Nobody is allowed to choose not to work. Fed up of hearing this expression.

[girlfriend44]

I keep hearing people say people who choose not to work. Target them.
Nobody is allowed to choose not to work. I wonder if some people actually know what they are talking about?

Nobody is allowed to just lounge around and not look for work.

Able bodied people on UC who don't have a paid job are harassed all the time.
They will probably be attending interviews at the jobcentre once a week, where they have to provide evidence they are jobsearching 35 hours a week.

They can be sanctioned over any little thing.
They have to attend any courses they are sent on, even if they are useless courses. Non attendance will end in a sanction.

The staff can arrange interviews on their behalf if the employer has a tie up with the jobcentre which some do.
If it's deemed you didn't try hard enough at the interview, the employer can discuss this with the staff,and you'll be hauled up and sanctioned for not trying.

Those who think people choose not to work please be educated.
It's a hostile environment for anyone out of work.
Not every able bodied person can find employment.
Your not just allowed to sit at home and choose not to work though.

You'll have a claimant commitment and you have to provide evidence of jobsearching. 35 hours too.

I think alot of people who comment don't really know. Everyone is under pressure.
The days of just signing on once a fortnight and not having to.prove your doing everything you can have long gone.

Absolutely not the case for everyone. And I speak as a woke lefty.

When I signed on - a million years ago. It was very much a lifestyle choice. It was only 6 months but literally everyone I knew was doing it. We were all between college and uni and just wanted to f about.
happy days tbh.

@OneAmberFinch I have a right wing friend who suppprts a fairly generous benefits system as he regards the benefits bill as an acceptable price everyone in society should pay to avoid being victims of the sort of low level criminality/begging/scamming you see in countries with less well developed state support.

To be clear he does not think everyone on benefits is a criminal, but with no safety net he is convinced some people who struggle for employment would resort to begging/low level theft to survive.

So, if you choose to take unemployment benefit then you aren't really choosing not to work because -as said above - you will be expected to try and find work as part of the benefits process. If you are ill, disabled, incapacitated that doesn't scan as choosing not to work because there's more to it than a black and white choice.

If you don't 'work' in terms of paid employment because you are a stay at home parent that is a kind of choosing not to 'work' that's really better described as opting out of paid work. A similar situation might be if you are a carer to an elderly relative, person with a disability. You may or may not be in receipt of benefits for this. One category are people who 'retire' but actually mean resign to look after elderly relative.

The true choosing not to work is if you are rich enough not to.

My PIL think DH and I are choosing not to work. The reality is that I am a full time carer to our severely disabled son and dh is working from home (which doesn't count as working apparently). We get top ups from uc.

FIL is always telling me that if our son gets better then I will have to stop claiming carers allowance and get a "proper job". I always tell him that's fine with me, I'd much rather work and dc not have severe autism.

FIL was telling me about the cuts to disability benefits while practically rubbing his hands with glee as he asked me if that means ds will lose his PIP.

Ok

Choosing to live on benefits when they could work.

If they are employed by their husband then they will be likely be paying some form of tax.

Majority of people are aware that the need to support the most at need is right and not in question - when you work and pay your tax’s I know I fully supportive it been spent in that way.

But it’s not an endless refillable bucket in order to take you need people to put in. I often hear the word entitled to - i wish that word was banned no one is entitled to just keep taking it they are able to help it refill.

My MiL is a prime example - wanted to be a SAHP, husband had a breakdown she refused to work and then they divorced. 47 years since she has never had a proper job, floated a bit with some cash in hands, did a degree at 45 years old never got a job after. She could have worked anywhere but she felt it was beneath her. At pension age she gets all the benefits. She has never put in but gets to take a lot out. Rightfully I don’t want to see her out on the street or in the workhouse. But how many more takers (without a reason) can we take before the pot is empty and we are bankrupt as a country and then there is no safety net for anyone.

May I suggest a read onnBBC app today - if anyone can justify to me why the lady with a full time job as a flight attentant gets PIP or the disorganised young person with ADHD gets it who to be frank just sounds like she can’t be arsed- please feel free. Money needs to go into proper support and the MH service in general. As an example my son ( 26) has adult diagnosed ADHD- he’s always struggled with consistency and focus and erratic decision making but has worked full time since 16 in tech and done ok for himself - he is medicated and gets by perfectly ok and has learnt coping strategies. He was told he could apply for pip - but he didn’t (( even though the free money would be welcome as he lives in London and flat shares) because he doesn’t agree with claiming when it isn’t affecting him day to day or costing him considerably more - however he would have really appreciated being able to see a specialist far quicker to be diagnosed and not waiting 11 months to see someone to get his medication dosage changed.
PIP is indeed the one I would have gone after as it isn’t means tested, and seems easier to get with MH issues, which are much harder to prove than someone who has medically diagnosed long term physical disabilities. Also it does need regular reassessing in many cases- I had some really bad neuro issues after Covid/ vaccine ( couldn’t say which it was) - I was on a long Covid forum and quite a lot of people mentioned they had now qualified for PIP ( this was back in 2022/2023) - quite a few also mentioned over the last year that things had improved a lot and they were now back working - doesn’t mean to say they shouldn’t get standard UC top ups if only working part time and family income is below limits- but I bet plenty if they haven’t been called for reassessment are still readily receiving PIP without saying anything.

