If you rely on state support , you should have a great quality of life, not the breadline

[confidenceboost]

Aibu? Can we have a healthy chat on this one:

I will set my position out so nobody can say I've drip fed. I would say I have quite socialist mindset to be honest although I have grown up very privileged due to my parents hard work
I am from the uk but moved around as a child coming back to England age 18 for uni

I have been always lucky enough not to need help from the government. I think some people probably do claim help and don't need it but mostly I would say the cases are very genuine

Here's where I don't know if I am different

I think you should be given a high , highest quality of life by the govt if you genuinely for whatever reason need it.
Why should you live on the breadline?
Why should you turn down your heating?
Why should you not get treatment or help that would improve your life ?

Is it degrading to give state benefit as a breadline type lifestyle? I say yes

I think I am not being unreasonable saying that benefits and state support should be increased as it is unfair to resign people to a poor quality of life due to them needing help?

Thank you

Yep.

Cloud cockoo land.

Arguably through the savings on more costly services down the line. If you keep people warm, well housed and well fed, with sufficient resources to participate in activities to secure their mental wellbeing, then you reduce the risk of them needing expensive medical interventions. You may also reduce costs to the criminal justice system and social care. That's without taking into account the savings in the next generation when children dont grow up in poverty. Its controversial because people are unable to see past their idea of whats fair and deserved and look at it in terms of hard cash.

You realise that some people are genuinely too ill or disabled to work. Do they not deserve a decent quality of life? You realise you are just one accident or stroke away from not being able to work, do you???

Doesnt everyone deserve it? It's not reality though.

I see what you're saying and I think its a very kind mindset to have.

Unfortunately I think people would take advantage and I dont know if it would stop people being motivated to work.

Obviously you then have to allocate more funds for this...

Like I said, it's a kind idea but realistically I can't see it working.

Absolutely not. Replying on the state should only be seen as a safety net. It should be the bare minimum to survive. If you want a better life contribute more to society.

It's all about priorities - lots of people choose to use their money for smoking or alcohol or takeaways or iPhones instead of heating. That's up to them.

Personally I think if you nationalise energy companies and develop more green sources you can include heating and electricity in social housing contracts by default, maybe taking a bit off the cash money you give people. However that does cause whataboutism.

Did you not ever consider income protection insurance whilst you were able to work?

O/p didn’t mention disability in her opening post. Just that all benefit claimants should be able to live with the “highest quality” of live.

so most people have responded to that.

o.p then went on to bring disability into it. Which is a different discussion. If people are genuinely not able to work, then that is not the same as someone not working but able to, who has a better of quality of life than someone who does work. Which initially was the issue o/p brought up.

she’s changed the discussion half way through. Which was a sneaky way of making it look like people are discriminating against disabilities.

Once again - how do you propose to pay for it?

Sorry but YABU. In general terms state benefits should be seen as a safety net to
ensure that the basics are catered for. Not a route to aspirational living. There’s got to be an incentive for people to want to improve their own situation even if doing so is difficult.

There’s also got to be an expectation that you have a responsibility to manage your own affairs. Don’t have another 4 kids if you can’t afford the first 2. Work evenings and weekends if necessary. If you want a stable roof over your head and a nice place to live the reality is you have to work out early on how to afford it. I see so many people with health issues but who are not addressing them and instead seem determined not to work and it’s not doing them or any of us any favours just to accept this.

I would make a clear exception for disabled people who are genuinely unable to work but I would expect there to be a high bar to be able to claim enhanced disability benefits. There are very few people who cannot do some form of work with appropriate support. Quality of life is also about much more than a large wedge of cash being handed out too.

YABU
A reasonable quality of life, no one should argue with that
But it depends on what state support and why
JSA is very different from PIP and ESA
Why should someone looking for work (JSA) be given enough money for holidays and luxuries taken from people who work and ofttimes can't afford those themselves?

I am paying for other people to have their heating on when I am sat here working 45 hours a week in a house I can't afford to heat.

Tell me how that makes sense?

Put everyone on Universal Basic Wage of 1600 a month - result you don't have to work, you can sleep in, binge watch Netflix, enjoy the luxury life style. While eating that takeaway.

Very few people are too ill or disabled to work at all for an entire lifetime.

Certain disabilities such as a bad back or depression do seem a one-way ticket to a life on benefits and they shouldn't be - there should be adequate resources within the health service to treat people. I don't know a single person with back problems who hasn't had to pay for private physio/treatment to fully mobilise again and that's a scandal that could be fixed rather than writing people off.

I used to think like this until I sent my eldest to school, I have two at school now in primary
And the deprivation was eye opening to me
I mean this is going off kilter but again if an adult made those shit decisions why should a child suffer eg never go on holiday , be cold at home etc

I think there's definitely feckless people but genuinely most what I see is all of us working dog hard or very sick and most of us are not rich, most of us make compromises daily. I hear all this,
I think I've made a mistake describing it as highest quality
What I meant was one like a home with employed residents , not like a celebrity or anything wild

It's a shame the few bad ruin for the rest isn't it that this is our mindset because sadly the govt are not undertaking due dilligence with their applicants because you can't lick this off the stones peoples negative reception of this is because they have seen themselves piss taking by lazy people

I've also dropped food to my friend who has a stoma and can't work now, because she couldn't get uniform and food in September

All the best

Is that true???

I worked for 1674 a month after tax and pension??? I said how the hell can anyone single survive on that?

This is the crux of this issue for me.

I do genuinely think everybody should have enough to be comfortable, nobody should be worrying about the heating, food on the table, replacing their clothes & shoes, being able to pay for petrol/public transport- I do agree with that.

BUT, there isn’t a magic money tree. Do I think that people who are working full time, lots of whom are already struggling to make ends meet themselves, should be paying even MORE in tax to fund more extensive benefits for those not working? Honestly, no.

I know lots of families who are earning two wages and still can’t leave the heating on stress free, save money or go on holiday so no I don’t think those not working should have those at the further expense of those working.

but thats where society is heading at some point there will be a robot economy, and as proven companies dont want to pay what they do so then how can people as a whole survive if even companies dont want to pay

Plenty of working people do

but then to flip that why is it acceptable for companies to pay as little as possible then make so much profits of those very same workers ? lets not forget all the outsourcing some companies use, etc

"if the UK taxes too heavily rich people move elsewhere and businesses move overseas." Sorry, but that's a tired old excuse (and inaccurate too) that only applies to a small number of greedy, irresponsible people.
According to recent data, the median pay for a FTSE 100 CEO in the UK is around 120 times higher than the median salary of a full-time worker, with the median CEO pay standing at approximately £4.19m pa compared to the median worker's salary of around £34,963pa (in 2000 UK CEOs pay was approximately 60 times the median worker's, so this pay differential has doubled to a chasm in the last 25 years). Sadly, the majority of UK and US senior leaders are greedy - they never have enough and just want more and more (although we do have some wealthy people in both countries who recognise their responsibilities to their homelands: https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/ and actively campaign to be taxed more).
Interestingly, the CEOs of 50 Swedish major companies have an annual income, including capital gains, that's just 71 times higher than the average industrial worker's salary - and yet they're not all flocking to the UK and US to almost double their incomes.

Look up universal basic income 2 places did a thing on this for a year. I don't have a pension for a start, and I certainly don't get as much as that amount you got. I don't smoke or drink, and don't have a car.

My eldest has severe learning difficulties and needs lifelong 24/7 care. what job do you suppose people with this profile can do? How do you think you can treat severe cognitive impairments cause by genetic disorders? not every condition is treatable.