"Hard working families"

But where does that leave the working poor, those who work a full week, many doing several small jobs and very unsociable hours to try to make ends meet, but who still don't scrape together enough to get by without a few pounds of benefit to top it up? To me, it comes across as a big insult to a lot of people.

I think that's a bit cynical, MamaCaz. All those you mention definitely come under the heading of 'hard working families', why would they feel insulted? All families who claim Child Benefit and/or working tax credits are in receipt of 'benefits' but no one would class them as scroungers.

Ana: they feel insulted because like it or not, know that they are part of the "benefits culture" that our politicians have been constantly been vilifying for the past few years.

Oops, I missed out a word there: ... they know that they are part of the "benefits culture" ...!

I don't think they do. Certainly not all of them. My DD is a single mum who works full time in a demanding job. She claims child benefit and working tax credit, but in no way considers herself to be a part of the 'benefits culture'.

All those of us who were in receipt of child benefit were presumably also part of that culture? And those of us who are pensioners?

Interesting, Ana. Child benefit and working tax credit are definitely part of the welfare budget that is (supposedly) being cut. I agree with you that most people don't see them as "benefits", but when it comes down to it, you have to wonder why not.
I don't think pensions can be looked at in the same way, because (most) people have been directly contributing to those for many years. Of course, other pensioners' benefits, such as pension credit, are another matter.

Still talking about the working poor, I wonder, why are different benefits and their recipients viewed in such different ways?

Just out of interest, Ana, how would your DD (and you, too) feel if she was also in receipt of Housing Benefit?
Would you or she then think that she was part of the benefit culture?

I'm just curious, as it would be interesting to know where the line is crossed, which benefits are seen as morally acceptable for a working person to receive, and which are not.

I don't think it's a question of which benefits, MamaCaz, it's more that any family unit where one or more is in employment could and should be classed as one of those 'hard-working families'.

The working poor get just as angry about so-called benefit scroungers, i.e. those who choose not to work but to live on benefits because they can. I'm not talking about the unemployed who are desperately trying to find jobs.

It is a question of which benefits, no one thinks of child benefit as being on benefits , just a new name for family allowance and only recently has it not been available to the wealthiest as well as the poorest. Housing benefits, council tax benefits , unemployment benefits are looked upon quite differently

The number of working people needing to claim Housing Benefit has doubled over the last five years.

If I were in that group, I would definitely feel excluded from, and take exception to, the "hard-working families" mantra.

Difficult decisions is another one, along with meritocracy and a rising tide floats all boats.

A rising tide may float all boats, but poor people are not interested that they're better off than their grandparents or a mediaeval peasant farmer, they're comparing themselves against richer peers.

The idea of a meritocracy in which "you too can win the race if you just run a bit harder" sounds rational when it's put like that, but the implication is that if everyone runs harder they will all win the race, which is nonsense. In a meritocratic utopia where everyone runs as fast as they can someone will still come last, and by the lights of the meritocracy, they'll still be "lazy good-for-nothings" who deserve their position in society.

The psychology of self-serving bias is relevant here: my successes are the product of my own hard work, yours are just luck. Your failures are of your own doing, mine are just misfortune.

Oh, yes, HARD WORKING FAMILIES, grr grr grr. It is so-ooo-oooo bl...y patronising. Surely these politicias must have people to advise them 'Don't use that phrase - it is worn out and just annoys the voters.' IMO it just goes to show how out of touch they really, really, are.

I mean politicians!

crun, DH thinks that "difficult" and "decisions" have a hyphen between them in politician-speak, as the combination is used so often

And have you noticed how they never have 'problems' - only 'challenges'?

"Hard working families" eh? I'm still hard at work at 63! I wish I wasn't, but I don't know when I won't have to work. We don't have any private pensions as we've never been able to afford to pay into them. When DH retires next year we will have the state pension and the Co-op pension to live off. When is the government going to increase the state pension to bring it in line with wages. My state pension is about one quarter of my working salary. How are you supposed to pay mortgage, council tax etc. and manage to live on that. I am dreading old age.

