Buying dolls with social security/welfare money?

I'm sure this thread will be locked soon enough the way it's going but can I just say that I obviously don't agree with people claiming benefits who aren't entitled to them, if I could work I'd be working believe me. Those of us who are genuinely entitled to disability benefits (and it is actually quite hard to get what you are entitled to despite what you may think) get quite upset when we are lumped in with the 'dole scroungers'. It's hard enough having a disability without people looking down their noses at you and thinking that anything more than bread and water is a luxury you don't deserve.

 

Shout/bitch at me all you like, but to be perfectly honest I don't think anyone from the UK, (I don't know about what happens in other countries) has any right to spend benefit money on anything other than what it is designed for.

I went on benefits once, Jobseeker's Allowance to be exact. Despite the fact that I had a summer job from 14-16 and then worked part time 16-18 around college then full time 18-20 I had a whopping 8 weeks of £21 per week to live off before they decided that because the job I quit my previous job for fell through I "wasn't entitled" to that measly £21.

If you can get enough from welfare to fund a hobby this expensive you have GOT to be working the system. If you get JSA it's frack all, I can tell you. If you get Disability Living Allowance then that is different, but from my experience with the many friends I have who have legitimate disabilities there is hardly anything left after spending it on the things it was created for to spend on frivolous things like BJDs, but whatever IS left over you are more than welcome - in my eyes - to save it and spend it on whatever the hell you please. DLA is probably the ONLY benefit where I am perfectly happy for the recipient to spend it the way they like. If you get any allowance for having Children then WHAT THE HELL are you doing spending it on anything but your kids, regardless of whether you have 'earned' it or not??

I work REALLY hard for the money I spend on my hobby, and I go without a hell of a lot of things I would like to have in order to fund it. So you know what? It IS my place to judge. MY taxes pay for benefits, and the benefit system shoved a giant indescribable pink thing up my @$$ when I needed them. The government takes money out of MY WAGES, money I EARN and WORK HARD for, and put it into their pot for things like benefits etc. None of the people I know on legitimate benefits, even when they live in a council house, get housing benefits, child benefits, jobseekers benefits and everything else, can afford to do much in the way of luxury, let alone drop $500 on a luxury item. Heck, most of the ones that get a 'lot' save that money so they can afford to give their kids all the xmas and birthday gifts they want so they don't feel 'poor', or have a special meal once a month where they get meat from a butcher's instead of the cack they sell in supermarkets, or so they can take their kids out for their birthday etc etc etc.

Ok, maybe if you're in receipt of JSA & DLA and live with parents who don't ask for any kind of contribution you may be able to afford luxury items, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD. Think about maybe covering some bills for your folks, or doing the odd food shop instead of letting them carry your ass while you buy shiny things that serve absolutely no purpose.

I am NOT out of the class that has to apply for benefits, by no means. Despite enjoying an expensive hobby I don't actually have tons of cash to just throw around. I live on the edge, you know? I understand the 'dolls = happiness' thing, but I wouldn't buy a doll if it meant starving or sending my kids to school in too-small clothes or whatever. I KNOW people who have to live on benefits, and it really, truly sucks. But that doesn't give anyone the right to say "instead of paying my rent this month I'm gonna buy a ridiculously expensive luxury item because it makes me happy."

And I'm not sorry for not tiptoeing around this subject: "ohh it's not up to me what people spend their money on, ohh it's not for me to judge etc etc etc ad nauseam" because I feel very strongly that the benefits system in this country (UK) is messed up and that YES you deserve to be given enough money to live on and YES it's hard to get a job right now and YES you shouldn't be penalised for there being a zillion people wanting the same job you do; but likewise I spend enough money on this hobby of my own volition, without my TAXES going to YOU to spend on this hobby too and if you get enough from benefits to do all that and can still afford to buy BJDs (or going out every week and getting wasted or getting your hair done every week [something I can hardly afford to do once every two months even when I don't have layaways to pay off] or buying a new TV or games consoles or phone or any number of other pricey luxuries) then you seriously need to think about your priorities.

Sadly in this country it is all too easy to reach a point where you're better off on benefits than working full time and there are too many people willing to sit back and let the rest of us fund their lifestyle.

