Sense of entitlement to the benefit system

[user1482079332]

I might be abit antagonistic here but wondered if my opinion is shared at all. I grew up on welfare, Very poor at times no food or electricity. Fast forward, Im now a single mum getting ready to go back to work. I have been offered a job full time that will mean I earn alot more in the future, it's worth the short term sacrifice of juggling it all and being skint for awhile . Prior to this I was making arrangements to go back to work part time in a very low paying job. I couldn't get over how much I would receive in benefits working only 16hours a week. There was very little financial incentive to work full time and admittedly if I didn't have this job opportunity I would more than likely stay part time and receive enough in benefits that's I'm on equivalent my previous full time job salary before I had a baby. I can't help but think this creates dependency and entitlement. I had a friend recently earn more and she complained that her benefits had been reduced as a result. I think the benefits system in this country Is a mess and there should be more incentive to work full time than part time if your fit and well.

op do you not realize that it is not possible for all lone parents to work full time
Surely it is better to encourage employment as much as possible and for a single parent 16-20 hrs a week can be seen as doable where a 40+ hr week would not be seen as possible if you alone are responsible for bringing up children,keeping a home etc with little or maybe no input from the children's dad.

I'm a single parent with a SN child.
I only work 16 hours and any more ideas have to pay more rent.

After all bills, rent, council tax, food, water, etc I am left with around £600 a month.

I am financially much better off than on benefits, have decorated my house and booked to go to disneyland next year.

It does depend on how you spend though, I don't smoke drink or dive etc so money us purely to spend as I please.

"" I don't think the state system should make up the shortfall to allow people to stay at home working just part time. ""

But that's what the Tories wanted when they put together UC. They want everyone, including Carers to do some work. That's how we've set up our Welfare System.

The issue I have, in lowering Benefits. In areas of high employment, a few working full time, would mean more people out of work and many living in poverty, which I experienced in the 80's.

As well advice the effect on the individual of having little money, it means that people buy less, use Taxis/hairdressers/other services and it all goes to shit.

Then Crime increases and we spend as much as we saved.

Read a Sociology book on the Thatchers polices and how they just plunged people into poverty for no benefit to the Country's finances, overall.

It completely baffles me that some people can book holidays to Disneyland while receiving benefits and others can't afford to feed their child or heat their homes. Something is massively wrong.

""I am financially much better off than on benefits, have decorated my house and booked to go to disneyland next year.""
""It does depend on how you spend though, I don't smoke drink""

Before anyone pounces on that. We need people spending money on things that create employment and get tax in.

People sitting cold and hungry in the house, benefits no-one. We live in a World/Country that relies on Consumerism and Tourism.

My part time wages were topped up massively by tax credits, rent paid, council tax paid

If you were working, even part time, you should not be getting full housing and council tax rebate. So something isn't adding up...

Yy tabbymog If employers who use zero hours contracts want ppl to keep themselves available and on call then they should pay them for being on call.

It happens in professions higher up the economic scale so why not the professions lower down?

Because.................classism.

Dh and I both work full time. In an ideal world we shouldn't need any benefits at all and our joint wages should cover the rent, council tax, utilities, food, childcare etc etc. Except it doesn't. This isn't an ideal world and the cost of living far outstrips our wages so we are heavily reliant on benefits. I agree it's not right, but it is what it is and I'm grateful we have the support.

My friend is on disability benefits ( totally deserved, she cant work and her disease isnt going to get better ) she cant afford fancy holidays. Its eat or heat in the winter. She sometimes has to pay carers herself if her allotted hours over run ( she has a lot of hospital appointments and they dont run to time)
Not everyone is the same, maybe if your working and able to claim then your just better off? She hasnt any dependants. Its hard to tell. Each case is different i guess.

There are a lot of problems with less hours being worked or more hours being worked, if your hours fluctuate each week then your benefit will also fluctuate and if you do more hours then obviously your benefit will reduce, but then if you do less hours the following week your benefit will not automatically rise - this will take time and could take 8 weeks. ( If your wages rise benefits quickly adjust but it's not the same if your wages then drop)

Therefore sticking to the same hours is really my h more straightforward and will stop people on benefit getting into debt, so I can understand why you would just want to keep working 16 hours per week or 20 hours every week.

Getting I to debt for a lot of people is scary, not helpful when you're on a low wage.

Keeping things the same is the sensible option for msny

In the area I live there is not enough social housing by well over 5000 properties and rents start at £650 for a small one bed flat, a three bedroom house will start at around £850 per month.

It's not difficult to work out where housing benefits is going

I am on benefits...signing off this week. I can assure you I have not decorated the house or gone to Disneyland. And I get extra benefits as DS is disabled.

