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

scootw1

Flyboy152 wrote: »

It has already been pointed out to you, more than once.

Post number please as I am obviously thick and have missed it.

zigzigzag

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

May be not overt digs, but plenty of repeats for more information on money - which IS NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT.

Money is mentioned throughout the article! 'Benefits' are money! Goodness me, why is it off-limits to have an open and honest discussion about benefits? I thought that was what the author wanted? This opacity, and telling people they can't ask questions about an article in the public domain, is all a bit baffling and disturbing.

Mrs_Arcanum

zigzigzag wrote: »

Money is mentioned throughout the article! 'Benefits' are money! Goodness me, why is it off-limits to have an open and honest discussion about benefits? I thought that was what the author wanted? This opacity, and telling people they can't ask questions about an article in the public domain, is all a bit baffling and disturbing.

It is mentioned in as much as he is trying to claim DLA and has already said he gets nothing. The heart of the article is about how he is made to feel a benefit scrounger for daring to claim when he needs it. The attitude of potential employers when they see his disability and the general lack of compassion for people in similar situations when they do not know the circumstances.

Yet many seem FIXATED on the money. Given the information he has passed on, of the £11K half of that goes on food and utilities. Leaving the other half to run the 17 year old car (high road tax no doubt as well as poor fuel economy). Clothing and other non food items. TV, internet & phone etc & £11K will leave little or nothing over for a family of 4 who ALL have various medical issues.

He may be in receipt of SMI or HB but that is probably outside what they have to live on. As a family they may also be entitled to more but the degrading, complicated system is such that it seems to thwart them at every turn.

coloquil

i fully understand the need to help people in this predicament what really annoys me is the fact that someone can come to this country and claim immediately for everything, there should be a rule that some money has to have been paid in first,if you ran a business like that you would be bankrupt and we are not far off this no wonder the world likes to send there criminals here:mad:

zigzigzag

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

He may be in receipt of SMI or HB but that is probably outside what they have to live on.

For me and most people, what you 'have to live on' includes paying for housing. And a big part of the article was Ross specifically wanting to counter the idea that he receives £26k; but this £26k includes housing benefit, so for his claims to make any sense, one would need to know whether his £11k includes housing benefit. That's all it is - comparing like for like, that's all.

Mrs_Arcanum

zigzigzag wrote: »

For me and most people, what you 'have to live on' includes paying for housing. And a big part of the article was Ross specifically wanting to counter the idea that he receives £26k; but this £26k includes housing benefit, so for his claims to make any sense, one would need to know whether his £11k includes housing benefit. That's all it is - comparing like for like, that's all.

But he won't be getting £15k for HB or SMI either. If on HB he may even be having to top up the rent from the money he does get. However, this still is not the point of the article. Yes it mentions money, but it is more about how humiliating the process is, not the financial result except to point out he like many others does not get this £26k referred to by the tabloid press.

zigzigzag

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

But he won't be getting £15k for HB or SMI either.

But he can't say he receives £11k rather than £26k, when the latter figure includes HB and the former may or may not.

rellarips

I don't really understand why there are voices asking for a breakdown of benefits, I'll be honest, but it's clearly an important question to some. Is it so that there can be a comparison between those who are working for a minimum wage against those on benefits? Is it so that working tax credits and child tax credits can be discussed and a direct comparison made between groups who are entitled to them and those that are not? Is it an interest in Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit? I just don't really appreciate the signifiance of needing to know one individuals' circumstances when the benefits system is such a minefield and different situations entitle you to different figures. Shouldn't there be a range of situations considered for discussion, if the interest in Ross' income is purely impartial?

Also isn't there a benefits checker available online that should give the people asking this question some idea of what they want to know?

