Nobody is allowed to choose not to work. Fed up of hearing this expression.

@ThisOldThang oh and the physically disabled too

@ThisOldThang I probably wouldn’t be quite as harsh and make an exception for those over 50 and those with children but yes I see the point

I working a field where I see absolutely loads of people that opt not to work. You can simply not work if you have young children. Those that are "carers" to a mainstream child woth ADHD. Mum that is "anxious".

Except those with a genuine long term disability (who deserve more not less). Benefits should be paid in the form of vouchers. It should be compulsory to attend education/ training. Support budgeting and learning to cook. Online mental heath webinars to manage symptoms.

Solve the problem of life being comfortable without working.

It is hostile when people get sanctioned for ridiculous things like cancelling an appointment at the job centre because they have a job interview. Or for collapsing and being in hospital.

They're extreme examples, but people also get sent on courses, with the threat of sanctions if they don't go, that are essentially a waste of time because they'll be teaching below the level of skill the person already has. It's making people jump through hoops for the sake of it rather than finding things that would actively help someone and be useful for them.

start offering a sizeable section of social housing ( new and old) to singles and couples and families that have at least 10 years tax and NI paid in by themselves (no buying option )
This is a good idea. Carrots are better than sticks.

No, I'm not arguing for that. I think everyone should pay tax, yes - but it should be commensurate with what they earn, which is why I don't think a spouse's income covers two people. When people choose not to earn, it's more difficult, but it is not fair to say that single parents are a burden on society for not working, and sahps are somehow not.

I would absolutely scrap the NI contributions paid until the youngest child is 12, and I would pay child benefit to all parents with no means-test. It is wrong that a couple who can afford for one parent to sah should get CB if the working parent earns just under the limit, when another couple can have two working parents - so two lots of tax, two commuting bills, work clothes and other working expenses, and probably a huge bill for childcare, too - yet not qualify if they earn slightly above the limit between them. That's off topic a bit though.

Maybe there should be an obligation for everyone who is able to do so to do something to contribute to life outside their own home and family, whether that is paid work or some sort of organised volunteering? I don't know. I'm not looking for ways to penalise people or to enforce particular lifestyles, but I don't buy into the idea that single parents take out of the system and sahps are cost-neutral.

Not higher benefits. You would be entitled to benefits for a longer time period if you had many years contributions.

@Crikeyalmighty

"start offering a sizeable section of social housing ( new and old) to singles and couples and families that have at least 10 years tax and NI paid in by themselves (no buying option )"

In Australia they evicted long term benefits claimants from central Sydney social housing on the basis that if they couldn't even find work in central Sydney then the housing should go to key workers instead.

Perhaps we need some of that robust common sense in the UK?

It seems that you're arguing in favour of a form of poll tax where everybody pays the same because they're all consuming government services.

That was the argument for the poll tax - i.e. why should a family with five working adults pay the same overall tax for their household as a single widow living down the street.

Perhaps there needs to be a poll tax for non-working people, but i suspect those people opting out of work to claim benefits as a lifestyle choice would be given yet another exemption, whereas families with a SAHP would be screwed over yet again.

That's what successive governments tried to do with the state pension - to include a higher element based on earnings level, i.e. graduated pension then SERPS then S2P. But the whole lot got scrapped and replaced back with a single rate for all. Completely bonkers to bring in such a system then keep changing it and then scrapping it.

Personally I’m more for stick and carrot approach - ones that have crossed my mind- I’m actually social minded but do feel that some ‘in your wallet’ ‘incentives’ to actually be productive might be needed -

anyone that has 25 years record of ‘paid in’ tax and NI ( and not NI that is covered off by the gvt) gets a 20% uplift in state pension or maybe a £20k a year personal allowance at state retirement age

start offering a sizeable section of social housing ( new and old) to singles and couples and families that have at least 10 years tax and NI paid in by themselves (no buying option )

They would need to work (any work) if they wanted to have the option of benefits at some stage in their life . Low paid to well paid work would qualify. I.e similar to state pension system.

But couples choose who works which hours. So they have flexibility over how they earn and who does the earning.

If both could potentially earn £60k full time but need one person to do the childcare, surely it makes more sense economically for the country (but definitely not for the family) for one person to work full time rather than two part time? How is the non-working partner taking from the system when as a household unit they’re paying MORE tax and NI?

