to think that there are people who choose to live a life on benefits?

[autumnlights12]

the recent threads about George Osbourne made me wonder..
A high number of posters say that people don't choose to live like that, they stumble into it, hate it, what a miserable existence it is, nobody would ever choose it etc..
but if you have two or three children through choice, whilst at the same time having no job to provide for them, or if you turn down the job at the local factory (as I know someone who did) because it pays £7.50 an hour and a full time job there doesn't give you the same unemployment rights and benefits, isn't that choosing to live a life on benefits? Or being trapped on benefits? I'm not talking about people who can't work, disabled people, ill people, women dumped by feckless ex and left to fend for herself etc.. of course they should be protected.
I was watching 999 What's Your Emergency and I know that area. And I know people like that exist. And it's often a second, third generation who have never worked a day in their life, even during times when work was freely available. In the town I live, we have numerous Eastern European immigrants who all seem to be working, but mostly in low paid work the locals wont do
What say you?

This is the second time I've been made redunadant whilst pregnant ( I don't know, I'm just lucky I guess...) and the hoops Ive had to jump through to even get some kind of benefit to help us cope has been unbelievable, stressful and very upsetting. They want you to prove everything!! I've seen people in the job centre who have never worked a day in their lives claiming benefit and I have no idea how they do it. I felt like a criminal applying for JSA! I guess there must be a way round it, but I don't know what it is. I tried getting a job as soon as I was made redundant (both times). The first time I got a job, but as soon as they found out I was expecting, the job 'mysteriously' disappeared and I ended up in a very stressful and upsetting leagal struggle. This time round, I have been sooooo ill with morning (noon/night) sickness that I could bearly lift my head off the pillow - something the Job centre couldn't give a toss about (which casued quite bad mental health issues), just how many interviews Id been to. I don't choose to be on benefits, but atm being on them has enabled me to have a relatively calmer, less upsetting pregnancy.

No one here feels anything against genuine claimants.

It's the people who chose to opt out that irk. Meh. If you don't know many people who do that then it won't bother you. If you do, it does.

I was lucky enough to be hired when 5 months pregnant (but I only take two weeks off to have babies in before going back to full time work so had quite a good track record) but it certainly is hard for anyone whether a graduate, pregnant or otherwise to get work in the UK. It can be worth trying alternative suggestions like setting up your own business, leaflets through doors offering to clean or do other work etc. Sometimes it helps to work away in the week in a more prosperous city.

There is a big issue though in the UK that benefits have meant people seem to live in some cases in better places than the hard working working poor can afford which is a difficult issue to tackle unless we can get a consensus that quality of life of claimants could reduce eg my grandfather in 1901 lived in a house which housed 26 young men - a boarding house. He did not marry until he was nearly 40 as he could not afford to. My parents did not have children for 13 years after marriage married 1953 because they wanted to be able to afford it. I am not sure that people today knowing the welfare state is there for them put off things they want ilke marriage and babies and why should they as the state provides. It is somehow not nasty enough to be on benefits.

Iain Duncan Smith who has the poisoned chalice of trying to reform this with a new single universal benefit recognises that most people out of work are out for one year only or less and those of course we are happy to help.

Are there any clear pie charts of the welfare budget etc % on OAP pensions, % long term unemployed/never worked, % housing benefit, % disability etc?

Xenia yes there are. Will try to find

I do know however off the top of my head that housing benefit and pensions are the two biggest single contributors to the welfare bill. The housing benefit bill is enormous because HB is often paid directly to private landlords charging market rates which are of course ludicrous now.

Fairly detailed labour market stats, which include info about unemployment is available here: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_276985.pdf

No one here feels anything against genuine claimants.

But every man and his dog are sitting as judge and jury on any claimants. Who gets to say who is genuine? We have heard people on here say their sil/aunt/cousin is fraudulently claiming because ofcourse they arent mentally ill. How does anyone know what goes on in other peoples houses?

But because a few are playing the system, everyone uses that as free reign to judge anyone claiming benefits.

this gives a breakdown of welfare benefit costs but does not seem to include pensions www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/02/liberal-conservative-coalition-welfare

oh and I was wrong the biggest expenditure is on tax credits eg subsidies for WORKING people.

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html

breakdown by head of public expenditure. Pensions top of the list.

but wannabe, in a means tested system that means judgements! To be honest, our whole society is a series of judgements. It isn't just benefits is it? It is how we look, how we speak, how we behave - every single one of us is judged by others all the time.

Housing benefit is an extortionate taxpayer subsidy which benefits employers who pay crap wages and landlords who charge sky-high rents.

"The truth is that just one in eight (housing benefit) claimants is out of work (not a statistic that you'll find reported in most papers). The majority of those who claim housing benefit, including the under-25s, do so to compensate for substandard wages and extortionate rents."

