AIBU to be angry about the benefits system

[Daffodilsinfebruary]

I have recently discovered by using a free, independent benefits calculator called entitledto that had I applied for Universal Credit over 2 years ago, me and my family would be over £16,000 better off.

I had assumed that benefits were for either single-parent families or people unable to work due to disability.

The majority of our savings would have been from claiming 85% back in childcare costs. We also would have had a payout of over £200 each month in addition.

For context, we bring in just shy off £4,000 a month. I thought this was a very reasonable income and we would be entitled to nil.

I feel angry that we did not know about this. A friend of mine who I met through our children attending the same nursery told me she claims 85% back in childcare costs during a conversation in which I complained of my childcare going up £150.

I did further research and 19 billion pounds apparently goes unclaimed every year.

I’ve never claimed benefits in all my life and worked hard to get on the property ladder.

should I be angry that we didn’t claim, or take it in my stride.

I wonder how many other families who could have claimed but haven’t.

The current system also benefits landlords who happily raise their rents to extortionate levels knowing that the tax payer will foot the bill for many through. UC. Same with employers. They happily pay out large dividends for shareholders and substantial bonuses to their execs, but the staff at the lower end can’t make ends meet on the wages they’re paid, so the tax payer picks up a large part of their wages bill through UC.

It baffles me why benefit claimants are all written off as workshy scroungers. The benefits system was designed to take into account that not all people are born with the same access to life opportunities, or the ability to take advantage of them. I own my own home, and worked hard for it. I would much rather that than be open to all the problems encountered by those renting - especially nowadays. But I recognise that not everyone has the same opportunity as I have had. And it makes me laugh when posters refer to the tax payer ‘bailing out’ benefit claimants, when a great many of those claiming benefit are tax payers themselves.

I agree with you re: companies making record profits yet giving minimal salary increases. Our spending power is lowering every year as we experience high levels of inflation and salaries that do not increase to the level of inflation. My own salary has had small increases, way below the reported inflation (never mind REAL inflation levels), in fact, salary increases have been way below NMW ,pension AND benefits increases.

Plenty of home owners are on benefits while plenty of renters are not too. It isn’t like there is this social divide where all renters are on benefits while all homeowners are not.

I don’t see your point.

@Rosscameasdoody
It was a general observation, not directed to you and in fact I thought you might be in agreement. Several posters have said they have worked hard and sacrificed to buy a property and the benefits system disincentivises this as benefits claimants piss money up the wall because they know their rent is covered (paraphrasing here but this has been a theme). There seemed to me to be a stereotyping going on that homeowners are the strivers who work hard and are not claiming any benefits whereas renters are the skivers who all claim benefits because they can’t be arsed to sacrifice and save- otherwise they’d be homeowners.

The reality is that many on universal credit are homeowners and many not on universal credit are renters. The stereotyping is harmful.

If you manage to have a good job/career, land on your feet and get a mortgage etc, then you are living your rewards.
Benefits are not a "reward" for people who could not be bothered to save, or train for a career... they are a safety net to make sure people do not starve and find themselves homeless. And sadly, many working people now claim because nowadays, NMW is not enough to live on.

No one with a net income of £4000 should be entitled to any kind of government benefit/hand out.

l was one of the posters who said that l worked hard for my own home, but having worked as a benefit adviser for many years l definitely don’t subscribe to the pissing benefits up the wall viewpoint. I’ve seen how the unfairness and disparity in the system affects real people - especially when it comes to means testing, where thresholds are frequently set so low as to screen out real need for the sake of a pound or two. And l think on forums like these it’s easy to be outraged that claimants can be earning what most would see as a very decent wage and still be claiming benefits. But it’s important to consider circumstances and OP has explained that most of their entitlement would be via child care costs, which are extortionate. And in the case of homeowners v renters l think the stereotyping comes not from the proportion of renters and homeowners actually on benefits, but from the fact that most renters on benefits will receive help with their rent, whereas home owners will not - at best they will be offered a repayable loan to help with mortgage interest.

lf we’re going to talk about stereotyping l think it’s important to point out that most people not familiar with the benefit system rely on government rhetoric, and this government will happily stereotype benefit claimants any which way, regardless of facts, to get the public on their side when it comes to reforming welfare. You only have to look at the announcement by Rishi Sunak yesterday regarding yet more reforms to sickness and disability benefits to realise that his words were designed to give the impression that most people claiming these benefits are somehow not entitled to them. And a lot of MN posters will take every word he said as gospel truth and will be egging him on to ‘weed out those scroungers’ !!