I don't begrudge anyone their benefits, I happily pay my taxes knowing much of that money goes to ensure that people poorer than me or who can't get a job for whatever reason will still be fed and housed and warm. I do object very strongly, however, when people misuse their benefits or who find ways around the system so they're getting more than they're entitled to. It ticks me off, and I'm not sorry.

(On a similar note; this is why I rarely ask for a BJD item to be marked down. I do sometimes but mostly I'm willing to pay the taxes - or would be if it wasn't so damned hit-and-miss. But that's another subject, just related to the whole taxes malarky.)

I do think this subject has been done to death though. I don't think any of us can say anything now that hasn't been said before

 

I agree entirely and, strangely, it seems much harder to get disability benefits than Job Seekers Allowance. I've applied for them myself, when I couldn't work due to having a broken leg, pelvis and skull, and still couldn't get them. I think the vast, vast majority of people legitimately claiming disability allowance would rather work and have no disability!

I hope it DOES get locked soon. I'm guilty for veering off-topic, but there's very little to say about the matter other than comparing systems.

 

"If you can get enough from welfare to fund a hobby this expensive you have GOT to be working the system"
Ehryn..not sure if any of that was aimed at me personally but I can assure you I am not 'working the system', I have a long term lifetime disability, I do get DLA and I don't have children so maybe that explains a little. The money I get is primarily used for bills, rent, food etc, BJDs are pretty much the only luxury which are saved and saved for, I don't go on holiday, own a TV, go out socially, own a car etc etc so that's how it's possible for me to buy dolls.

 

I used to be on SS when I was younger because of my health problems I don't wish to discuss. And you use it as you need it. At the time I need clothes and food. Yes I had extra spending money which I used to go to the movie and I did save up to buy figures and go to Anime Boston. So it's really up to the person. I did stop payment when I was 19 and started working. I could still be on it but I decided I wanted to move pass my disability but there are some people who cannot move pass it. And some people use these dolls as an outlit to be normal or feel part of an community. So I say it's health for them to use the money however it makes them happy. Most people on SSI wish they were normal like I did.

 

Halequin-Elle - That's not strictly true about people in the UK being able to claim benefits if they never pay tax. We all have to pay National Insurance Contributions from leaving school to retirement. Those who don't pay, or don't pay enough, are excluded from claiming higher rate benefits and will not be eligible for the full retirement payment when they get to that age. You can't leave school and just get a flat if you have parents or family living in the same county. You have to have been thrown out by relatives and be classed as homeless before being put on a register to be eligible for social housing, you would have to live in a homeless shelter while waiting to get to the top of the list.

In areas where the shelters are overcrowded even very young people wind up living on the streets. The only exceptions to these rules are young girls who get pregnant, they are offered social housing more quickly if they do not have parents/family to live with because our social security system is geared to helping children. This is why single childless men make up the highest proportion of our ever growing homeless population in the UK. Yes, there are many people who abuse this system to their own ends, but that doesn't mean it is particularly easy or that benefits are that high, certainly not for those who do not have children. Those that appear to have a lot of spare cash are working on the side whilst claiming benefits, which, of course, is against the law. The problem with our system is that it is too complicated and there are so many ways for the devious to exploit the loopholes.

Back on topic, I have been self-employed for most of my adult life and paid plenty of Tax into the system. Once or twice in the last 25 years I have been briefly unemployed and yes I have claimed the state benefits I was entitled to. I have never had ANY cash left over and in fact found myself spiralling into debt until I could get back into work. I have no children and so there are very few benefits I am entitled to despite having paid all that tax for so many years. The only time I have ever had money to spare was 5 years ago when I suddenly became so ill I was classed disabled for just over a year and yes, during that time I did buy a few BJDs. I don't begrudge anyone who is genuinely ill/disabled enough to qualify for full Disability and Incapacity Benefit (they have changed the name of the benefit now I think) spending any money they have left over on whatever they want because it's their money and no-one else's business.

 

I'm sorry, I stand corrected on that point- I was not aware that earpieces could be bought at such a low price. I am not beholden to brand names myself, but the earpieces are not something I've shopped for at length either. I will say that the woman in question also had two nose piercings, and I do have some experience in the field and know that body piercings usually start at $20-$40 apiece. That being said, as was suggested earlier, a friend could have done the piercings for her at no charge. At the time, she was also interested in buying some items from the organization that I was volunteering with. But you know what, it's not for me to judge.

