To think being on benefits might be better than working

[Feedup]

Is there anyway being on benefits is better than working? So much of day is spent worrying about work, working and dealing with office politics. I dislike work, and get no pleasure or satisfaction other than my pay. It’s got nothing to do with my job or team; I just dislike working.

I was thinking that being on benefits might not be as bad as people once thought. The main benefit would be not having to stress about working. With council tax, housing benefit and a hole host of other benefits, you could life a fairly decent life.

A return bus journey is £8 where I live. You have to work 30 mins just to cover your trip to and from work. You’ll work all month, live in a HMO and have nothing at the end of each month.

In work benefits are financially rewarding to employers whilst having nil effect on employees.

In work benefits allow employers to pay low wages and allow private landlords to charge high rents. Their profits increase but living standard of employees or tenants remains the same or worsens.

The worsening standard of living of the employed and renters used to be defined but has become blurred by the entrance of the state but ideology has lagged so that increased state expenditure due to pension, in work benefits, payment of rent to LTB landlords has become fused to the idea of reducing long term unemployment (tiny in comparison) and reducing disability fraud (almost non existent) as if this will solve all ills is the new mantra.

In this context, ignoring the goady fuckers, it's really not surprising that some (ignorant with no actual experience) people imagine (given what they've read) for a minute think they may be better off claiming benefits. But they could go to a website like entitled to rather than posting on MN.

Interesting that no one ever comments on these threads to increasing inequality. Some people, assets rather than income, are getting richer.

@Whammyyammy - lifestyle choice?

Do you know the criteria for receiving DLA and CA?

Are DC really disabled? Do the DC have relevant award? Does mum really give 35+ hours (including night) support?

Or is it fraud?

If you think it is fraud, then report. If not, fuck off with your faux outrage/jealously of the 'benefits' received by the disabled and their carers.

Not all employed people on UC are working for some multimillion/multinational company.
DM has a cleaning company. She is on not much more than the staff she employs. And their pay depends on how much her company gets from the contracts that she tenders for. If you work in an office, I can guarantee that your company went for the cheapest cleaning contract possible... and that will be reflected in the pay of the cleaning staff. If you found out that the cleaners that empty your bins and dust your desk once you have gone home, were on more money that you, you would be pushing for a pay rise yourself.
Few cleaning jobs are full time anyway unless the cleaner is working in a hotel or hospital. So all of her staff are on UC.

I'm not sure Chat GPT has got that right.

Really? When you're unemployed? That's awful!

how so ? and its possible

Bristol City Council were looking at doing away with council tax benefit/discount altogether.

The whole point is they don't want a job.

Who? No one on unemployment benefits is on enough money to live, let alone be having a great lifestyle.

No. The fact remains there are a number of people out there who simply don't want to work because they don't have to.

Who are these people? What benefits are they on?

Take retail and hospitality. It basically says that because paying more would reduce benefits (income and rent) paid that the value of the job is the base plus that. It makes no reference to the out value. It's circular. If benefits were higher it would say pay should be higher. If benefits were lower it would say pay would be lower. At the extreme benefits would scapped the same logics would say that the pay is correct.

You tell me, I don't know how they wrangle it but there are enough of them dossing around during the day. I never said they do have a great lifestyle, but they seem to get by without working (my relative included)

Lets not act like the long term unemployed don't know and use every trick in the book, such as saying their partner doesn't with them. Or having a shit load of kids so they can't work and receive benefits for that, then when having to find employment looms they miraculously end up pregnant again.

You raise an important point about the potential circularity of the argument when it ties wages strictly to reducing benefits. I completely agree that we should also consider the value creation aspect of these roles, particularly in sectors like retail and hospitality.

To clarify: the justification for higher wages isn't just about reducing welfare expenditure it also stems from the economic value that these workers bring to the economy. Retail and hospitality jobs, while often undervalued, play a vital role in driving consumer spending, supporting the wider economy, and creating jobs in other sectors. Increasing wages for these workers would enhance their purchasing power, which has a multiplier effect on the economy.

So, while reducing benefits may be one aspect of the reasoning, the true value of the work and its positive impact on overall economic productivity should also be factored into the argument.

Well, the system is set up so parents dont have to work if they have very small kids. That is how it is.
Saying you live alone when you don't is fraud, and I would report that if I saw it too.

But people that are claiming according to the rules are doing nothing wrong.... and they are on such a pittance anyway.
I am on UC (LCWRA), I a get tiny bit over £800 each month and that is it. I have no kids. Kids bump benefits up a lot, more so if they are disabled.
How on earth is £800pm more than someone who is working? It is not.

Odd question. I don't know who these people are (aside from my relative)

The towns and cities are swamped during the day frequently with couples where at least one of them should be at work. Often the boyfriend is wearing a bogging tracksuit, has a tin of lager in one hand and pushing a pram with the other, whilst the girlfriend is carrying plastic bags of shopping in her worn down Ugg boots and their poor preschool children are trailing behind with food stuck all over their faces and clothes, clearly having not been bathed in days. Yes I'm judging and No I don't care.

I grew up on a council estate I know the calibre of people I'm looking at.

Ok, so you don't know them or the benefits they are on.
But you assume they can work, and think they should not be on the benefits that you know nothing about.
Odd.
The rest of your post just seems like regurgitated Daily Mail rubbish.

I never once said people on benefits are receiving more than they would for working. I simply said they manage to live without working at all and that shouldn't be the case unless you have an illness or disability that prevents you from working.
UC is different, I have no problem with low earners getting a boost, because they are working.

but even low earners should be getting that boost from the companies they work for, otherwise our taxes still pay for it, and its subsidising capitalism, companies should pay proper wages

I don't read the daily mail. Like I said I grew up surrounded by these people. If someone is well enough to go traipsing around the town shopping with a bunch of kids in tow then they should theoretically be well enough to work. I refuse to believe there are that many people who are genuinely unable to work.

If they have young kids, they are not asked to look for work.

Ok Hun, you do that and you get back to us in a year to tell us how much happier and richer you are. Have fun xo

I agree with capitalism. I think wages are determined on what skill set you bring, what hours you work and how valuable you are to a company. Unfortunately, low skilled people on low wages are treated as just a number in large companies because they are easily replaced. This is why capitalism works better than socialism or communism, because it drives people to achieve with the incentive of higher earnings.

Both parents not working and living on benefits just because they have kids?

There might be disabilities in there somewhere... either with the parents or the kids.
Some people will not talk about them (and why should they?).