I have recently been reading and thinking about socially accepted views of the working class and social security or "benefits" as they have become known. (Chavs: the Demonization of the Working-Class by Owen Jones for reference: although no longer immediately current, it is still very significant in its updated edition; I always find his political articles very interesting reading and look forward to reading last year's The Establishment - And How They Get Away With It .)
As I stay at home to educate our children, have more than the generally accepted two children, and we are working class living in a relatively well-off area, I am fairly often reminded of the assumption we must be"on benefits". Of course, the tax I paid when in work and that my husband continues to pay and that which we pay through purchases etc do not seem to be enough of a contribution.
Those casting aspersions are likely to also be recipients of the same rate of child benefit as us (it is for anyone earning less than 50k pa) but the occasional few seem to assume we must collect various other benefits from somewhere, though it is unclear what these mythical benefits actually are.
I am glad of state provision and know that should we need to rely on it e.g. NHS, social care, schooling, tax cuts, or financial aid, that it is available. We do our bit to support it to help others also. Surely that is the point in tax and social security.
So perhaps others who "benefit" from state provision in whatever area, shouldn't be so hasty to cast aspersions for me not being in paid work in order to educate our own children...
Especially when you consider if I was to return to work on the minimum waged salary I would pay under 50k in tax over the period of 18 years...
Though this article is 5 years old, it shows that at 2011 costs, each of my children will save the state at least just short of 50k.
In essence: the tax I would have paid if working for 18 years is equivalent to that saved by not using state education for just one of my children.