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

I am struggling to see how the person you describe would make a good parent. Are you saying you think they shouldn't have children? Or, please say how they would be a good parent?

Sorry if I upset you, it wasn't my intention to say that everyone who is disabled is capable of some work. (And sorry if I misunderstood your post too, as you can see - my poor brain is addled enough these days!)

I'm also very supportive of those who can help themselves, but certainly don't begrudge the others who can't. Certainly in the case of people like my DH's friend, she may have more issues than I knew about, so therefore is in perfectly reasonable receipt of long term benefits too.

Then clearly the mothers instinct to look after her child kicks in. Therefore go out to work to provide for your child. Cant have it both ways.

Clearly the biological drive over-rode moral disapproval then; and it still does!

By getting someone else to look after their child.

There are some really judgemental people on this thread!

As someone in the 45% tax bracket I don't feel happy forking out benefits. Disabled people I get. Healthy people who should have made better decisions in life.....

If you have never worked then that should be because you have a medical issue or are a carer perhaps, so you should get the benefits designed for that. Women having babies go on maternity leave, its not a situation where you should get benefits.

If you choose to never work when you could work, or choose to be a stay at home parent, then that's a long term situation and its on you to make sure you have private means to fund that, partners salary, inheritance or whatever. We need ro go back to benefits being a short term measure to tide people over in difficult circumstances. It shouldn't be a lifestyle choice.

Relative to the time sleeping around was immoral, why do it? Every time throughout history has social guidelines that people adhere to.

@5128gap I agree and you were the person I was hoping would comment! I do think a lot of people get very anxious about trigger points though, and knowing that this is something that can be considered a reasonable adjustment can be very helpful for those with disabilities and chronic conditions. But yes if there is continued frequent absence despite reasonable adjustments, it does make things very difficult.

Finally! Over half the country contribute 9% of the tax receipts. The top 10% contribute 60%. Squeezing the middle is inevitable as how much more can the other demographics contribute. I read about increasing corporation tax but these companies employ people who are part of that 10%. The loss of jobs in the top 10% segment is not a zero sums game. The general public needs a wake up call as what they advocate for is a fast track to everyone being worse off.

I do agree.

I think that people who criticise those on benefits need to take this into consideration when being critical though.

They wouldn't be happy if I was their colleague who was absent 25% of the time, and they aren't happy that I'm on benefits. What's the alternative? They're quick to criticise but never to provide meaningful suggestions.

A lot of people who are on benefits are on benefits for a long time because they are unemployable.

Perhaps they don’t qualify or aren’t quite recognised as having a disability or learning disability but let’s be honest how many of us hire the most stupid person we interview or the most socially awkward?

I have interviewed a lot of people and received a lot of applications and I know who will be on benefits for most of their lives and it’s not always because they aren’t trying to get a job but unfortunately there are lots of people who are not particularly bright who are untrainable due to lacking intelligence or comprehension.

I wouldn’t employ them and I wouldn’t want to work with them so should I bitch about them being unemployed or claiming benefits?

I think practically speaking, these protections end up being a double edged sword. As the more the law tells employers they must adjust for, in reality the more reluctant they are to employ a disabled person.
Very few business would or could consider paying someone full time who could only work 75% of the time. So I think making it the responsibility of employers to suck it up or face tribunal (which puts the onus onto a disabled person to fight their employer for their right to work, another issue!) is only ever viable to a point.
At that tipping point employers push back and discriminate at recruitment (which is so difficult to prove in practise) making things even worse for disabled people.
Personally I'd like to see the government providing support to employers so that they can make adjustments without impacting the needs of the business. Also, extending the access to work scheme so more disabled people can have state funded assistance in their jobs would help.

Like that worked until the 60s when the pill became available, and abortion was legalised?

Have you any idea how many illegitimate children there were in Victorian times - when women suffered great stigma and hardship, because there were no benefits? I looked through the parish records of a rural village church from 1690 onwards. There were frequent records like this:

”John/Janet (substitute any traditional first name of your choice), bastard/illegitimate child of Elizabeth Smith (whoever)!”

Some women clearly had one illegitimate child after another, as their names came up repeatedly over the years.

