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?

With regard to what Xenia and domesticgodless were saying, Nick Clegg was saying today that there were 50 per cent more disability benefits claimants now than ten years ago. He questioned whether there were that many more people with disabilities. I put it here without comment. Maybe there are.

Also on the tax coming down thing. It was forty per cent for most of the last government. Some disconnect here.

Hard to say. It's not that I don't need the money I use the money for day to day living. I'm not earning enough to be able to put it in savings for the kids like I used to. It just feels less mine in a way. And if the government took it away, I couldn't get angry about it in the same way as I would if my boss tried to pay me less for the same work.

i think youve explained that perfectly . i understand what you mean

Brycie, are you referring to a speech by IDS early this year, in which he said DLA claimants have risen by 30%?

(Or was Clegg.) Sounds a bit wrong anyhow!

The term "disability benefit" gets mashed around a lot.

There's DLA, which you only get if you're badly disabled and is payable whether you're working, poor, rich or retired. David Cameron claimed it for Ivan, remember.

There's ESA, which has replaced incapacity benefit and 'sick' benefit. This is for people who are too unwell to work and has 2 tiers: support level and work capability level. Most ESA claimants are on WC level. The govt has granted itself the right to send these people out on full-time workfare placements
To complicate things still more, incapacity benefit is still running for long-term claimants who haven't yet been reassessed.
IB was awarded for extremely long periods in some cases. ESA is reassessed every year, and often two or three times a year.

UC will replace ESA and IB. DLA will be replaced with PIP, which will still be an on-top payment.

So it depends what he was on about, really (and if he even knew ...)

Claiming benefits when you could work but don't want to = avoiding tax you could pay but don't want to.Its all public money. But the tories are more likely to be be or be friends with, or in the thrall of the latter.

Sorry, seemed to have jumped into a diversion!

If Nick Clegg said that then that is another reason to despise him. Of course there are more people with disabilities. Every seen the stats for premature babies?

My mother's generation lived healthy lifestyles and have bodies which are perfectly fine but brains which are succumbing to dementia.

Invisible disabilities like my son's autism have been recognised as severely limiting life-chances although I see that Cameron has been emphasising the purely physical recently

These three points have just come to me after half a bottle of wine let alone a quick fucking google before I wonder out loud to the general public!

Are you sure it wasn't Nick Griffin?

And I bloody well HATE the term,"disability benefit". There is no such thing. If we can understand that ESA and DLA are completely different then why can't the people making the decisions seem to? Oh that's right - because they want to spread misinformation and brand ALL people needing support as scroungers.

I think it was incapacity benefit which became the benefit of choice in places like the NE where people suddenly realised it was more than other unemployment benefits so invented "depression" or other things which can be hard to prove either way and rates soared although I did above explain why depression rates may be higher today than they were (and other diabetes andobesity problems) because of how people eat and live and that we ought also to seek to tackle that.

It is certainly right we look at the cause of the increase in disabilities. Some people will be total scroungers - we know that; others just need more grit and stoicism; others will be able to do some work - anyone who can type on mumsnet can do some work - there are lots of jobs we could give to people who can just type but not walk, in return for their benefits. Then there are those who are disabled who never woudl have been before we changed lifestyles and diet and we can stop that in its tracks if we get people eating how they ate in say 1944; and finally those who obviously at all times could never be expected to work.

Work shouldnt be "in return for benefits." If there is work give them a job

Garlic, no, it was a Q and A session with Clegg on fivelive, I caught a bit of it. That's why I'm a bit vague - sorry. I know there are many more people with disabilities, but the figures are stark and worrying. What's happening to us and to our health? It can only get so much worse as these poorly people and children age and become even more poorly old people than they otherwise would have been.

Infestation - not really interested.

A few days ago I went for a job interview. If I get offered the job and take it I will be down by almost £200 a month. I am carefully considering my options. I want to work (have been volunteering for close to 3 years) but really can't afford to take such a huge financial hit. What should someone in my position do?

Take it because it is often a key to getting more and better paid work. I earn what I do because I worked in a sense for a loss for a time. Also if you get that job you might be able to get an additional night or part time job to make up the £46 a week you will be worse off. Also if you are off benefits you can then take on all kinds of bits of extra work without it affecting benefits so you can easily make up £46 a week. Try things like local cleaning work or marking exam papers or seasonal work. That getting back into work is the key to getting things much better all round for many families as well as relieving hard working mothers who support you of one extra person whom we support through our taxes (and yes I am working on Saturday morning).

I don't claim income support/job seekers. My husband works so we live on his wage and tax credits. I get carers allowance for my daughter (which they take away if you earn over £100 a week my wages will be about £110 so for the sake of £10 I'm losing £58.45) Jobs that fit in with my caring responsibilities are so hard to come by but this one while not ideal does sort of fit.

I get £6.19 per hour and childcare costs are £13.50 per hour (disabled DD - get charged for 2 spaces for her and 1 space for her brother)

Its really hard to decide what to do. Of course I may not even get the job so I'm just thinking out loud for now.

yes but that £110 a week wages is just the start of what could be in due course higher than £6.19 an hour. Most people start small and move on to bigger money. Also most women and men feel happier if they work. You may even out earn your husband in due course. I earned 10x what mine did and if you can get to that level life can be even more fun.
Anyway good luck with getting the job.

This from today's papers will go down rather well with many in England:

"120,000 troubled families could be legally banned from spending benefits on alcohol and tobacco
Troubled families living on benefits will be legally barred from spending welfare money on alcohol and tobacco, under plans being drawn up in Whitehall.

Iain Duncan Smith has asked his officials to see if so-called ?problem? families should receive their welfare payments on smart cards, rather than in cash.

The cards would only be able to pay for ?priority? items such as food, housing, clothing, education and health care.

The Work and Pensions secretary wants to stop parents who are alcoholics or who are on drugs from using welfare payments to fuel their addictions.

The team of civil servants in his department have been asked to come up with proposals by the end of this month.

However the Government cannot currently stipulate how people spend their benefits money and the law would need to be changed to do so for certain groups.

One idea is for the 120,000 problem families who were identified in the Government?s riots review to be given the Oyster-style cards.

A source close to Mr Duncan Smith said: ?There are people who are using benefits to fund a habit and children are going hungry.

?It is something that he is serious about ? if he can make it work and he can legislate then he is very keen to do it.?

The charge card model is based on a ?basics card? scheme which started to be rolled out for thousands of people in Australia in August this year.

Instead of being given cash or cheques, claimants are now issued with electronic ?credit? cards to purchase key ?priority? items at approved stores across the country.

Money is electronically placed on the card once a fortnight, when people receive their benefit payments. No more than A$1,500 (£961) can be spent per day. If money is not spent, it can be built up as savings.

Mr Duncan Smith said he was against using a US-style food stamps system because they are often traded as a form of currency.

The Cabinet minister disclosed his plans at a meeting of Conservative activists at the party conference this week.

He said: ?I am looking at the moment at ways in which we could ensure that money we give them to support their lives is not used to support a certain lifestyle.

?I am certainly looking at it ? I am going through that in some detail? With the use of cards, we are looking at that to see if we can do something.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 riots in English cities, Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to turn around the lives of the 120,000 by 2015.

He said: ?I have an ambition, before the end of this Parliament, we will turn around the lives of 120,000 most troubled families.

?We need more urgent action, too, on the families that some people call ?problem?, others call ?troubled?, the ones that everyone in their neighbourhood knows and often avoids.? "

I would be inclined to take the job too, BitOfACyclePath, for all the reasons above. It's often easier to get another job once you're already in employment, you keep your skills and experience up to date, it may lead to promotions or pay rises if you do well, you may make contacts or learn about opportunities that you wouldn't have if you were at home.

Of course you may get some of that from your voluntary work already, and it depends on how well your family can manage in the short term, only you can judge that really. Good luck with it anyway.

I think it was incapacity benefit which became the benefit of choice in places like the NE where people suddenly realised it was more than other unemployment benefits so invented "depression" or other things

As discussed a few pages back, Xenia, the redundant populations of heavy-industry towns were pushed onto incapacity benefit by Thatcher's administration. It was very simple stats massage - had the true levels of unemployment caused by her sell-offs been published, there would have been outrage. As it was, only JSA claimants counted as 'unemployed' so nobody noticed the vast hike in 'incapacity' for some time.

Of course, after 35 years of unemployment, many are chronically depressed for real and are now suffering age-related disabilities as well.

Well if they get these proposed cards instead of cash that might help as they can be eating carrots, sardines, veg and not buying any alcohol or tobacco and that will improve their mood and fitness.

I don't agree they were deliberately pushed on to IC. No one should claim a benefit for which they are not entitled. They cannot blame the state for their claims. They signed the forms.

They cannot blame the state for their claims. They signed the forms.

That's incredibly naive. Do you really not think benefits 'advisers' manipulate or bully claimants into agreeing what the DWP wants them to agree?

The bottom line is we do not have the funds to pay the benefits we had been paying and without doubt people realised they were on to a winner with IB and all tried to join the band waggon particularly with illnesses hard to define. If the money isn't there we can't pay any more and middle England has lost the will to pay so much out.

These proposed new cards sound like a very good idea. I would much rather my work today on Saturday the 50% which I hand to the state because I am good nd choose to work 6 or 7 days a week to ensure the poor are fed, paid for good foods (not junk foods) for the deserving poor than alcohol or cigarettes or drugs.

bitofa its not just the loss of CA that you need to concider its also the cost of childcare. so your work would actually lose you more. you are a carer not a scrounger please dont let biggots convince you otherwise.

xenia how very civic minded of you only working 6/7 days a week out of duty to the poor.

Bitofa

£200 a month is a lot of money. Dont feel pushed into working because people want to see claimants as scroungers. Yes it has its positives. But ultimately you have to make the decision that is best for your family. Not whats best for the government or the country.

You are not a scrounger.

Xenia, so far you've implied my own illnesses are made up and that I shouldn't be allowed to determine my own budget. FYI, I still haven't received as much from the state as I've paid in, although welfare is not a personal savings scheme. I don't recall telling recipients of my contributions how to educate their children, what healthcare they should be allowed or whether they deserved further education. Most posters here benefited from payments made by my generation, so I'd thank them to do us the same courtesy in return.

Bitofa, I agree very much with Sock and Wannabe. Work it out and do what helps YOU and YOUR family the most!