To think it's a bit harsh to say people who've never worked shouldn't get benefits?

See:

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/%E2%80%9Cunder-strain%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-real-causes-rise-working-age-disability-and-incapacity-benefits-spending

The government tried to cut down on work benefits; and benefits in the UK have been lower than other countries in the OECD for most of 40 years (UK spending was 1.3% of GDP compared to an average of 1.6% in the others), so more people claimed health benefits instead! Not a productive strategy!

The problem is we have an aging population, suffering more chronic conditions after COVID (who would have thought it, after the NHS shut them out) and NHS waiting lists?

Cutting benefits to the disabled without tackling why they are disabled, just pushes more people into poverty! 4 out of 10 PIP claimants are already in the bottom fifth of the income distribution.

The government needs to look at education, employers, the welfare benefits system and the NHS to tackle the underlying causes of disability. Employers could do more to keep the disabled in work.

Unclaimed benefits stand at £24.1 billion, so rather than bleating on about weeding out the scroungers, posters should be grateful all those people aren’t claiming the £24.1 billion they are entitled to:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yv0e9yjexo

yes not like workhouses

more like 80s

The thing about charity is sometimes 'sexy' causes get more funding than boring or ugly ones, even if their need is greater or more beneficial to the country as a whole.

There is a well known wildlife charity that set up a fund for various animals. The tiger one was incredibly popular and at one point they couldn't spend all the money raised and it was locked in for that animal. Yet other equally important animals werent able to access the money Its the same with things like medical research. Some diseases are fashionable to fund.

Thats why the government really should be more effective at distribusting funds as they dont have to give regard to issues like children are cute v schizophrenia isnt

Not according to this - https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/teen-pregnancies-rise-first-time-14-years-prompting-lga-call-renewed-action

Ohhhh, like the Victorian times with workhouses! Awesome idea, love it, things were great back in the day!

Which is why I think the decrease should be gradual. To gradually phase in private charity.

Threads like this always fill up with the "I am really deserving because of XYZ" whilst there are deserving cases, there are too many that are borderline.

The country needs to take a firm line irrespective of genuine or fake sob stories and remove benefits.

Thus the smaller number of genuine cases, will seek help from charities, friends. The less deserving will have to learn to make their own way in the world (like the rest of us).

This is why I've said that welfare for people physically capable for work should be temporary and limited.

Too many taking no responsibility for their own lives is sickening.
Expecting the rest of us to slog away all week whilst struggling ourselves to provide them with an income is not on.

Sickening

Fair point. The NHS is not fit for purpose

Yes - but when? Wait two years for surgery, for a condition that causes you so much pain, you can’t sleep at night - and maybe can’t walk, if it’s a knee or hip replacement?

Eight years on average to get endometriosis diagnosed, when you are rolling around in agony during every period, etc!

Not conducive to work!

The NHS is there. No financial barrier.

Legally you only have to have 2 weeks off after giving birth (4 if you work in a factory) so they could get a job fairly quickly although jobs available may be limited and they would need childcare if family can't help
We could allow them to claim benefits and then when the child reaches the UC age that they need to get a job they also get a bill that repays the benefits they've had - maybe split these charges with the father.
I'd do the same with those granted asylum here too.

Jesus wept. Think a bit. Starter for 10, people unable to get medical help until desperately ill at which po8nt, damage done is serious or permanent.

Maybe you should research it.

If you're unable to work, fair enough there should be support. But why would there be a mass of people getting chronic illnesses? That's not good for society.

As for aging - that's why people have pensions?

Those who are disabled, have chronic long term health conditions and/or mental health conditions are not a tiny fraction of the population, no. We are living in an ageing population and therefore there are more people living with chronic ill health. Benefits are not always a ‘temporary stop gap’ as many people are unable to work.

I understand if someone is totally disabled to the point they cannot work. Hopefully this should be a small fraction of the total population, because otherwise what's going wrong?

I think every person who is physically healthy should take charge of their own destiny and make their own future. If you're physically healthy and have two arms and two legs, benefits should only be temporary stopgap if you need serious support. Then a plan should be made to be self reliant.

@Greenwitchart I completely agree. It is always easier to punch down.

There are people who simply will never be able to get regular paid employment.

For example some people with disabilities and/or long term health conditions.

If you are someone with profound physical and mental health issues who needs help from a carer to look after yourself then it is likely you will never be able to work.

I don't want to see anyone in this country starve or end up on the streets so I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to enough money to meet their basic needs and keep their dignity.

The ''benefit scroungers' rhetoric in this country is frankly appalling.

I don't want to live on benefits, so I don't. I mean, that's one of my points, no one wants to live on benefits. Almost anyone intelligent enough to understand consequences would not choose a half life on benefits over a full time job.

But, you know what you're saying actually means in practice? Those innocent little children would be deprived further and further, go with less and less high quality food, fewer toys, dirtier clothes, uncomfortable cold housing until a threshold was met and social services stepped in. Then, if no financial aid is given, and the mother is deemed "unfit" they'd be put in our care system at over £400 a week each, deprived of mother they actually loved (and who could have parented "good enough" with money) completely traumatised, put at huge, enormous risks when they're teenagers (as many children in care are) and have their lives obliterated. Plus it would all cost the taxpayer more money than the original benefits.

I would be okay with them being referred to social services due their mother being unfit. We seriously need food stamps here in the UK because living on benefits shouldn't be a lifestyle choice. Are you speaking from experience here? Why would you want to live on benefits?