I would like a party who would ban zero hours contracts. They seem to be the root of all sorts of problems.
I assume the employers have an advantage re: less or non payment of National insurance contributions.

x

How is it that some people in receipt of Working Tax Credit see themselves as somehow different from those who, for instance, receive Housing Benefit? Surely if it is paid by the government and has no contributory element, as pensions do, it is, in effect, a benefit?

Working Tax Credit and Housing Benefit are needed in order for people to be able to house, clothe and feed themselves. I think instead of this constant harping on about the so-called benefit culture, shouldn't we be asking why many very large and highly profitable companies are not paying people enough money to live on and are instead expecting their workers' wages to be subsidised by the state?

Exactly, Eloethan. I like the way that all those people who have signed up to the letter saying that the Tories are doing okay by them are earning millions, many of them taxed off-shore.
What's wrong with giving people more money for working for them so they do not have to claim tax credits? What's wrong with ensuring that people get enough pay to enable them to pay their rent? In other words a living wage.
I have never understood that tax credit system. It's a way of ensuring that many people do not claim them because it is so cumbersome. That's why so many pensioners do not claim pension tax credit. It smacks of welfare, a word which this government has brought back in.

Was talking yesterday to a young Mum, she had started work in January in local tea rooms, she was told Monday no work for her this week - zero hours contract - the employer has his daughter on school hols doing the job. This young mum will now have two weeks without an income , she was in tears because she had gained some self respect not relying on the food bank , yet we are expected to understand the problems of this business man and ignore the distress of the young mother . Unemployment down my foot , it's the same as the thirties when men turned up at the pit head every morning in the hope of work, if not, the soup kitchen queue

Exactly, Anniebach, and the Tories think there is no problem with them as lots of people like zero hours contracts.
When I had a cafe, I had students working for me during the holidays, but only for those who wanted the holidays off and could afford it. It was never enforced. But I never had zero hours contracts over 2o years ago. They had proper contracts with proper hours, which could be switched when necessary.
Too many workers are seen as dispensible these days.
Tory contempt for workers is shown by the fact that Cameron cannot even be bothered to debate his party's manifesto promises.

Seems to me it is just a way of disguising the unemployment figures (zero hours contract, that is).

I can't imagine how much stress some of these people on zero hours contracts must be under. How on earth is a person supposed to survive if they cannot depend on a minimum number of hours' work, when the benefit system does not have the flexibility and speed of response to compensate for the periods during which a person has no employment income?

I cannot understand why there is not an outcry about the sort of cruel situation that Anniebach describes and which is probably causing great anxiety to thousands of individuals and families.

Those who say that people on zero hour contracts form only a tiny percentage of employed people, seem to be ignoring the fact that their numbers are increasing and unless something is done to curb these contracts, many more employers will introduce them.

The zero hours question is one that I plan to ask anyone who canvasses for my vote. Not that any party has ever asked me!

It Dickensian, I am also concerned about the financial gain made at the taxpayers expense when the employers avoid their NI contribution by employing ' casual workers'.

x

It is a way of disguising employment figures NoTooOld, a person on a zero hours contract may only get four hours work but they are no longer unemployed, Cameron keeps saying they suit students but students do not have a home to keep. It must be hell never knowing from one week to the next if you can pay the rent, no plans for even the immediate future can be made, if you receive pay for working five days dare you spend because next week and following week you may not earn a penny or just have two hours work, it's brutal and I don't understand how anyone can defend it . Imagine being on a pension but never knowing if it will be paid weekly. Little wonder those big businesses signed that letter supporting the Tory party

If you're offered a zero hour contract I assume they'll stop your benefits if you don't take it, even if it's not enough to live on?

I wouldn't begrudge a student a zero hours contract, it seems a responsible thing to do to get some sort of work to defray their costs.

I wonder if the result of banning them will be that many of the people on them will be given very low hours contracts but be expected to work more hours when they employer wants them to. As the average hours on these contracts is around 25 per week we must assume some are getting very long hours.

Maybe now that we have more people employed than ever before employers will have to tempt people to work for them and the boot will be on the other foot. That is what is happening round here. An apprentice I know was made redundant because his company folded and he was instantly offered 3 jobs. He took the one which offered him good prospects and paid £2k a year more than he was on with the first company. We have 1.1% unemployment.