow magically be transformed tomorrow into very employable workers that would tomorrow be direct competitors against those who insist on them working (as a comparison - millions of very employable immigrants suddenly flocking into the country would certainly cause an outcry of 'they're taking our jobs'). These previously unemployed are then knocking on the employers' doors to let them in, and the employer has no valid reason for turning them away because they tick all the right boxes (and maybe some more). Who would feel vulnerable and under threat then?

ladyelaine wrote: »

Our priorties should be for the underclass of people who work but are finacially penalised because they have pride.

I thought underclass was a stereotype applied to to the f e c k l e s s and ferel, not to those that have pride.

ladyelaine wrote: »

One other point, why are we paying people to have children? Have as many as you like...just don't ask me to pay for them!

Then don't expect these children, who through no fault of their own entered this world, via their future taxes have anything to do with funding your own state pension and possible help you may need in your own future. Maybe these children you mention will not want to pay for all these people getting old all over the place if they have a similar attitude.

ladyelaine wrote: »

As someone who has several members of my family on benefits, I know only too well how easy it is to con the system.
!

Maybe you should report your relatives so that the 'broken system' you refer to can begin to be repaired.

zagfles

aimeeb30 wrote: »

I think the goverment is the one to answer the questions really. After a bad accident my husband is unable to work. We went to an ESA medical and the reply we got was that my husband would be able to work for half an hour and then would need a rest of over an hour before repeating this again. I can not think of anyone who would employ someone with these restrictions can you???

We are phoned up job seekers which was what DWP said to do in the letter. Firstly they told us that until my husband had recieved his last payment we couldn't be seen by them and that secondly they would not be able to find him a job because of their recimendations.

I went out and managed to find a job that was term time only so i would be able to take my kids to school and pick them up and look after them during school holidays, This was £5000 annum. I went to the CAB today to find out what we would be intitled to by way of help giving that our housing association rent is £5000 a year without council tax and other bills. To find out that basically we would be worse off than living off benefits something neither of us wants to do.
After talking to a friend today who is a single parent i was shocked to learn that although my self and my husband get £105 a week she gets £67.50 and then is entitled to extra child tax credits because she is a single parent which means she gets more money each week for herself than both my husband and i get togeather.
Therefore in affect the goverment actually penialises those who are trying to live as a couple. This is how i feel that the goverment is failing. My friend even admitted that if the goverment was to top people up to what they would get on income support ie free school meals, full housing benefit and council tax benefit to the amount that they are on now then the majority of people would be in work. I now have a very hard decision on my hands start my £5000 a year job or stay as we are on benefits. I would rather do the first and will work hard to find a way but the last time i got a job i put us into a lot of debt due to it being too low. As i write this i am in tears as i really don't know what to do.
By the way we do not get dla or anything else we get
£105 income support
£47 child benefit
£152 child tax credit
£29 council tax benefit
£89 housing benefit
total £422 a week totaling £21,944 a year

if i go to work we would get
£98 wages
£47 child benefit
£152 Child tax credit
£67 working tax credit
total £364 a week total £18,928 a year
putting us into debt by £3016 a year. If someone can help us then it would be benefical because i am stuck in the benefits trap at the moment and i do not like it at all

You would still get housing benefit and council tax benefit if you worked, though they'd be reduced a bit. You shouldn't be any worse off working (except maybe if you have high travel to work expenses).

Check the turn2us calculator https://www.turn2us.entitledto.co.uk/entitlementcalculator.aspx

zagfles

aimeeb30 wrote: »

Because i would be working 16 hours a week my husband wouldn't be entitled acourding to the job centre

When the CAB worked it out we wouldn't get because of getting working tax credit cancels out housing and council tax benefit

They've worked it out wrong. HB & CTB are reduced by tax credits but they won't be wiped out completely based on the figures you posted.

nell2012

Just to say first off that I do feel for the man having to defend and explain why he is on benefits, I do hope your situation improves. with regards to the government trying to put people off sickness benefits thats complete rubbish. They are currently transferring a huge number from Incapacity Benefit to ESA simply because the majority on Incap benefit have been left for many years without having been assessed. Some original sick lines provided where for migraines, tooth abscess, viral infections, etc etc going back as far as 1995 for these minor illnesses. Low Back Pain or back pain is another favourite, check a bit further and while this back pain has stopped them working, it certainly didn't stop them producing more children. I personally think the cap is still to big. More realistic would be 20,000 doesnt matter how many children they have. Then they can live in the real world like the rest of us. If you can't provide for the children you have, don't have anymore while on benefits and expect the tax payer to foot the bill!