If the threat of social disapproval, the risk of being thrown out of home and having to support themselves and the baby, when few options would have been available to them then with no real child care anyway except baby farms; or the workhouse didn’t stop women having sex outside marriage; why would it magically work now?

Hmmm

If it's about not having children suffer, then we need to switch to a voucher system. T

Feels like the thread has moved on a lot.

But in regards to the original question, I wonder what is the rationale of saying someone must have worked in order to get benefits? I think most people in the UK, working or not, are actually net receivers from the state: when you consider things like the cost of schooling to 18 (ifs.org.uk/articles/seven-charts-ps73000-cost-educating-child). Big life expenses that everyone has. This is without thinking of things like child benefit, free nursery hours, hospital treatment, prescriptions etc. The state pension, which is a benefit - does someone with 3 kids who has worked in a minimum wage job (full time) for 35 years really think they paid in more than they get out?

The "I've paid in" argument doesn't make sense for most people. Yes, you may have paid in, but you've actually taken out a lot more than you've ever paid in. So, in that case, what does it really matter whether someone has had a minimum wage job for 10 years or not before getting benefits? The amount of tax they've paid during the time is tiny. Let alone people who only work part time, or are self-employed and fiddling the books.

Most people in the UK pay very little income tax and NI relative to the tangible benefits they received over their life. Even if they have never claimed unemployment benefit. Maybe a person hasn't worked yet, but they will in the future and will be a net contributor- do we leave this person to die? It feels very arbitrary and like irrational gatekeeping of resources.

Benefits should be about need and safety nets. Else, get rid of all income taxes and benefits (including NHS), and make everyone save from wages or capital for a rainy day.

@DontGoJasonWaterfalls There will be people on MN better qualified than me to offer advice on disability related absence and reasonable adjustments, however one such adjustment is often the removal or increase of absence trigger points. So that the sickness is considered disability absence and is therefore not counted as sickness. Under the equality act, employers need to show they have considered reasonable adjustments such as flexible and home working. If you still needed a week off every month despite adjustments, I do not know whether that would be feasible or not as it would really depend on the type of work/industry.

I agree that it is very difficult for those with disabilities to find and keep jobs, and employers need to be more flexible and inclusive. Good luck with your re training!

Before we talk about getting people with disabilities into work or the "I've got x, x and x and I work just fine!", as I've seen elsewhere on the thread, can we tackle business absence rules making it impossible to keep a job as a disabled person?

I'd need around a week off sick every month, plus odd days here and there, but it's guaranteed that every 4-6 weeks (usually 4), I'd be off for a week. Look at threads on here about frequently absent colleagues; I'd be hated by my colleagues and sacked very quickly, regardless of disability. Until we change the way absence rules are enforced and introduce proper protections for disabled people, we can't talk about getting disabled people back into work. That isn't even starting on changing the attitudes of the colleagues of disabled people.

I'm currently on benefits while I retrain in a field that will allow me to set my own hours and work what I'm able to, but I'm lucky to have the support at home and the level of ability that will allow me to do that. Not everyone has that.

She has more family support than me. My brother couldn't mind my children long term, it was so I could take the job and get out of my abusive marriage. I then arranged my own childcare.
Plus she would get help with childcare.
She could get more money if she worked as I said in a previous post.
We are not British.
No way would I be on benefits, I would go mad at home all day.
I've raised my children to be hard workers and they are.
Immigrants are a different matter altogether.

@Bumblebee72 I was just curious about your opinion. I agree that education is important, and access to education. I think there needs to be more access to education and training in areas of higher social deprivation. I think it would be more helpful to focus on showing children possibilities and alternative ways of living life, and practical help with that (through educational and training opportunities and mentorship) than removing ‘incentives’. As a civilised society we could not let young mothers and babies live on the streets. There will be young mothers who have dysfunctional, abusive home lives that will need independent housing to have any hope of raising their child in a non-abusive environment.

If you have been raised in a house where a life on benefits is normal, all your friends are the same, teen pregnancies are normal then this becomes your normal. Especially in areas of higher social deprivation, where there are fewer job and educational opportunities. If you have never known your parents to have jobs, to enjoy work or get any satisfaction from paid employment then it’s not hard to see where the demoralisation starts. We need to be showing young people that they do have options and opportunities, and making sure these actually exist.

10 years of work to qualify for state pension and it should be the same for state benefits.