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.

Yes it could be any of us at any point, but apart from terminal ill esa I don't see how it wouldn't be temporary

You lack the understanding to realise there are more disabilities than terminal illnesses that permanently limit a person’s ability to work? And to realise there is more than ESA that applies to? Or to realise many can’t work due to caring duties? Or to realise many benefit claimants work full time?

You really should stop posting now, as you have no idea what you are on about , and it is embarrassing.

I will tell my friend with MS that she can only claim ESA temporarily as it will eventually go away. Or the numerous people I know with ASD.

People on benefits spend money in the economy, which is good for everyone.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the people who you rely on (carers, cleaners, refuse collectors, supermarket staff, hospitality staff) are all paid so low that their wages aren't enough to live on. Who do you suggest does these jobs?

I don't live in the southeast, but guess what, the southeast still needs all those workers that I mentioned above!

Grow your own food? Where? I live in a flat with no garden! Children that I can't afford? I've only got one child. You are so clueless as to what reality is like for many people.

I remember being told on here years ago that I could move North because its cheaper, I'd need less benefits and there were care jobs available up north.
All very true. But my DCs Dad is here, my support network is here. The childcare my mum provided (for free) is here. I could have moved, if I'd had the upfront costs. But childcare for 16 hour work days is rare. If I could have found it, or a job with better hours, I would have needed benefits to pay for it.

And the care job I'd quit in the SE would need filling. Probably by someone claiming benefits.

I don't know how people think the south east will function without low paid workers if they all move north.

Exactly. And presumably there will then be a housing shortage up north so prices will increase. The SE will have loads of empty houses so prices will go down and we'll all have to move back down here anyway.

Not enough for what?

15 years ago my ex husband walked out, leaving me with 3 children under 6. I retrained quickly as a teacher and my first month's wage was £1.2K. My childcare cost just over £1K a month. I also moved from the SE to the NW because of family support and the fact my ex refused any financial support and the CSA/CMS still haven't managed to get a penny out of him. Took £10k in legal fees to be able to make that move.

Now, you tell me what I would have done without benefits? I had less than £200 a month to pay rent, pay our bills, feed us, pay insurance and petrol for a car to be able to get to work, buy essentials like clothes etc.

You are delusional if you think everyone out there is living it up, drinking Costa, and getting their nails done. Thousands depend on benefits to pay for essentials.

What a load of old cobblers !! UC and the income support systems that were forerunners to it have led us to a place where employers now believe that it’s morally OK to pay crap wages to your employees while paying yourself and your shareholders massive dividends and bonuses. Because the tax payer will foot the wages bill for everything above minimum wage. And you blame the employees for this and suggest that working full time isn’t enough - they should flog themselves until they drop ?!!! You’ve said previously that you’ve never been on benefits and your ignorance of how they work in practice and feed into the economy shows in every one of your posts. Just out of interest what about child benefit ? What about the payments towards energy costs ? Claimed any of that - because if you have, you can’t really say you’ve never claimed benefits.

All these income support policies came about because Employers were paying very low wages, same with the min wage.

Victorian mill & mine owners paid starvation wages despite no income support.

This idea that employers would, by choice, pay a decent wage were it not for UC etc is for the birds.

Business doesn't just want profit, they want huge profit, Tesco would be such an employer, many of their staff will be on in work benefits, yet Tesco made £2.8bn profit, £300m higher than last year and apparently, high food prices are all the fault of those nasty Russians.

So you agree that the benefits system does not work then? You have said that yourself in your post.

As a person involved in a very small business, which does not AFAIK, have anyone on any kind of UC, except possibly to claim the childcare element, because we do pay proper wages for the skilled people we employ (and there's no unskilled work with us), and because we are fairly easy going about drop off and pick ups, our people stay, and give their best in their working hours. Nobody has left the company in the 17 years since we moved to our current location. Not one.

I was specifically talking about UC, which has been flawed from the start, and encourages greedy employers to pay crap wages because they know the tax payer will stump up the rest. You seem to blame the people who are forced to claim benefit to make ends meet.

Bad employers take the Mick at both ends of the game. They won't offer enough hours to entitle lower paid employees to pension and sick pay benefit (I think you need a min of 18 hours pw), and while the UK's NMW is the highest in Europe, 16 hours doesn't cover the cost of living so the tax payer is shafted to pick up the shortfall. The big supermarkets who, taken collectively, are perhaps the biggest employer in the UK, are playing the system big time.

Their contra-argument would be that they are keeping prices as low as possible for everyone, and that everyone with any kind of pension fund has money invested for their long term benefit because food retail is a big percentage of the economy.

And all those statements are true. What most people don't realise is that the huge "shareholders" are mostly long term pension funds, where the money they put aside for their future pension pay outs, are invested in the expectation that those businesses will still be going and paying dividends, in 40 or 50 or 60 years.

Your argument is flawed.

Greedy employers will pay the lowest they can get away with, they don't give a shit if these employees then claim UC or not, just as employers before the introduction of income support, post WW2, didn't, they just took the profits.

The problem isn't claimants or the benefits system, its uncontrolled greed.

How is my argument flawed ? I was making the exact same point as you. It’s not the claimants’ fault, it’s the uncontrolled greed, as you put it. UC is just the latest iteration of income support and its’ forerunners, but it’s been flawed from the start because of the rush to introduce it as the flagship replacement for legacy benefits. The point here is that the poster I was replying to seemed to be blaming the claimants themselves for their need to claim from a system specifically designed for their circumstances.