"Benefits are a lifestyle choice for so many these days"

[Bellerina2]

I'm on the bus and two women behind me are having a long conversation about perceived benefit cheats and one of them just said the above phrase. WIBU to hit her over the head with a rolled up copy of the Guardian??

But seriously, it's so depressing that people think this. Well done to the government and likes of the Sun and Daily Mail for convincing people that those on benefits are leading some sort of charmed life

Are some posters suggesting that dealing drugs is better than claiming benefits? Enterprise culture, innit

Why should we have to pay for people who choose NOT to work? I just don't understand- there are plenty of people that DH and I know who are on benefits because they do not want to work and are turning down jobs offered to them.

I even know of one person who is absolutely rinsing the system by lying about their physical health, so that they don't ever have to work, and are able to claim disability allowance too.

IMO benefits should be there as a safety net and that's it. Of course there are people who genuinely need the support but It should not be in place for people as an option instead of going to work. There are families out there who for generations have not worked. I have witnessed this first hand so, no, it's not something I have read about or have watched on TV. It's real life and it's happening.

is it really so very hard to see outside of your own conditioning

not really. you are suggesting that because the employment rate isn't 0, it's ok for some just to give up. it's actually not great for them to do that, and it certainly isn't great for the rest of us.

whether or not you think some jobs are evil, it doesn't mean people can just opt out.

How do you convince a doctor that you are too disabled to work if you are really ok? Pray tell. People have been ruled fit for work and then died shortly afterwards, you know. You might say they are isolated incidents, but then I could say the same about these 'people you know'. If you keep turning down jobs your JSA will be sanctioned, i.e. stopped, btw.

Why should we have to pay for people who choose NOT to work? I just don't understand- there are plenty of people that DH and I know who are on benefits because they do not want to work and are turning down jobs offered to them.

What benefits are all these people on? You don't get benefits just because you can't be bothered to work.

?I get paid to dig a hole, you get paid to fill it in again
We are achieving nothing
But no matter
At least we are doing something and at least it feels useful because we are getting paid for it ?

gracie

I know plenty of people who are lazy arses who have jobs. No time for their dc, come home and slump in the chair, order take away, or go to the pub.

You aren't necessarily lazy just because you don't work for an employer and as for people being subsidised, who are these people.
If you refer to tax credits and couples, you need to be working to be entitled to them.

What benefits are all these people on? You don't get benefits just because you can't be bothered to work.

Have you read any of ths thread??

Gloucestershire, where we have nearly full employment and applicants are scarce. 16/20/25/28/30 or 35 hours, contract, permanant.

Irretating, they get child tax credits. And when their children are young enough, and if they space them out accordingly, they get income support. Some people really do get benefits just because they can't be bothered to work.

This point about there not being enough jobs to go round is pointless, JSA is so low that paying it out for people who are looking for work, those who are only half heartedly looking for work or those who make themselves unemployable isn't that big a deal.

We should be paying out way more money to people who have been made redundant and are genuinely doing their best to find work. We should pay out significantly less to those that have never contributed anything in income tax and who aren't employable, but more to the point, we should stop paying out to people who conceive children they won't be able to afford.

?I get paid to dig a hole, you get paid to fill it in again

if we get paid by some private employer, then our welfare can be spent on education, health or anything else.

just because you don't value some kind of labour, somebody else might.

nobody is saying every job is meaningful, but it will pay. and shit jobs do suck (i have had them), but that doesn't mean you deserve not to have them.

We should sterlize Kate Middleton then - and the rest of the parasitic Windsor clan. We're paying enough to keep them in pampered idleness. And vast amounts of our taxes went on bailing out the banks who caused the financial crisis by scamming each other and the public in the first place.

i've got nothing nice to say about the royals. yes, cut them off.

I am all for better banking regulation. yes, it's a scandal what they got.

And the sister who says that low-paid supermarket jobs are slavery is right. Don't forget how keen Tesco and Poundland were to use slave labour (workfare) - to the point of not hiring the usual seasonal staff because they could get free coerced labour in to do the work instead.

It's also worth considering how much harder it has been made for people to live on low incomes. Not that long ago, if you were skint you were still likely to be able to grow veg or keep chickens to boost the family diet: nowadays vegetable growing and chicken-keeping are mostly middle class hobbies, and there are fewer places to buy decent food, especially in urban areas. Yeah, loads of dodgy fried chicken shops and 'local' supermarkets, but the local supermarkets are overpriced and have limited stock.
And it's much harder to work your way out of poverty, because so much unskilled work is contracted-out agency work, with no training or prospects because the agency considers staff to be interchangeable and disposable. And it seems that even the little self-starter things like cleaning and dogwalking are being taken over by agencies now (who generrally have strategies for getting around the minimum ways so they can easily undercut any independent work...

