THE story ‘I’m better off on benefits’ – Mum criticises ‘broken’ system, (Oxford Mail, February 28), encapsulates all that is wrong with the benefits system and modern society.
I had sympathy with Ms El-Kority’s predicament until I analysed her story.
It contrasts her full-time earnings capability with what she receives in benefits.
About 18 per cent of her benefit money is jobseekers’ allowance, so the article makes the presumption that this benefit is permanent, regardless of her intention to work or remain on benefits. If, as she states, she is better off on benefits, how can she be classed as a jobseeker?
This allowance should be excluded from any comparison between her potential earnings and what she gets by living off the state.
The article also indicates that she is a single mother of three.
Presumably she had some sort of relationship with the father or fathers of these children?
Why does she expect the state to feed, house and support them rather than the absent father(s).
The benefits system is broken, but not for the reason promoted by Ms El-Kority.
It is broken because too many people in society believe the state owes them a living and too few people consider the consequences of having children when they and/or their partners cannot afford to support them.
BARRY PHILLIPS Hawthorn Avenue Oxford
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel