To see benefits as a safety net, not handouts?

I think they were designed with this in mind e.g to cover disabled people, those who are sick either short or long term, those who are made redundant so completely not their fault.

What we’ve actually produced is a bit of a monster whereby most working adults receive government top ups because they simply don’t earn enough to live (not their fault). On top of this some (not many) choose to live on benefits because it pays better than work OR they spend so long out of work, it’s enormously difficult to get back into.

I believed her because she SHOWED me the email she sent and she was full of praise for the councillor.

It’s possible that that there was other communication with other parties. She didn’t mention that and I didn’t ask.

Just because something happened that YOU don’t agree with, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.

There are different laws and processes in different countries, or were you not aware of that?

For example, Scottish schools don’t fine parents for taking them out of school. English schools do.

By the way, it’s “they’re,” not “their.”

I think they are really important, but the sheer proportion of people now relying on them is too high.

There are SO many working age adults not in work now, a huge proportion have anxiety/depression. Life is hard, too many people lack resilience & coping strategies.

I had no reason to disbelieve her.
Do you honestly think she went to the trouble of arranging made up email correspondence just to wind me up?

Don’t be so ridiculous 🤣🤦‍♀️
And at no point did I let on that I was “wound up.”

It would make no difference if I told you I was a benefit fraudster or not it sounds like you just believe anything you're told 🤣🤣

And some wouldn't believe everything their told you already agree she's a liar so why are you believing her over people on here who have been through the process

Gullible in that I work for a living and don’t make up absolute nonsense, obviously.

I saw the email on her laptop, she showed me it.

Clearly , you’re another benefit fraudster.

I know what she told me and what she showed me. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Did you read my original post?
She managed to get a fence installed under completely false pretences.

I call that being dishonest. Some would call that being a liar.

Maybe she just knows how gullible you are and thought it would be funny 🤣🤣

She wasn’t trying to wind me up; she was just telling me. She expected me to be pleased for her and I basically said,
“Oh, well done, you!”

She didn’t mention anything else about the process but I know for a fact that the correspondence with the councillor was the icing on the cake.
She definitely got a fence installed for free.

Sounds like she knew it would wind you up but I promise you that it takes more than an email.

I'm not sure why you'd think it is only one thing, OP. There are various kinds of benefits and various reasons for them.

Almost everyone thinks it's a good idea to have a safety net and support people who really can't work, or can only work at jobs that have very low productivity. By which I mean jobs like my local cafe where more than half the employees have intellectual disabilities and need a little more support in their work than would be usual. Their wages are subsidised in part by the government. This benefits them, but also the community.

But if there are people working standard jobs, they shouldn't really need benefits to top them up. Those kinds of benefits, aside from being a subsidy for business as others have mentioned, tend to create a lot of unintended and unhelpful incentives, and even unfairness, in the wider system.

Of course there are also people who become leeches on the state.

I think a real issue is that what can often happen is that people stop thinking of benefits as something provided by other citizens, through their work, to help those who need it. And instead they think of it as the duty of the state - an abstract entity - to provide for them.

And its a bit like Walmart vs the local business where the owner is a local figure, people might not dream of taking advantage of Bill who they know and see how hard he works, but they are happy to get one over on Walmart. This is why people don't think it's in any way dodgy to reduce work hours to reduce income and keep a benefit, they just think it's sensible. They don't think about the fact that someone else, a person like themselves, is working to provide that money.

I can only tell you what she told me and what the email said.

God help us if they this is what MN means when they say "critical thinking."

Good oh. The point is, they were trying to collect those people who had the fewest working days. They were studying the affect on the subsequent generations. The fewest days of work.

Tbh , if they ever had a job, good that they were excluded. We are studying WORKLESSNESS.

I can’t really see much difference between someone who has never worked and someone who did a few weeks somewhere tbh.

Yeah, 'cos lots of people on disability benefits are on drugs, don't you know...
Prescribed ones 🙄.

But you're not looking at quantitive data. The study was looking at attitudes to working. What it actually showed was that the children of parents who didn't work still valued working and wanted to get jobs.

This was a qualitative study. That was the nature of the study. It wasn't counting anything. It was studying attitudes.

Just to reiterate, this group was the group with the lowest levels of being at work. What do you mean "have you ever been in work?" The study was only looking at qualatitive data IN THOSE FAMILIES who had SIGNIFICANT WORKLESSNESS. ie. Those people with 2 generations of family without a job. They wanted 3 generations, but they couldn't find enough of them. So they looked at 2 generations. Tbh , if they ever had a job, good that they were excluded. We are studying WORKLESSNESS.

The whole point of looking at this particular group is to study the group who had the least work within the family generations.

I really can't spell it out any further. Stop conflating qualitative and quantitive data. This study was a qualitative study.

I'm beginning to think you have an agenda.

I have an idea as I've been through something similar myself with my son though in our case it meant moving house completely and evidence is needed including a home assessment from OT.

It isn't as simple as just emailing someone. Far from it.

Yes this needs to be faced. Most cases of anxiety or depression could be managed medically and being in work better than not in most cases. I am really unimpressed by Labour on this. Benefits are literally for those who are in real difficulties. They aren’t there to fix all social problems.

1. Because it’s less money in the pockets of working people who are taxed more to ‘assist’ them
2. Because unlike working people they’re not providing a service or being useful in any way
3. Because a life on benefits often leads to boredom, crime, addiction and other very expensive ‘hobbies’

HTH

Given the user name I get the feeling it's satire and based on some of the other extreme things I've seen on similar threads. I could be wrong but the way it's worded sorta gives it away.

Tbh that poster has also done a better baiting job than 90% of these goading benefits thread posters we see daily at least they put some effort in lol!

Why does it even matter? Benefits get spent on goods and services that have VAT. It all goes back in the economy, they are not hoarding it.

Totally agree. I’m in a similar boat. Unbelievably, I have a so-called friend who is envious of my lifestyle. I would swap her good health and go back to my job and all my dreams for the future in a heartbeat. I’m very very grateful for the benefits I receive but OMG the DWP makes life stressful and I am not well enough to be jumping through all the hoops that they want me to jump through. My horizons feel very limited now.

This post wins, for most batshit of the day, imo.