I will, however, refer once more to the gentleman that my dad used to work with that quit his job before he received a pay raise so his family could keep receiving welfare benefits. That was an individual that my dad knew personally because he worked with him. Of course this isn't the case with everyone on welfare, and maybe not even those that have amenities that from an outsider's standpoint look "too expensive" for them to afford. The main point is that there are people who legitimately need the assistance and use it properly, and there are others that abuse it. Sadly that's a fact of life.

 

As fun as using mostly purely anecdotal evidence that I've seen in this thread, I think it is much wiser to actually educate oneself on the pros and cons of social welfare systems/states instead of just hashing out judgements based on personal experiences or hearsay. Their links to things like poverty, unemployment, health, education, etc..... are key things to consider. Statistical analyses and endless papers have been written on the subject, many of which are open to the public for examination for free. It may help to formulate opinions on solid facts. Systems are used and abused; capitalism is no different, and neither is anything else for these terms.

That being said, everyone is of course entitled to their own opinions.

I would only say that I prefer the existence of a social safety net to be there for me when I need it. Anything else is a small price, for me.

 

.

Yes indeed and it's pretty difficult to tell the two groups apart. Also, a previous poster mentioned government officials caught bilking the system in the UK, which also happens here in the US. Rotten people are rotten people, and they exist at every socioeconomic level.

I would like to see statements about it "happening all the time" backed up with fact rather then anecdotal evidence about "this one lady I know" or "this guy my dad worked with", etc. What if those are the rare exceptions and the vast majority of people enrolled in welfare programs really need them and are using them responsibly? Or, as another poster mentioned, it's worth putting up with the few cheaters to ensure that most kids in your country go to bed with food in their bellies.

Maybe your (general "your") few observations or stories you've heard have made you cynical and you should do a little more research or talk to a few more people before painting with such a broad brush. Or maybe you're correct and the mythical welfare queen runs rampant. Either way, if your opinions have been formed on anything less then cold hard fact, maybe you'd at least consider doing further research before holding said opinions.

Anyway.. the perspectives in this thread have been interesting.

 

Since most of you think that benefits are only for the necessities then how about some one buying juice? Underwear? Books? Pens? Computer? Cell-phone? Toys for children? bed sheets? furniture? make-up? jewelry? Keeping pets? All these things you can survive without. So in many peoplse minds a person should only but the necessary things which is food ( mainly rice, porridge, wheat and such, since everything else can be counted as non essential for survival), water and a cloack to put on when its cold.

What if there is a person with severe depression on benefits and the only thing that makes them happy is a beautiful doll? Or doesn't that matter since all you people are paying for the taxes and therefore have the right to say who gets the money and who doesn't?

I am lucky to live in a country where we help everyone and no one needs to starve or live under a bridge. For this I am MORE THEN HAPPY to pay taxes from the money I make so those less fortunate then me can also afford even a little luxury item every now and again...

I'm very happy that there are many people here who have a good heart and they see that all people deserve the right to a good life. And it makes me very sad, and scared really to notice so many people who really don't even know what they are talking about.

Surely there are bad people also getting loads off money, they aren't all on benefits you know... And not every one on benefits (read most) are doing it for the fun of it. Example my mom never had any money, she raised three children by working like a crazy person until she was was hospitalized while trying to get her children what they needed. And all this time my father, living with us, married to my mother, never gave a cent into raising his children. If my mother would have been able to get benefits then she would haven and should have!

And I must say that I think this topic is clearly ment for other places then for this forum. Clearly it raises up strong emotions on all sides but this kind of hostility against people on benefits is ridiculous and shows how little people really do know about the world. I just hope someone that is on benefits never reads this.

 

@Feliara: I think your example is a little extreme. The basics may be food/water/clothes/shelter, but there are some things that can be considered acceptable expenses because society expects them. Like how women are expected to wear makeup - BUT, I would not expect someone who is on welfare to be shopping at Sephora (fancy, high-end makeup store), instead buying something more economically priced.

****************************

From what I've always understood, any money doled out through welfare programs is just enough for the basics. Assuming a person on welfare is responsible with any money they receive - cutting coupons and paying all bills before squirreling money away for a doll - it would take a much longer time to save up for an expensive luxury item like a doll. Plus, if some emergency pops up - the doll money would probably be the first thing to get tapped. (Overall, it's an exercise in futility.)