Whoever is saying they can afford this on benefits has selective memory issues or is just plain lying. I don't smoke or drink either...still doesn't leave enough for Disneyland and home improvement.

I disagree with the Tories on nearly everything but I completely agree with them that wages need to go up and benefits need to come down (obviously not for the disabled etc). The problem is they've only bothered with half of this equation so far. Minimum wage should be £10 a hour now.

Alfieisnoisy

I have worked for 5 years now, I have only this year saved enough to decorate my house and go to disneyland.

I'm not solely on benefits I WORK

There are a couple of big issues with benefits.

First problem is that you can get benefits for numerous reasons. The main reasons for benefits are that the person a single parent, disabled and/or a low income household. The problem with the calculation is that disability is extremely expensive, much more so than being a single parent however that isn't taken into consideration.

Personally, I don't care what someone is given in benefits as long as they have been honest. While they are being very strict about disability I personally think single parents should be looked at much more closely. First of all full time employment should be encouraged via increased disposable income. Second they need to properly look at claims of being a single parent (I think there are a lot of couples not getting married and playing the rules to qualify for the more generous benefits). Third I think study should be the equivalent to work, so study 10 hours, work 35 you get a bonus payment to go towards the cost of working then extra hours.

Overall they really need to leave disabled people alone. Single parents, if able bodied and have dependents who are able bodied, should be aiming to work FT and rewarded for doing so. Once you add disability into the mix I don't think it's right we expect these people or their support to work FT. Possibly they can't work at all. That should be absolutely fine.

The whole benefits conversation is horrible because the government pits people against each other. Being poor sucks. Was there myself and hated it. The government could change the tone of the conversation but don't because the current one suits them just fine.

so is it OK for say a couple to claim tax credits to allow one parent to stay at home (normally the mum) as long as one parent is working full time.
I know a lot of families do this and no one cares but they expect a lone parent to work full time and not be allowed to claim top ups?

user If able bodied and in receipt of public assistance via benefits, I think both parents or a single parent should be working FT. As I said, working should include studying.

Those struggling while working fulltime, please check you aren't entitled to anything. Something ridiculous like 12bn goes unclaimed in benefits each year. So in many cases, there is no need to envy a benefit claimant who seems to have more money than you, as you too are entitled to something.

A friend of mine was really struggling a few years back and developed the 'THEY get more money than I earn, they can afford X and I can't' attitude and started being very resentful of benefits in general and calling for them to be cut/ended totally. I directed her to the entitledto site to check herself, and it turned out she was actually entitled to working tax credit and housing benefit.

So, is someone seriously suggesting that single parents are supported and paid for by the state? They choose unwisely with regard to men, have a child or two and then come on here complaining they need to be supported

Wow. Just wow.

Do you think widows chose unwisely?

but tax credits are nothing to do with tax as those in receipt of them are not paying income tax at all.

olliegarchy99 that is absolute bollocks! Since when have people in receipt or tax credits not paid income tax. I'll have to tell all the people I know who work and get tax credits that they can tell the HMRC to shove it and stop taking £££ of income tax from them!

olliegarchy99. To reiterate what pixies has just said...I am a single parent and a full time teacher. I receive Tax Credits and can assure you I pay plenty of tax!

Agree 100% user531.
Its one rule for 2.4 families and another for lone parents.
A married women doesn't work. She's seem by the government and society as wholesome and a home maker.
If a lone parent doesn't work. She's seen by the government as a scrounger and a bad example.
It makes me

awwlook I agree that it's nuts that the rules are not the same. If you are in receipt of benefits you are considered low income. Rather than be a trap efforts should be to either learn new skills that lead to employment and/or all parents work FT.

As a working mother who has spent the last 5 years having 3DC and working my rear end off I don't think all parents working 35 hours a week is an unreasonable aim that should be encouraged.

Even now I am in a new job I work 50 hours a week, help run DHs business and run my own business too. We do this with 3DC who are 5 and under. We live 3000 miles from family so rely on school, daycare and 20 hours of help from a nanny (1 hour to get the kids to school and 3-6pm five days a week). If DH could not be traveling we would need 15 hours of extra help a week. I am up at 5:30am and get everyone up. We have breakfast together. I come home at 6pm and read with the kids, check homework and speak to them about their day before they go to bed at 7. If I can't be there I do this via FaceTime. Not perfect but it's a compromise and much more than what the vast majority of father do with their children each night.

And right now I am waiting for my damn bus..... having finished my first FaceTime call with my middle child. Not ideal but commuting delays happen.