Workshy Scrounger

Tag: Minimum wage

Off to the workhouse with them

Metro is following in the footsteps of the Daily Mail. They managed to find one of the 190 families in Britain who have more than 10 children and are merrily letting the commenters bash her. The lady in question is on benefits and apparently wants NHS to help her have her 11th child.

The comments range from “if you cannot afford them, don’t have them” to highly vulgar remarks on the state of her genitals. Bring on the benefit cap, they say. She lives on £21k a year and her partner works. I wish they talked about her expenses: her weekly shopping could probably stock a small corner shop. Her four bedroom house is meant to accommodate so many people. However, if you really think she is so well off, there’s nothing stopping you doing the same thing.

Ms Heaton, 44, insisted she would not take a job because the loss of benefits would leave the family worse off.

That is a fact – if you have any dependants, whether children or a disabled partner, you are quite likely to be better off on benefits than in a poorly paid job. Not even tax credits will make it up to you. Any pay rise you get will effectively be wiped out when your benefits are limited as the result of it. So no matter how hard you work and try to get out of the benefit trap, the sand is always thrown in your eyes. Life on benefits or on minimum wage is a daily struggle so it’s hard to be “patriotic” and prepare to take further cuts in your income. The solution, therefore, is not limiting the benefits but increasing the minimum wage so that people in work are lifted out of poverty and they see the difference between benefits and wages.

What the “discusted” readers are forgetting is that a benefit cap will unfairly punish the children. It’s not their fault that they were born in such conditions (and not, let’s say in IDS’s cushy pad). The wee ones look like sweet kids but how long until they are bullied about their family situation? Let’s not fuel the fire.

It makes me wonder why do these “controversial” families choose to be interviewed by newspapers at all. I would not want my life splattered across the pages for the enjoyment of the masses who would probably gladly attend public executions for the sheer joy of it.


Et tu, Labour, contra me?

Not wanting to stay far behind the Tories, Labour came up with a solution to the soaring benefits bill:

One central idea under consideration is the creation of a flexible payments system offering higher benefits to those who have been employed for longer and have therefore made more national insurance contributions.

What a great thought! Let’s make them (us) all suffer. Those on long-term disability benefits and those who cannot find a job because there are no jobs to be found should live in penury. No job, no status, no human rights. Jumping on the skiver’s lifestyle choice bandwagon to steal some votes from the Tories is morally reprehensible. Is Labour not meant to be a political party representing the working classes?

Why can politicians not see that the only way to make work pay is to increase the minimum wage to a living one? I know that loads of people in work have the same standard of living as my partner and I: poverty. However, lowering our benefits will not make it better. It will just make it seem that those on the minimum wage are better off because they still can choose between topping up their meters or eating. We will just have to chose what to take from supermarket bins so that we can heat it up on a bonfire made from newspapers salvaged from the paper bin.

Labour is also economically wrong – if a person is judged to have insufficient contributions:

– they will not be offered a council house; however, to prevent homelessness the taxpayers will have to pay a private landlord market rates (an extra £100-200 pounds in my area) or for a room in a bed and breakfast;

– they will suffer through no fault of their own – eg if you become disabled and permanently unable to work at the age of 22 – what then?

Social housing and social welfare were introduced to support those unfortunate enough unable to do it themselves. They were not meant to be a reward for health and being lucky in the workplace. You cannot leave us destitute so as to make the working poor look better off on paper.

%d bloggers like this: