To see benefits as a safety net, not handouts?

But at the same time, MN is a horrible place for disabled people because they are constantly told that they are lying, exaggerating, faking it. When you hear that rhetoric all the time, it's understandable that people get defensive.

The problem as I see it is that there is a gap between what is possible in the workplace in terms of adjustments and support and the needs of someone who isn't in work. In the MH Trust where I work, we have a team who specialise in getting people with serious mental ill health (back) into work. It's very successful, the dropout rate is low. But services like that cost, and when the electorate is howling for cuts, getting that sort of thing to be the norm is extremely difficult.

I don't know lots about it and I don't know how it changed in its complexities, but benefits used to be easier to claim for alot of people.
As a person on disability benefits and knowing other people that are, in reality, I can tell you that any benefits are very difficult to claim.
Very.
The ridiculous lengths that I've had to go to to claim mine was insanely difficult and likely will be next time also.
The rate I am on is low and also 'too low' for my life affecting conditions because of the points system literally designed to throw you off, and then there's the other variables such as the reasonable possibility of enduring a dismissive benefits assessor that may well lie (happened to me) about how seriously your conditions affect the you and the meeting itself.
I didn't claim benefits when it was easier for people to do so.

Yawn 🥱 🥱 🥱

Im on uc and have a job. Im also on pip and have a job. Being on benefits doesn't mean not working

So who does it apply to if not disabled people. Carers. Minimum wage workers because that pretty much covers the majority of people on benefits

If local authorities built huge amounts of social housing they’d then be getting those housing elements back off the government and could re invest in local communities. It would keep the money where it’s needed

Quite obviously (as you'd see if you read my actual reply on this thread) this clearly does not apply to disabled people who are unable to work.

I think people are too often assuming that people on UC don't have a job. Everyone I've ever met who claims it does have a job. The real problem is that people on a full time wage, even minimum wage, should be able to afford to pay for housing and bills. But they can't because the cost of housing is often almost as much as a minimum wage job without even factoring in anything else, and this got out of control years ago now.

Cc I'm getting really pissed off now.

I'd love to get paid for working myself to the bone, but since I became disabled no one wants to pay me to get up, shower & get through the day until bone weary I can get back in to bed again.

my work ethic was great for 40 years, but sorry you find it sub par now I'm disabled & my morals aren't up to standard.

It’s ok you don’t need to do the disclaimer at the start ;

Being unemployed at say 22 can be a massive problem, for mh and life chances. Politicians should use something bold to break that, the tax one below is bold but may need to be at employers. Once people are out of work there’s decline.

And SM use is often the result not the cause as Milburn cited today.

How do you expect private rents to be lower? Build more houses? It’s a market. The only way to lower the price of something is to increase the supply.

And who is paying for this social housing? The same people who are paying for people rents today?

Zero hours contracts which work great for the employers but it means the wages have to be topped up by benefits so, the “working poor”. Disgraceful. Huge increases in private rents. Again, payments topped up by benefits. No one ever looks at the greed involved, only at those caught in the trap.

Yeah....amazing study.

Of 47 individuals across 20 families in only 2 areas of the UK.

That certainly gives it credence of proving that generational worklessness doesn't exist.

I can see why you're linking it... it really proves the point.

I wouldn't buy a skin cream that said the research was 47 people said it did or didn't work but that's just me.

Of course not. We need private rents to be lower though and we need more social housing. That would bring down the benefits bill hugely and would not harm anyone at claimant level.

I get benefits. Pip. I work full time and pay higher rate tax. Do you mean me?

Yeah, I'll just bounce back to my previous working life if you bounce in & take my disability & health condition that happened over night after 40 years of working.

I'd love nothing more than to have my old life back, working. .sk let me know when you can bounce that for me! Ta.

But they can only BE a safety net if they are a safety net. Half of these people should be in work and nobody should be getting over £25 in total benefits (many households get far far more).

I claimed tax credits after my divorce to help alongside my salary I am so grateful for that help when the children were smaller and still in education. My marriage was abusive and I had no option but to end it. There’s no way I could have kept a roof over mine and my children’s heads without help from the government. I’ve worked since I left school at 16 and am still working now in my mid fifties and that’s the only time I’ve claimed benefits. But thank goodness it was available.

I don't often agree with you on anything, but I do think there is a place for offering employers incentives to take on people who have chronic illnesses, disabilities and other problems. You could use tax breaks to offset the cost of offering jobshares, flexibilities and exemptions from sickness absence management for people with chronic recurring conditions. Once you have someone in the workplace and done some work on retaining them, the benefits of work will kick in. My DS gets PIP because of serious and permanent disabilities but works for the NHS - work gives him a sense of usefulness, social contacts, a pension and structure in his life.

We also need to look at what happens when people in work become seriously ill or disabled to the point where they can no longer do their job as it it - once they slip out of work, it's so much harder to get them back in, whereas properly funded accommodations would keep many of them in work. It's a win win. But it takes investment and long term thinking.

What are you talking about?

A generation is when the next one starts having children when we're talking about this kind of data.

Not a hundred years ago.

I know someone born in 1971 who had her first child in 1988 and three more before 1993.

Her eldest Grandchild is 18. And he's not even born to her eldest child, he's born to her youngest child who was 15 when he became a Father.

She's been on benefits her entire life, her 4 sons are all on beneifts and her eldest Grandson is at 18.

That's 3 generations with the eldest being born in the 1970s.

Interesting view. I haven’t thought it through but at least it looks at the problem. It might be that incentives need to be aimed at employers of young people.

The opposite of rn which is to disincentive hiring.

Are you seriously calling carers , disabled and minimum wage workers lazy?

And? Is the landlord supposed to let these people live in their property for free?

Yes, of course. Pensions have been paid in for, as have certainly other contributory benefits, (such as sickness benefit/unemployment benefit). for younger people. But it needs reform.

Take £500 from a hard working contributing, self sufficient person. Give £100 to 5 lazy people.

You lost one voter and gained five.

Thats how benefits work.

You’r have to incredibly naive to think that most people on benefits really need them and aren’t taking advantage of people whose generosity has supposed to help the people in real needs