AIBU to feel annoyed about discounted attractions for benefit claimants?

@nearlylovemyusername UC is calculated on wages earned not hours worked so it is irrelevant how many hours someone works.

Your household income, obviously.

Why is your partner paying you a salary?

if you have kids with this partner then they still have to provide for them. If you're single - well, you have to provide for yourself.

There are hundreds of thousands of people who work full time but still claim benefits due to low wages so its great these attractions are makings it more accessible for people

@MeetMeOnTheCorner nope only 19% of people are claiming UC and not working through "choice". These are typically people between work, or people who have been recently made redundant, these tend to be short term claimants. These people are less likely to have children and not take advantage of the scheme.

You have a large group of people working but being paid piss poor wages I would argue people who work in low wage jobs, work far harder than I as an average earner ever do.

The rest are too disabled, or caring for someone who is too disabled to work. The unpaid carers (a huge proportion of will be on UC) who save the economy £184 billion annually deserve a day at the zoo on the cheap IMO

And those two FT workers may well be entitled to UC and thus these discounted tickets everyone is crying about

how many times to post gov stats for this to sink in? only 32% of benefits claimants are in any type of employment/work. Any means they can work whole 8 hours a week to be included in this stats.
Two people working FT on NMW will bring home about 45k pa. It's no luxury, but it's a liveable wage in most areas of the country

No ones missing the point - your thread was literally titled AIBU to feel annoyed about discounted attractions for benefit claimants?

@Sheldonsheher I am working not well off and me and my children can’t afford to go at all, and I STILL DO NOT CARE that people who are worse off than me are getting a nice day out for a change. Good for them!

So what is the solution?

@HairsprayBabe There are millions of people working to look after their families without having to look after others who don’t want to work. Times have changed and attitudes with it. Poverty moves with the times too. What was poor 60 years ago is rarely seen now. Poverty is measured as a relative situation too. So not having things others see as normal but were not even invented 60 years ago!

My grandad was a "poor" child, he is 87 now.

He told me a story about how he went to the circus as a child once, paid for by charity because the school had noticed. He still remembers that kindness to this day.

Everyone is bleating and crying about community and supporting the village but when it comes to it there are far too many selfish miserly gits around.

And if you're in a relationship and your partner leaves and your income is halved (or more) overnight, have you got insurance against that.

It's not my mentality. I neither shoplift, nor sneak 5 year olds in for free. I can talk about scenarios without actually taking part in them. Like discussing true crime, without being a criminal - mind blowing.

Nice job at deliberately missing the point with your faux outrage though.

If I lost my job due to illness I have lifelong income protection, much like any responsible person should to allow those in need the government support.

I can't afford to pay entry prices of these attractions and so many of my friends' children are unable to go either due to the cost and both parents working. If it's for the benefit of the children why is it not free for children?

Pretty sure that the zoo wasn't the equivalent of £100 if you were employed in the 70s and 80s.

Times have changed, and i would wager that there are more families who are not on benefits and cannot afford to go to the zoo than there are families on UC who can get a ticket for less than a cornetto.
That is the grate.

Could be, if they live next door to the attraction, have no travel costs and the discount is available when they aren't at work/kids at school.

My local science museum offers a 50-65% discount for home educators.

Compare it to sneaking a 5 year old in as an under 5 and not paying - it's cost the attraction nothing.

Are you for real? so you're the same thief as shoplifters if that's your mentality

I agree with discounts for those less off as a whole. But people pointing out that shops restaurants etc offer student discount etc this is normally around the 10% mark whereas some of the mentioned days out offer massively more than the average 10-20% meaning as some posters have pointed out, it’s a yearly treat for some families not entitled to discounts but could be a monthly treat for many UC claimants

They don't care about the cost of tickets, they just don't want to feel like poor children are getting something. It is irrelevant that it doesn't impact them.

Life on benefits is really hard. Even when working and having to claim. I doubt many on benefits will even have the opportunity to go on these cheap trips anyway because once you factor in travel expenses and food, etc, it's still not viable. I think it's good to try and encourage engaging activities for families on benefits though. It's hard enough as it is.

The Mail hates the scheme, so I’m on board … the usually “benefit bashing” comments on there, what a bunch of snowflakes.

Who would begrudge some kids having a nice day out ? I despair at what the country has become ?? Remember in the old days, Taxi Drivers wouid take “poor kids” for a day out every year .. you know how many people begrudged it in the 70s & 80s ? None.

@marcyhermit you are right it doesnt mean the full price tickets are more, the cheap tickets are funded by charity grants, I have posted this 4 times now and they don't seem to care.