Bloody hell! I don’t normally read the Telegraph apart from the wonderful Alex cartoon, but this caught my eye.
Unfortunately, the Telegraph most definitely has a bias; fortunately I’m aware of it. So what’s the real deal? I mean, I expect they’re including pensioners, who’ve contributed to the pensions system.
And what does it say about Britain today? I’m all for a safety net. But as a single middle-aged (eep!) wage-earner and taxpayer, I get precious little from the state, and this does seem to be taking the piss.
Well you can always give up your job and go on the dole. What is it, something like 50 quid a week for a single man?
Have you used the NHS? Council services or property? Mortgage relief and on and on. Then you got some money back.
If they are including pensioners and working tax credit and other forms of help that can be classed as benefits then I can see why the number would seem high.
Quite. Working Tax Credits are used to help make it possible for families to get back into work and there are many other sorts like the Child Tax Credit, which replaced Child Support.
And being the Telegraph it’ll be throwing everything in, in an effort to paint the blackest picture possible.
As a single middle class male with a decent income I get plenty from the State.
I got my education, I drive on the roads, I travel on public transport, I have criminals locked up for me, I have the next generations educated so I can continue to live in an advanced economy, I have people given a helping hand so I have to worry less about poverty driven crime, I have a police force, I have an army to attack whoever the current US President feels like attacking this week, I have national research efforts intended to keep the economy ahead of the curve, I have a health service so I’m never one serious illness from destitution, I have a safety net to catch me if I stumble or fall and opportunities for me to get back on my own feet.
I get plenty from the society and I’m happy to pay it without whining on about scroungers and how life isn’t bloody fair for well-off educated white males in the UK.
“In many single-parent homes with two children, the proportion of families that would be financially crippled without state support is now as high as 61 per cent. That compares with just nine per cent in a two-parent home.”
Firstly because the sentence simply doesn’t make sense; but if the point it is trying to make is that single-parent families are more dependent on benefits than two-parent families, how can this possibly be a surprise? From a purely pragmatic angle it is obvious. But then the contempt heaped on single-parent families in papers such as this is legendary. Would they prefer these families to be ‘financially crippled’? That’ll learn 'em…
How doesn’t it make sense? It’s a bit vague, since we don’t know what “financially crippled” exactly means, but it does make sense.
It’s not a surprise that single parent families are more dependant. It is a surprise that they are that dependant! If I heard that “more single parent famlies are dependant on the state than two person families” I’d simply shrug and say of course they are. However, if I hear that “61% of single parent famlies will be financially crippled without state support” I’d be alarmed because that number is so high. Of course, I’d still like to know what “crippled” means, but it doesn’t sound good, does it?
Do you really not see the obvious other option here? Are the choices limited to “financially crippled” or “dependant on the state”? Is there no third option?
Maybe I’m being whooshed, but I’m going to put on my right-wing hat and suggest that they can give the child up for adoption, have had an abortion in the first place, or rely on their family.
I now doff my right-wing hat and return to normality.
Read that first sentence again: “In many single-parent homes with two children, the proportion of families that would be financially crippled without state support is now as high as 61 per cent.”
It implies that in some single-parent homes with two children, that proportion (of the total number of such homes) is lower…
It’s aso worth noting that this only includes single-parent homes with two children. Presumably the statistic for homes with only one child is considerably less dramatic, or that would have been mentioned. And maybe I’m overanalysing this, but it’s not at all clear whether the nine per cent figure applies to all two-parent homes, or just those with two or more children.
“In many single-parent homes with two children, the proportion of families that would be financially crippled without state support is now as high as 61 per cent. That compares with just nine per cent in a two-parent home.”
So up to 61% of families in many single-parent homes are reliant on benefits. As I say, I get the gist, but that first sentence is very poorly constructed.
Obviously financial crippledom isn’t a good thing. And I’m very glad to see that some of the neediest in our society are getting financial support. IANAStatistician, so I cannot be sure, but it could be that more generous benefits of late mean that a larger proportion of families now have other income outweighed by benefit levels. If those families are then automatically interpreted to be ‘financially crippled’ because of the income/benefit ratio, I’m not sure if I agree with the definition - it seems like a circular argument to suit the article’s agenda.
It’s dismal to think of young women aspiring to have kids just to live on benefits, and I’m sure this does go on to some extent, but I’d prefer that to having a welfare state which leaves families on the bread-line.
As for ‘third options’, I suppose you could go along with the hat-wearing Quartz’s suggestions, but it’s a tricky one. Presumably if you could reduce poverty and raise people’s expectations and aspirations sufficiently, the welfare state would purely be a last resort, rather than an acceptable lifestyle option.
Are the Telegraph figures misleading? Almost certainly.
Do we hand our benefits to people that don’t deserve them? Almost certainly.
But i’m so tired of the broad-brush, ill-educated, knee-jerk responses. The reader comments on that article make for scary reading to my eyes. Yes, there are spongers, wasters and cheats. But do you really think they make up one third of UK households?
For example: Of course there is no profit/loss justification for paying for someone’s childcare so they can go work. If there was then the benefits wouldn’t be needed. They can’t earn enough to cover their childcare costs so does that mean it’s better just to leave them to stay at home and not work? Cheaper yes. Better? I don’t think so. These people are not wasters. They go to work for little financial benefit in real terms, in the hope of making a better life. So that one day they won’t have to rely on benefits, or at the very least so they feel they are contributing (even if in reality they are costing more to keep as a result). Yet these people are subject to torrid abuse by the Telegraph reader comments.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t have opinions, and i’m not saying there isn’t anything wrong with the system. I just hate the way every man and his dog seems to know how to run a country and is quick to brand huge groups of people wasters and scum based on a few dubious statistics. It just ain’t that easy folks.
I have no real political affinity, indeed i actually have never ever voted. But i just don’t see why people reckon Labour have ‘raped and destroyed’ our country. I’m 31, i remember the whole of the last Tory reign. I remember being a teenager and feeling like i had no hope of finding a job when i left school. Feeling like there was only hope for the few lucky ones who could make it in the city and the rest of us would rot in the slums. I don’t feel like that now. I don’t worry about finding work anymore. Again, i repeat i’m not saying everything is perfect but i just can’t understand how people can suggest it’s so much worse under Labour than it was under the previous Government. What am i missing?
