Everything else aside, can I just point out that the hand wringing over hard working tax payers is laughable because every single thing you buy is taxed multiple times - it’s not just income tax that greases the wheels.
Producers of widgets pay tax to produce the widgets, the sellers of widgets pay tax when they buy the widgets. The purchasers of widgets pay tax when they buy them. Same for services. If those on low income can’t afford to buy widgets then businesses go under and more tax revenue is lost.
Some benefits are taxable, so the state claws back a portion of that money.
A quick Google around how much tax revenue across the board the government takes will show you their own figures.
While the OPs son would ideally be getting a job, it doesn’t immediately solve the problem of the OP, unable to work, struggling to maintain her financial commitments.
I’ve banged on about this before on MN - an example - family gets evicted due to rent arrears. Say rent is 1000? a month. Family is placed in temporary accommodation, state funded. Maybe one room. Can be 1000 a week or more depending on area. Shared facilities, probably inadequate for providing regular nutritious meals. Maybe said accommodation is located a significant distance from school, any job, support network. Travel costs go up, health goes down, mental health deteriorates, kids underachieve at school, kids fall in with wrong crowd, family relationships suffer. Interventions from services are required. It all costs public money.
It would be cheaper for the government and the tax payer to just stump up the 1000 a month to ensure stability and a better chance of progress for the family, no? Am I wrong?
The old metric of “work or starve” cannot be applied to the rapidly changing face of the modern job market. 100% employment is impossible, even for those capable of work. And it isn’t economically desirable according to the market. Equality of opportunity does not exist. Nepotism, connections, preferences for more and more qualifications for jobs that used to be learned “on the job”, zero hours contracts, technology and AI are going to see far more people having problems sooner than we think and it will affect a good proportion of the hand wringing hard working tax payers than we realise.
Also poverty creates an industry of its own. If everyone was able to go out and provide themselves a good standard of living, a chunk of the economy would collapse.
The zero sum race to the bottom mentality on threads like this is astonishing. I’m sure the OP would like nothing better than to improve her circumstances but right now she’s caring for a disabled child, probably being mindful of her 18 year olds well being and wondering how best to support him in a myriad of ways to indeed better himself / contribute meaningfully to her household and society. I mean, 200 a month is hardly living high on the hog territory for an 18 year old. It’s probably less than a “hard working” MP spends on lunch in a heavily subsidised (by the tax payer) HoC restaurant. Oh yeah, the hallowed HoC where stories are published of drug residue found in the bathrooms….
Yes I’m ranting. I’m ranting because I’m sick of seeing people fall over themselves to punish and denigrate others for the crime of having little or no money, regardless of the barriers that stop them being resilient and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
For those on low income, keeping themselves and their children relatively stable, one or two unforeseen problems can tip them into a hole that is sometimes impossible to get out of - illness, bereavement, disability etc. And it could be any one of us at the bottom of the pile in any given moment.
Hats off to those who have clawed their way out though, regardless of the cost to relationships, mental health etc - I mean that sincerely. But not everyone can do that. Should they live in misery and shame? It appears some people think so.