not lack of jobs - lack of ambition!

(411 Posts)
eggs11 Wed 09-Jan-13 13:21:34

I know very, very little about politics, and if you can help me see this from a different perspective, please do!

A friend is a labour party member, and we recently had a row.I have a good friend (I like her for her personality, not for her life choices) who had a baby at 16 and is on benefits. She has a now 4 year old, starting school in September. She has a huge two bed flat in london (we would love to live where she does! but couldn't afford it), sky tv, the child has a nintendo ds, new clothes all the time, constant days out. I said it makes me angry that me and DP work (we also had a baby young) really really hard. Firstly, I had to go back after 9months, while she gets to sit on her bum until her kid is 5. Secondly, she gets free childcare! She had 2year old funding and 3 year old funding, while the £50 a day to put my 1year old in nursery makes it barely worth me working.

This is the point where we had a row. My labour friend said that it's not her fault that she's on benefits, there's no jobs to make it worth her working. However, if you spoke to my other friend, she has never even considered working. She said to me last week, when her daughter goes to full time school in sept, she has two options: 1) have another baby and get another 5years 6months, which she's planning on doing. 2)Wait until sept, then she has another 6months on job seekers to get pregnant. HOW IS THAT FAIR????? she isn't even looking after her daughter for the past two years, because she's in nursery. Why does this woman get to sit on her bum with free childcare? Why isn't she made to do voluntary work as a fully abled 22 year old with 10 gcse's, or at least made to go with her daughter to nursery and learn parenting skills, which is what I assume they think she lacks if her daughter gets so much funding!

I'm not saying that everyone on benefits/job seekers allowance isn't looking for work. I know how hard it was for DP to find work, it took months of hundreds of applications. I'm saying that while a life on benefits is so cushty and just relies on a baby every five years, no one has the incentive to work! labours answer was increase the working wage. I disagree, she's comfortable, why would she go out to work just for a few extra quid a week?

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 12-Jan-13 19:58:55

Cash in hand payments are not in themselves against he law nor are they evading tax. Its perfectly legal to hand a person there wages in cash.

It becomes tax fraud if that person is paid in the year enough to qualify paying tax and does not most people would need to be earning more than about £100 pw ( and qualify for ssp,smp ect) to need to pay any tax or NI

ArielThePiraticalMermaid Sat 12-Jan-13 20:02:30

Incidental point: of course cash payments are legal. It's all money for goodness sake. It needs to be declared to make it legal. Our business takes mostly cash and we declare every penny too scared not to.

janey68 Sat 12-Jan-13 20:05:17

I think cash in hand was being used in the sense of it being undeclared income. Of course it's perfectly legal to pay someone cash and for them to declare it and inform the relevant bodies if they are making claims which require it

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 12-Jan-13 20:08:10

Yes it was but the cleaner in question may not have needed to declare it, its wrong to chuck around terms like cash in hand along with implying all cash in hand is illegal, because it is not.

Especially amongst very low earners or ones with limited irregular small amounts of hours

cumfy Sat 12-Jan-13 20:11:41

But I've got a career. I can't afford the same flat as she's got, but in ten years I'll have a big house

You seem to have answered your own question.grin

janey68 Sat 12-Jan-13 20:29:34

Blimey, anyone nowadays who banks on having a big house in 10 years time just because they have a career today must be nuts, considering we're in the midst of pay cuts, pay freezes and businesses going under left right and centre...

ssd Sun 13-Jan-13 10:45:48

true, if she keeps her flat for ten years she's doing well

fuckadoodlepoopoo Sun 13-Jan-13 12:07:18

Why?

janey68 Sun 13-Jan-13 13:02:41

She may keep her flat, but with many private sector jobs having actual pay cuts and public sector jobs having pay freezes ( and I mean cuts not increases below the rate of inflation, and with the fact that interest rates will go up, probably quite a lot as they have been at an all time low, many people are going to struggle to stay in their current property never mind count on getting something better.
That's why her assertion that she "will" be in a better house just because shes working is naive

fuckadoodlepoopoo Sun 13-Jan-13 13:25:57

Oh i thought she meant the one not working and on benefits might not keep her flat, which i didn't understand.

ssd Sun 13-Jan-13 20:26:53

poopoo, no I meant as janey said, though the one on benefits will keep her 3 bed house forever, mark my words, that ones wily as they come, she seems to be recession proof

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now