I wonder if this may be a relevant reason as to why some individuals are so interested; I understand that there are people in employment who are as poor, or poorer, than those on benefits. And I can understand why they choose to work as opposed to claiming benefits. The social stigma attached to 'asking for hand-outs' and the loss of pride is, for most, just too much to bear. These individuals are lucky to have that job, and they know that, otherwise they wouldn't accept the pittance that they earn. They clearly realise that having any job right now is a privilege?!!!
Are the people in this thread interested in what Ross is able to claim so that they might compare his income with non-claimants? If so, could I raise the following points:

1. Ross wants to work but you've seen and heard why he hasn't been able to. It's really clear to me what issues he is having to face and how terrible the system can be towards those who have pride and desire to provide their own living, but who are hindered through lifes tough knocks. He wrote the article in order to highlight the issues facing people in his situation; namely the narrow-minded bigots who attack those needing to claim benefits.
2. Ross is not one of the long-term unemployed in this country who happily remain within the long-term unemployed statistics. He is one of the victims of circumstances, that has forced him into having to claim. One day someone will give him a break and he has said he will take it. That puts him in an entirely different light to the 'dole scroungers' (i.e. long term unemployed who happily wish to remain that way)
3. As I see it, the purpose of the article has been to raise awareness of how the system doesn't work for all. Also, to raise awareness of the attitudes of those towards anyone who makes a benefit claim. This article has been a resounding success in highlighting those attitudes, as I (and so many others) have been shocked by some of the replies in this thread and just how people have demonstrated the very attitude under discussion! I had no idea just how cruel and blinkered intelligent people can be.
4. There have been one or two people who keep referring to themselves as 'tax payers' who 'deserve answers'. Could I just point out that we tax payers include those who have worked, and also paid tax, until something bad befell them and they had to make a benefits claim. One day they will once again be working and contributing to the benefits system again and they too will want the taxes they pay to be used wisely. Why do you think that they do not have a vested interest right now, as claimants? They want the system they have paid into, equally and fairly, to renumerate them now they need the help they paid towards. They want the system to do this fairly. They no more want the system abused now they want to claim, than they did when they worked. Most of all, they are not trying to pave the way with good intention towards those who actively choose benefits over working. They are trying to highlight the plights of those who are entitled to benefits as a short-term solution to their work crisis.

I understand the nature of the article was to help us all, not to produce divisions. It's so sad to see that divisions have nonetheless been created as a result.

I mentioned much earlier in the thread, the plight of a lady with cancer, and a gentleman with a serious spinal injury and PTSD. They had both been contributing tax payers who had situations forced on them, situations you wouldn't wish on anyone. They were forced to make benefit claims and suffered the stigma of narrow minded bigots as a result, most namely those who were 'assessing' their validity to make claims. But I also know that they are too ashamed to shout out about having to claim, for fear of reprisal from others.

I will now mention a gentleman who just yesterday was told his company are going into administration. He still has his job, a highly specialist one, but he isn't sure how long for. His home was also burgled three days ago. Bad timing, huh? He's suffering terribly and is so very worried about how he will provide for his wife and two children. He knows the gravity of the jobs market right now.

Heaven forbid that I should ever judge him if he needs to walk into the job centre and 'sign on' to keep bread and butter on the table. And shame on those who feel they do have a right to sneer at those in these situations.

One day it could be you, and who will fight your corner when you've 'defeated' all those fighting for you now?




But what happens if you can't find work, and you have little or no choice but to claim those benefits in order to live?

goodcommonsense

rellarips wrote: »

Also isn't there a benefits checker available online that should give the people asking this question some idea of what they want to know?

The benefits checker gives a higher amount, hence the need for clarification.

Do you accept everything you read on the internet as fact?

zigzigzag

rellarips wrote: »

I don't really understand why there are voices asking for a breakdown of benefits

First, no one is asking for a breakdown. Just a ballpark total.

I have stated the reason several times if you care to read the posts, but I'm happy to do so again: because Ross has stated that he wanted to quash the idea that he receives £26k (proposed benefit cap), which is a figure that includes housing benefit and council tax benefit - but then he says he receives £11k, but doesn't say whether it includes these things. He also states that it's harder to live on £11k than on a full-time wage, but people on full-time wages usually have to pay for housing out of their wages.

Just asking for comparable figures for context, clarity and transparency.