those who genuinely can’t work and have quantifiable disabilities making working very difficult I think are not what the government are going after- they are indeed after the chancers who see it as a nice add on and have no intention of ever working. It’s sad but for a lot of people it’s become about the here and now and they don’t care that their CV will be blank even if they could work and those like me who are centre left voters need to get real that in order to be fair to those with real issues that need support and help we cannot be going along being kind to those who to be frank need a dose of reality that the state only goes so far and at some point a certain sense of personal pride has to kick in and if it doesn’t ( when able) then it’s not others responsibility to pay for them .

this isn’t by the way a left or right thing - plenty of Reform/Tory voters are more than happy to take the piss too whilst nodding along with the ‘state is too big’ methodology . What they mean is ‘I don’t agree with benefits/ not taking personal responsibility ‘ etc, etc - unless of course it’s the ones I or my family are getting - we don’t count- they aren’t talking about ‘us’ .

The lazy bums start having kids young do they? That's funny the laziest bum I know had her children late 30s, no job on benefits, kids are neglected and really naughty and scruffy.

Well haven't got time to read the whole thread but I'm sure there's more implying all teen mum's are lazy and on benefits well I became a mum at 16 and work full time and had to put up with people assuming I was lazy and shouting nasty things at me as did many others I know.

Fait enough if you don't approve of lazy people etc but keep your assumptions about young mums to yourself please

As illustrated by some of the pp, some people are on benefits because they lost their jobs, but are ‘overqualified’ (ie it’s beneath them) to work in a supermarket. Others would earn the same or less in low paid jobs, so prefer to be on benefits (granted this is a system failure, not the individual’s fault, but it’s a loophole that needs to be closed). Others want a ‘break’ after some kind of education before finding a job. These are all examples of choosing not to work and living off benefits.

The vast majority of people don’t begrudge support for those who can’t work due to disability. But the examples above should not happen.

@luckylavender and as another ‘centre left’ voter- ( although not particularly woke in some aspects) I totally agree. It’s not my experience with people I know either, more so if it’s ‘job’ related benefits - less so if it’s other kinds of benefits - which is where I think the much larger taking the piss of the system is coming from .

It is increasing in April. I hope they don't get rid of it completely. Some of us don't have family or cant afford the childcare.

The majority of people employed in supermarkets will also be receiving some sort of benefit. These companies rely on benefits to enable them to pay their workers so poorly. Also many of them are on shaky part time contracts, so would enevr even receive a full time wage if even they wanted it. Baffles me how so many in the country can't grasp this.

I’m the product of teen parents. Taking out the emotion, it’s clear that financial outcomes are not better or even equal for teen parents compared to non-teen parents.
That’s why there is such a push on prevention.

• Nearly 40% of young parents report that they are ‘just getting by’ financially or worse, compared to 26% of non-parents
• 11% of young parents have attended university, compared to 45% of non-parents
• 33% of young parents are in ‘skilled work’, as opposed to 51% of non-parents
• 33% of young parents live in social housing, compared to 8% of non-parents

www.actionforchildren.org.uk/our-work-and-impact/policy-work-campaigns-and-research/policy-reports/the-next-chapter/

If you honestly believe they don't exist, you've lived a very sheltered life.

No-one is claiming Ferraris are being handed out, but there are people out there who might not be living a glamorous lifestyle but have managed to cobble together a range of benefits for themselves and their children in order to live very comfortably and have no intention of changing things.

We can grasp it, and agree it shouldn’t happen. A living wage should allow people to live. The reasons why that doesn’t happen are complex.

However, it’s preferable that people are in work topped up by benefits than not working at all and living solely off benefits.

Also, it’s more likely to be a temporary measure while they have small children.

I know loads of people who choose not to work

Taking out the emotion statistics show older parents are far more likely to have a child with down syndrome and other disabilities which costs mor for the tax payer seeing as that is what this thread is about. Of course it's unacceptable to say that on mumsnet but it's fine for people to imply teen mum's are all on benefits and terrible at raising children.

There's also about a million threads on this site from older parents who went to uni who are are barely getting by financially

OP, you sound incredibly naive!

I don't see the issue with the AET anyway. One or two parents are working, child(ren) get to see parents more often. The top up is minimal really.

One in 5 new cars leased is through the motability scheme. People with ADHD getting free cars. Meaning those who can’t afford cars are now paying for those who are ‘too sad to work’ to have cars.

This whole setup is a mafia and the ever shrinking number of non benefit claimants are being rinsed.

The genuinely disabled and unable to work should turn their ire towards those who are stealing from the taxpayer by pretending to be unable to work. Rather than complaining about how they are being penalised.

First off, the poster you responded made no mention of teen parents.
Secondly, the number of people having children in their 30s+ with significant disabilities is no where nearly as statically significant as the poor, long term financial outcomes for teen parents and even of their offspring.
Thirdly, this thread ISNT about disabled children, it’s about people choosing to live on benefits when they can/ could work.

Well that's another issue.

When my daughter was born I took a year of MAT Leave including 3 months unpaid, then I had to go back to work meaning that after childcare I had £300 a month leftover. She got some funded hours when she was 3.

If I'd been on UC, there'd have been no requirement for me to look for work until she was 3, she'd have got 15 free hours from aged 2, and I could have claimed back 85% of childcare costs.