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

scootw1

Okay, the thedrsmissus has now been on and told us that she will not be telling us whether the £11K includes houding or not. Ross states that he has to support his family on £11K but this is totally untrue if he receives Housing and council tax benefit which would push him much closer to the £26K myth that he wants to quash. Many people in this thread have stated that the article was not about the money but there is a section in there as follows:

'Ridiculous myth'
Since the debate on capping benefits at £26,000 a year, people seem to think all benefits recipients get that. I wish. I have two young children and a partner to support on a smidgen over £11,000 a year.



so some of the article is obviously to do with money. People have not been nasty about all this and yes we have repeated the question as we feel we have not had an answer. It's obvious that we are not going to get an answer so I can't really take this article as seriously as I might had the question been answered.

poppy10_2

thedrsmisses wrote: »

i do wish everyone could get over the money issue as thats not what this is about

If it's not about the money, why did hubby write this?

Since the debate on capping benefits at £26,000 a year, people seem to think all benefits recipients get that. I wish. I have two young children and a partner to support on a smidgen over £11,000 a year. Someone on Twitter said they would happily give up work and stay in bed for £11,000. Go on, then. Try to maintain any kind of lifestyle.

It was Ross himself that made this about money. If he had simply made the point that he deserves his payouts and he is not a scrounger, then I'm sure no-one would have disagreed with him. But by making this about money, claiming he is supporting an entire family on £11,000 a year, he himself has made his own case weaker. It's hard to trust anything he says when the figures are patently false and the 'clarifications' from him and from you are so deliberately evasive.

Mrs_Arcanum

Dunroamin wrote: »

No, he said he gets DLA lower rate care.

Yes I miss read this, however, he did state he got low rate care component & NO Mobility or Carers Allowance.

Be that as it may, it still does not excuse the appalling way people who NEED help from the benefit system are treated. Either by the press with their sensationalist comments or by strangers in the street, potential employers and others.

zigzigzag

thedrsmisses wrote: »

again no one is "getting" the point Its not about the MONEY its about the STIGMA! I have already stated that we claim everything we are entitled to.

you want a ballpark figure??? that figure is a smidgen over 11k! neither me nor Ross will be telling you what benefits that includes as it is none of your business. ....

the government and press would have you believe that everyone on benefits is on 26k or more, which has in turn caused more stigma and benefit bashing ...

... It is not open for discussion and never will be, if you do not like that fact then i suggest you dont read this thread any further.

With the greatest respect thedrsmisses - I wish you could see that myself and many people here are on your side, and that it is a very fair question for us to ask.

If you want to say that you don't receive £26k, fine - but then to put forward the figure of £11k, which seems to us very low, obviously makes many of us think you (and others in your situation) are possibly deserving of and entitled to more, as it seems almost impossible to pay for housing out of that. Are we to think that all families of 4 on benefits receive so little, and have to pay for everything out of this? That is a terrible thought. But that is what you are telling us.

The stigma in society comes in large part from people not knowing the realities of benefits, not knowing what people receive and why, suspicion, conjecture and lack of facts - and I thought that was largely what your husband's article was written for, to give the reality and to dispel myths. But in leaving this question unanswered, it's created further confusion. I don't see the problem in clarifying this one small area, rather than getting so angry at those of us who have engaged with the article enough to discuss the issues.

If your husband didn't want to discuss these issues, that's unfortunate and I can't understand why, because there's no shame in collecting housing benefit or any other type of benefit, and this is supposed to be an open and honest discussion about benefits. I don't understand the intense level of defensiveness and hostility, especially towards people on here who genuinely only wanted to help, and others like me who just want to understand the facts. If I wrote an article about my income, I would expect readers to want to be sure I was including income from all sources, otherwise it would be pointless. You put the information out there in the form of an article, it's only natural for people to have questions; you can't now just say it's none of your business.

Maybe it would be better just to say that you feel like society thinks you receive £26k, but in reality you receive less (without mentioning a figure at all).

Derivative

The entire debate centers around the amounts of money involved.

The reason why people are being called benefit 'scroungers' is that, whether true or not, it is percieved that working families are worse, or not much better off, in monetary terms.

I think people would do best to ignore those calling people 'scroungers', 'scum', or any of the other various terms on show. It is playground antics, flinging mud around.

Ignoring the foolish name-calling and debating the figures is surely more progressive.