Except that most of the people who will suffer as a result are the most severely sick snd disabled - they’re the ones the cuts are aimed at, because they cost the most to support. Hence the surprise announcement of the review of PIP - with the intention of narrowing eligibility yet again and providing ‘alternative forms of support to cash transfers’ for some claimants - particularly those with mental health problems. This government were the ones who proudly announced in 2013 that as a new disability benefit, PIP would extend to those with MH conditions. Just over ten years later they’ve realised that the uptake has massively exceeded their expectations and over extended the budget, so now, predictably, comes the assault on the veracity of their benefit claims, to pave the way for cuts that will affect both those with physical disabilities and MH conditions.

So what we have, in my opinion, is a government perfectly happy to spend billions supporting parents with extortionate childcare costs in addition to child benefit, billions picking up the wage bills of companies who won’t pay a living wage to their employees and yet more billions to subsidise landlords charging unaffordable rents. But not happy to support disabled people with the significant extra cost of living with disability, and resorting to stereotyping to achieve savings with the tacit agreement of a public who are either ignorant of, or just don’t care about, the fact that when it comes to the safety net of the welfare system, the rug is about to be pulled from under them.

For some yeah but I actually know people on benefits that somehow have the luxury of holidays, takeaways and constant beauty treatments, nail, hair extensions, yet they claim everything under the sun, so how is this possible? I know not all benefit claimants do that but I know personally a few that do....so how do you explain that? I am saying the system has a lot of loopholes, same way the Uber rich enjoy loopholes to not lay tax, yet the average folk have no loopholes and taxed to the hills. Sorry but I don't buy the " everyone in benefits is struggling to feed themselves"

Problem is, unless you know every single detail of these peoples’ claims, what other income they have and whether their benefits are contribution based or means tested, you’re not really in a position to comment.

Whatever the circumstances are, if someone has enough for luxuries then they should not be on benefits...

Do you know how much debt they're in?

Tho martin says check if under £60k and pay rent and childcare

www.thesun.co.uk/money/27438488/martin-lewis-mse-warning-universal-credit-check/

That's irrelevant to the misuse of public funds.

People can spend their money on what they want.

But if they have enough money to spend on whatever they want, they don't really need benefits...

So basically everyone on benefits - whether too sick or disabled to work or not, should be forced to live a miserable life with no comforts ? Ever stopped to think that some benefits claimants will have other allowable income such as small workplace pensions, UC claimants actually work. Instead of blaming the claimant for their circumstances perhaps look at why they are on benefits in the first place. Anyone who manages to scrimp and save from benefit entitlement deserves whatever they’re saving for. And as has been stated numerous times on MN benefit claimants are tax payers too.

How is it misuse ? The state assesses your entitlement and pays benefit accordingly. If you can save a bit for some of life’s luxuries it doesn’t mean you’re doing anything wrong. Or do you think all benefit claimants should just stand in a corner somewhere and wait to die, in case they’re a burden on the rest of us ?

Depends how you define ‘whatever they want’ doesn’t it ?

Not all benefits are means-tested... PIP for starters. You can be a millionaire and still be entitled to PIP.

Anyway, what people spend their benefit on is up to them. There are no rules about it, and neither should there be. I get the occasional take away, and even go on holiday. Does that mean I should not be on benefits? Are people on benefits only allowed the absolute bare minimum to survive? Because the people given the bare minimum are those that are temporarily out of work. People unable to work are allowed to have nice things.

So the taxpayer should subsidize people's ability to have nice things?

Well ..they won't be able now would they because of all the invasive measues the government is now taking...

No, but equally I don't believe people should finance frivolous lifestyles with benefits

Again, people can spend their benefits on what they want.

If I generally live frugally, and have spare after bills etc are paid, am I meant to give any extra money back? Is that what you are suggesting?

Good job it's nowt to do with you then really.