From here:

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/cameron-repeating-housing-benefit-myth

I posted this further up the thread but I think it's worth reproducing it:

42% of welfare spending goes on pensioners: £77bn in total. And more than 15% - £31bn - goes on children, via child benefit and the child tax credit. That?s almost £6 out of every £10 of welfare spending accounted for and, so far, not a ?scrounger? in sight.

Then we?ve got another 10% going on support for disabled people ? and this should not be confused with incapacity benefit, now called employment and support allowance, or ESA. A further 5% goes to carers and boosting the incomes of the working poor.

Only a shade over a 10th of the benefits bill ? and a far smaller share of total public spending ? is actually spent on directly replacing the incomes of those not in work, through jobseeker?s allowance, income support and ESA (£21bn in total). The remaining large items of spending are council tax benefit (£5bn) and housing benefit (£20bn).

Source: IPPR
m.ippr.org/articles/56/8893/budget-2012-breaking-down-the-benefits-bill

Well I feel the judgements are a direct result of the governments repeated assumption that all claimants are scroungers. The talk of blinds being drawn etc etc.

Its false. Its never backed up with figures. Yet people choose to believe it.

This Govt has only been in for 2 or so years - I don't think there has been a sea change of opinion since then. I think the media has alot more to answer for with how everyone is portrayed & that includes those on benefits. Maybe programmes like Shameless don't help either.

No one here feels anything against genuine claimants.

This is the big myth that is about to be shattered. Everyone thinks there are "too many scrougers". The truth is that the vast majority of welfare benefit recipients are those who have paid tax all their lives (pensioners) and working families with children.

When these cuts start to bite, there will be plenty of people on here wondering how the hell they are going to manage, and wondering why no-one told them that when the Tories talk about scroungers they mean everyone in receipt of any benefit other than a state pension.

Yes the media are to blame. But the government are giving out tasty little sound bites backing it all up.

a direct result of the governments repeated assumption that all claimants are scroungers

No! No! No! Yet another lie on this thread. Where and how do the government assume that all claimants are scroungers?! What a bizarre and false claim.

Actually olgaga your assumptions are wrong. CTC are given to "scroungers" - those who continue to have children they are unable to support without their hands out. Most of us in the real world need to stop at 1 or 2 children because that's all we can realistically afford. As a child of the 70s the only "large" families were those who were wealthy, catholic families and quite often a "late happy accident". People do not bring children in to the world they could not support. CTC far exceeds the paltry amount of child benefit given out and you would be wise to understand the difference. Just because it's called "child" tax credits, do not assume that it is not for "non-scroungers". Whilst the children themselves are utterly blameless, one needs to look at the parents and a system which allows systematic breeding without provision of basic requirements to sustain a healthy life - and that includes heat, shelter and food.

Well autumn their contractors sure do. Look up atos on the web.

and have a read of Gideon and Dave's speeches to the conference this week.

When the government are imposing blanket cuts to under 25s HB, forcing vulnerable disabled people through reassessment, and vilifying people with their "blinds down in the early morning" I think its quite clear to see they think all claimants are scroungers.

In their eyes there are no "deserving" or "genuine."

This thread came to mind when I overheard a conversation yesterday. One bloke was encouraging another bloke to apply for jobs: he made suggestions and the other geezer played "Yes, but". They also discussed a relative of the unemployed man, who apparently has never worked. It was interesting to hear the justifications (avoidances, actually) of the man who doesn't really want a job and the reported views of the never-worked relative.

Now it's no secret that I have a mental illness and have done yeeeears of therapy. One of the basics of mental health is that persistent self-damaging choices are a symptom of mental illness. Like the truism that "The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result each time", it is also true that s/he who stubbornly makes the worse choice every time has got problems which can't be fixed easily.

Forcing such individuals to work (even for heir benefits) won't fix their issues, because they'll gravitate to the 'solution' that harms them the most. They are not assets to any employer. They have been badly wounded, sometime long ago, and therapy to help them is way beyond the capacities of our welfare system. Lock them up? It'll cost more.

I'm trying to highlight, here, that the small proportion of 'benefit choosers' are, literally, mentally ill. I dare to suggest that the cheapest way to keep them safe is pay them the damn subsistence. And the most efficient way to interfere with their infecting others with their views would be to put any children immediately into a remedial support programme. If we can't afford that sort of power-charged Sure Start, leave them be and pay their damn subsistence if they end up damaged in their turn.

Well said Dolomites the idea of child benefit is ludicrous, have a baby, get cash. Beggars belief!

I should have added that choosing benefits is rational for some people - due to artificially poor wages and insanities such as zero-hour contracts and unpredictable shifts. You can't magic up affordable childcare on short notice, let alone for an overnight shift, neither can you pay your rent with zero wages. In some cases (as for all top-up benefits), choosing unemployment is a logical consequence of the welfare state supporting businesses over people.