And it seems that even the little self-starter things like cleaning and dogwalking are being taken over by agencies now (who generrally have strategies for getting around the minimum ways so they can easily undercut any independent work...

Under UC such ventures will have to hit profit of £230pw fast or will be assumed to have done so, anyway. All the survival strategies are being taken away.

(Not safe to satirize or criticise Kate BTW. Some very stern, humourless laydees have just told me off rather crossly )

And the sister who says that low-paid supermarket jobs are slavery is right.

zero contract hours are a scandal. but it's not slavery. you diminish the word by saying that. it really isn't.

Workfare is close to the definition though.

Low paid supermarket jobs are 'slavery'?!

What a breathtakingly stupid comment. The last time I checked, supermarket workers weren't beaten, raped or generally brutalized during the course of their working day. Oh and they are paid. Which slaves obviously weren't ffs

You can see from the thread why some people in this country are in a mess.

The answer will always be in the law and the state's rules though. If someone is better off working part time or not working they are likely to take that option.

It is also hard to generalise as some bits of the country have more jobs than others.

Supermarket workers are doing normal jobs like lots of people do (my son is currently a post man which is slightly better paid). I don't think it's slavery.

I am also in favour of workfare. Why should those of us who work very hard full time and pay a lot of tax pay for people to do nothing? I can think of masses of tasks people on benefits could be doing that are needed in our community.

I know plenty of people who are lazy arses who have jobs. No time for their dc, come home and slump in the chair, order take away, or go to the pub.

You aren't necessarily lazy just because you don't work for an employer

What you've described in the first sentence is a private matter. How someone chooses to spend their evening after a day of work is none of our business. The fact that you would call someone like this lazy is pretty breathtaking, considering the fact that you have actually said that you are permanently unemployed.

I think we've all had days at work where we come home and find it near-impossible to parent.

As you the second sentence. It's fine and possibly even good to fill your days in constructive ways if you aren't reliant upon the taxpayer, or someone who's unwilling to carry your weight. But doing things like pottery or gardening when you need money and could be in paid employment is in fact lazy.

Workfare is close to the definition though.

nope, not even close. A quick trip to the dictionary I am sure would help.

Workfare has a lot of problems. being remotely like slavery isn't one of them.

As you the second sentence. It's fine and possibly even good to fill your days in constructive ways if you aren't reliant upon the taxpayer, or someone who's unwilling to carry your weight. But doing things like pottery or gardening when you need money and could be in paid employment is in fact lazy.

it's an incredible attitude to have. And one that gets people in work dead set against the welfare state.

Why should those of us who work very hard full time and pay a lot of tax pay for people to do nothing? I can think of masses of tasks people on benefits could be doing that are needed in our community.

You don't pay tax solely for the welfare state.
You pay for education and health too. Do you complain about people having access to that too?

There are plenty of things that need doing in many communities, perhaps the rich could pay toward them?

Keepit Slavery: A person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.
One definition from the OED.

I wonder who Workfare is even aimed at, as it doesn't seem to have touched my prosperous-looking unemployed neighbours - both man and woman are at home all day, every day and neither have worked in the 18 months they have been here, except the woman did work in a care home for a few days before she got sacked for being too aggressive/using inappropriate language (another neighbour works at the same place is how I know). Surely it should have been rolled out to apply to everyone?

My husband's workplace has several on this kind of scheme and they reckon only one of them is even employable at all. They'd give him a job if there was one to give (there isn't and won't be for the foreseeable). The others are/were useless. One dropped out. One has B.O that can slay a donkey at 50 metres - not great on a site working with the public. He also takes tea breaks whenever he feels like it and they even found him in the cafe kitchen, making himself bacon butties...

These were all single men, separated or with no kids. Those really taking the piss seem to have kids for the housing points and extra benefits - why isn't workfare touching them?

Slavery: A person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.

for one thing, that's a slave not slavery. for another, if you look at the oed, it is full of modern colloquial hyperbolic uses of slavery. Some of the examples given are "She was slave to fashion."

As to your quoted definition, it's rather open to interpretation. Under that definition someone who works at tescos could be a slave.

No one is forced to any kind of work here.