Maybe it would be 'fairer', but what would happen to people who have no money? We can't not pay anything to people who have nothing. It's different if someone has a partner who can 'support' them so they don't starve, but not everyone does, and a welfare state needs to be there for them, whether they have paid in or not.

It would be fairer if all benefits are based on previous years contributions. No contributions no benefits?

The single earner would pay that amount in tax as that is their obligation in a graduated tax system, whether they are part of a working couple or not. It really is as simple as that.

I am responding more to the idea that non-working partners are not taking from the system if their spouses work. They are, whether they claim benefits or not

It’s not as simple as that. One earner on £60k will pay £11,432 tax and £3,210 NI each year. Two on £30k each will pay, between them, £6,421 tax and just under £2,800 NI each year. Who is taking more from the system in that situation, the couple who both work or the couple with one non-working partner?

I'm really not interested in the tiny number of people who win the lottery😀. I mentioned them only as the poster I was replying to had done so.

I am responding more to the idea that non-working partners are not taking from the system if their spouses work. They are, whether they claim benefits or not.

I agree with @Badbadbunny that finding ways of taxation that don't mean the burden falls on workers is the way forward. The current way is unsustainable, and will get worse when AI takes hold.

You do realise that a large lottery winner or those with investments will pay income tax and/or capital gains tax, don't you?

That's why, IF, we need to increase taxes, it should be increased on indirect taxes that are harder to avoid, i.e. VAT, alcohol/fuel duty, air passenger tax, landfill tax, council tax, etc. So that we still get a "fair share" from people who aren't working and aren't therefore paying income tax and NIC on wages. If anything we need to continue to reduce employee NIC and ultimately scrap it altogether.

They're the same who turn a blind eye, or actively participate, in the black economy, tax evasion etc., by buying duty free from people in the pub, paying "cash in hand" to a tradesman to avoid VAT, doing cash in hand jobs such as cleaning and bar work, etc and not declaring the income (causing both tax evasion and benefit fraud often). It's ALL inter-linked and we need a govt with the balls to tackle ALL aspects of the black economy.

But people staying at home are not funding it. Anyone not paying tax is being supported by those who do. Simply not claiming benefits is not the same as funding your lifestyle, unless you have found a way to bypass the system and pay your share towards the NHS, education, defence, police, roads etc. I suppose the average large lottery winner will spend more on VAT than the average person, but someone spending a spouse's salary isn't doing that either.

I think people going to work are just fed up with all the burden falling on them all the time. Most people aren't upset about helping out disabled people, but don't want to pay for others to sit around all day.

I mean that poster keeps insisting everyone who disagrees with her lives in a bubble or whatever but when I tried saying I was a teen mum and work full-time and lived in a house for teen mum's who all worked or went to college. So what bubble am I in? Apparently only her experience with her own dysfunctional parents counts and some statistics she pulled off a random website.

How does she know she's the only one that doesn't live in a bubble on an anonymous website?

@HRTQueen I think though that plenty of Working class people want to turn a blind eye to it- because they and their family and mates are net benefitters from a lax system-the kind who are busily agreeing with the Tory’s and Reform about migrants/benefits - but not when it comes to ‘their’ benefits- it’s not just the comfortably off MC hand wringing about it

I work with children in a safeguarding role.
I meet a lot of people who are working very hard, often in physically demanding jobs or unpleasant conditions, for a pittance and they need benefits to top up their income or they wouldn't be able to keep a roof over their kids heads. I also meet a lot of people who would love to work but can't because of their own ill health or caring for a disabled child with precious little help from Health and Social care services.
But honestly, I also meet people who game the system. I am working with a couple of women at the moment who have openly admitted to me that their partners (who are working and earning well) live with them, but they claim benefits as a single parent and been doing so for years. One also admitted to me that she and her Mum have lied about her Mum's health so she can claim Carer's Allowance for her. On a number of occasions I've been contacted by someone at the Benefits Agency asking me to corroborate what a parent has written on a DLA application form about their child's health and care needs, and it's been complete fiction. Recently, one such child was actually awarded DLA despite me and another professional who works with the family telling them that some of the things the parents had written on the form were not true. This does frustrate me as I work with so many families whose children have complex needs and really do need all the support they can get and I also have two children with SEND myself.
I would love to believe that everyone is honest, decent and wants to do the right thing. But experience has shown me otherwise. I do believe that people who choose not to work are in the minority though, and I worry that attempts to force them into work will mean that people who genuinely need and deserve to be supported by the state will be collateral damage. I don't know what the answer is.