Appeals to emotion are quite frankly also besides the point. A poster above has mentioned that they'd rather not be disabed, thus justifying the benefit claims - "swap with me if you think it's so easy".

I think that's a silly line of argument. I wouldn't swap places with the Queen because she's likely only got ten or twenty years left. That doesn't mean she's living on the edge now does it?

The only thing worth debating is the amount of money on offer. I'm not sure what else there actually is to discuss?

thedrsmisses

goodcommonsense wrote: »

To clarify any misunderstanding, and hopefully it will help you also. Your husband appears to wish to pursue his enjoyment of writing. He will not be able to do this if he is unable to justify/ quantify his assertions.

Yes he will he wants to write not be a journalist

poppy10 wrote: »

If it's not about the money, why did hubby write this?



It was Ross himself that made this about money. If he had simply made the point that he deserves his payouts and he is not a scrounger, then I'm sure no-one would have disagreed with him. But by making this about money, claiming he is supporting an entire family on £11,000 a year, he himself has made his own case weaker. It's hard to trust anything he says when the figures are patently false and the 'clarifications' from him and from you are so deliberately evasive.

to point out that not all claimants get 26k. we are not being evasive we just dont want to declare every aspect of our financial situation

scootw1 wrote: »

Okay, the thedrsmissus has now been on and told us that she will not be telling us whether the £11K includes houding or not. Ross states that he has to support his family on £11K but this is totally untrue if he receives Housing and council tax benefit which would push him much closer to the £26K myth that he wants to quash. Many people in this thread have stated that the article was not about the money but there is a section in there as follows:

'Ridiculous myth'
Since the debate on capping benefits at £26,000 a year, people seem to think all benefits recipients get that. I wish. I have two young children and a partner to support on a smidgen over £11,000 a year.



so some of the article is obviously to do with money. People have not been nasty about all this and yes we have repeated the question as we feel we have not had an answer. It's obvious that we are not going to get an answer so I can't really take this article as seriously as I might had the question been answered.

1 paragraph mentions money the main point of the article is about the stigmas and benefit bashing. and yes most of you have been nasty yourself and poppy10 included by calling us liars we have been told not to discuss what that figure includes which is what we are doing as that was not the point of the article.

i will say again if you dont agree with what he has written then thats your choice, if you cant make the figures add up thats YOUR problem not ours the DWP seem to think we are getting all we are entitled to, if you think thats wrong take it up with them.

But be secure in the knowledge that as soon as Ross has recovered from his op he will be back at work and no longer claiming your hard earned taxes. i just hope that none of you ever have to go through what we have been through in the last few days. i wouldnt wish your treatment on my worst enemy

Derivative

thedrsmisses wrote: »

to point out that not all claimants get 26k. we are not being evasive we just dont want to declare every aspect of our financial situation

Whether or not you get 26k is besides the point.

£11k is a false figure because you are ignoring housing benefit and other costs which working families have to pay.

That is the issue.

If you don't want to declare your financial situation, then surely disclosing half of it and claiming that's the lot is disingenious?

goodcommonsense

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

Either by the press with their sensationalist comments or by strangers in the street, potential employers and others.

Is the article in question not sensationalist? It is designed to provoke a reaction, just as those in the Daily Mail et al are.

thedrsmisses wrote: »

Yes he will he wants to write not be a journalist

to point out that not all claimants get 26k. we are not being evasive we just dont want to declare every aspect of our financial situation

What is the difference between a journalist and a writer? Can the latter get away with unsubstantiated statements?

There is no point in stating that you get less than £26,000, but then refusing to explain what you do get. It makes the first statement worthless and casts significant doubt on your story. To make it clear, I am not suggesting that you do get £26,000, but without adding any substance to the story any amount that you claim is meaningless.

thedrsmisses

thedrsmisses wrote: »

let me ask you, would knowing what proportion of our benefit was made up of housing benefit make the discrimination better or worse?

yet again guilty until proven innocent

from my earlier comment, this clearly states that the 11k includes hb did any of you read that far down???? im thinking you didnt

goodcommonsense

thedrsmisses wrote: »

from my earlier comment, this clearly states that the 11k includes hb did any of you read that far down???? im thinking you didnt

No, it does not. You do not state a proportion, and as such that figure could be zero.

If the £11,000 includes HB then you are clearly not receiving your full entitlement.