You are right in the fact that she is legally obtaining these funds due to government policy, but as most of the posters stated, they are not blaming her for this fact.
What some have done is question her continued expenses if she is in debt, such as hairdressing, two cars, mobile phones, two cars and food budget.
I think a lot of people are also constantly surprised at how much you can actually get from the state. Most of us assume that it is around a miserly £76/week as is often the figure wailed by the benefactors when accused of being "lazy and work-shy".
The backlash the OP received was not directed personally but as a result of people being surprised and then angered at this. I mean there are plenty of professional people working with salaries up to £25,000/year struggling to make that kind of income without even contemplating looking at the property ladder, let alone kids.
My point was the type of message this setup was sending: running a business with this risk adverse support does not make you think, develop and operate the business in the means required to make it stronger and more competitive.
Socially, as we’ve seen in the media, welfare is creating generations of an atrophied workface tied to the state and nurtured by the taxpayer. When faced with the two distinct paths of employment or state welfare, it seems harder each year to justify the work, indebtedness and toil and develop the basic attributes to enter the workforce, as these are certainly not the ones encouraged by the government’s actions.
What some have done is question her continued expenses if she is in debt, such as hairdressing, two cars, mobile phones, two cars and food budget.
I think a lot of people are also constantly surprised at how much you can actually get from the state. Most of us assume that it is around a miserly £76/week as is often the figure wailed by the benefactors when accused of being "lazy and work-shy".
The backlash the OP received was not directed personally but as a result of people being surprised and then angered at this. I mean there are plenty of professional people working with salaries up to £25,000/year struggling to make that kind of income without even contemplating looking at the property ladder, let alone kids.
My point was the type of message this setup was sending: running a business with this risk adverse support does not make you think, develop and operate the business in the means required to make it stronger and more competitive.
Socially, as we’ve seen in the media, welfare is creating generations of an atrophied workface tied to the state and nurtured by the taxpayer. When faced with the two distinct paths of employment or state welfare, it seems harder each year to justify the work, indebtedness and toil and develop the basic attributes to enter the workforce, as these are certainly not the ones encouraged by the government’s actions.
Comment