If I was in that situation (aside from the fact that I probably would have sold my dolls already) - and I wanted to treat myself, it makes more sense to choose a more easily attainable goal - like going out to eat at a nicer restaurant or mani-pedi.

IMO... I don't see anything wrong with treating yourself, even if you're on a shoestring budget. But... you know... a treat within financially sustainable reason. The people who honestly need welfare to make ends meet probably have bigger things to worry about than some flashy doll.

 

Well I'm really sorry, but I cannot for the life of me understand why on earth make-up is a necessity?!?!?!? I don't wear make-up even though I very well can afford it. The society will work just fine, even if you don't wear make-up. So my opinion is, that it's much more stupid to buy make-up then a doll. Make-up gets washed a way but the doll you can always sell if you need the money.

Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't buy make-up, if it makes you happy and it's your thing, then go for it. But saying that make-up is somehow more approvable to buy then a collectible item... There is just something wrong in that...

 

@Feliara & Kiyakotari: My apologies if you found my analogy offensive - I didn't intend it to be - though, considering how many women do wear makeup, I don't think I'm entirely wrong.

I also was not trying to "dictate" how people spend their money... there are some things that I consider basic that are outside of the spartan food/clothing/shelter - like a cell phone for general communication, or yes, makeup. But I wonder where the money would come from for such an unnecessary luxury as a BJD, when I would think that a person who really needs welfare is living off a pretty tight budget. I'm not saying they couldn't have nice things, but I feel like a doll and all that goes with it would be a stretch.

I also tend to agree with Feliara's earlier comment that this may not be an appropriate topic for this forum. The use or abuse of welfare money is a very broad social issue and most of the examples I've read don't have anything to do with BJD. Considering how small (comparably) our community is, I feel like the person who would spend welfare money on a BJD is kind of a boogeyman.

 

Good Lord, where are you from? Narnia? I have never heard of any country where everyone helps everyone else and nobody starves or lives under bridges. Are there also unicorns? If you say yes, I will be looking into plane tickets and a visa.

 

Harlequin-Elle: I can say that in Scandinavia there aren't people living under bridges and nobody starves since we pay taxes with which the government is able to take care of those who do not have money. There can be some homeless people but mainly due to mental illnesses or alcoholism so they are unaware how to get help and benefits. But we have no families or children living without a proper home, schooling or healthcare. So that is why I am quite lucky, and if you wish, you can call Scandinavian countries as Narnia if it pleases you. And no we don't have unicorns, unfortunately.

And what this has to do with dolls? I have no idea...

Kiyakotari: I so agree with you!!!

 

I wonder whether your viewpoint is based on living in a society where peope are much more left on their own (in both good and bad ways, this is not a judgement) then what I am used to. I can see your POV if I think of it like this. Especially if I think of the things I sometimes hear about (like 40+ million people being without healthinsurance, or people that work but earn so little that they are nevertheless on foodstamps), because when money is finite and the amount of people needing it too large to cover, your stance is a kind of pragmatism and even sharing.

However I can't lie that my first strong reaction to your stance is that it is wrong to think that someone on disability or benefits doesn't have the right to do with their money as they wish. There's a distinction being made there between the rights (to buy what they want) of people who 'got' their money and people who 'earned' their money that doesn't sit well with me. I don't know if that's because I live in what they call a 'Wellfare State' or if it's even more fundamental (like liberalism or how I've learned to see it but I don't really want to go into that). Where I live taxes are high, healthcare is universal, and more basically, the government is more or less expected to actively try to intervene in peoples life positively should they have it bad or suffer. The money that people get that are disabled or unemployed or whatever is theirs to do with as they wish and the source (employer, insurance (disability) or government (unemployment benefits)) doesn't make a difference in your 'right' to spend it how you want. Wether you get it in the first place is where government or social programs can grant or refuse, and at a later date there might be made a decision against you getting the money, and so it stops. But if someone gets it it is theirs and very fundamentally so, and unless a child is suffering from bad spending habits of it's mother (or something equally obvious that is more a case of neglect then dolls being 'not for the people who cannot earn their own money') there is no unseen force that makes people not-having a right to their own money in the way that you are suggesting.

I hope I made myself somewhat clear. I find this an interesting topic but also difficult and saddening at times. I also hope it doesn't get locked.