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.

I agree. We have neighbours who already had a car each when one of them was diagnosed with a long term health condition. Virtually straight away a brand new "fun" car appeared on the driveway - a sporty little Mini. They didn't need it - they already had two decent cars so didn't "need" the PIP or DLA or whatever they started to qualify for, so instead of banking the money, they used it for a fun car. Completely wrong and definitely shouldn't be allowed. Benefits should be based on need, and someone who already has a car, doesn't NEED another, unless they need to swap it for one that's higher or longer or has better opening doors or a larger boot/hatchback for mobility aids, etc. It also needs to be means tested so that those with far higher than average earnings or savings don't get the monetary benefits, but still eligible for things that will help such as blue badge etc. As you rightly say, everyone else is paying for these freebies.

Yeah they did, their description of lazy bums included "started having kids young" I know exactly what they were implying Ive had people shout it at me.

The government is making changes to pip? That's what this thread is about? Hard to keep up so many similar threads, anyway older parents are more likely to have children with disabilities or learning difficulties when they grow up they will need pip. Which tax payers will pay for.

Fyi I don't begrudge disabled kids I'm just pointing out the double standards.

What I find interesting is that this is functionally the same thing as a tax break for corporates, and the answer to "where should we get money from to fund welfare benefits" is usually "tax rich companies which are evading tax"

But if you suggest removing this subsidy for businesses (i.e. remove in-work benefits), people get mad...

Do you think we should encourage people to have children in their teens because there’s a lower risk of the baby have some disabilities?
I’m guessing no.

Do you think we should discourage teens from having babies because there’s long term impact on their finances and employment outcomes are often catastrophic? I’m guessing yes.

That’s not a double standard. That’s two different situations

Thing is that they will keep being offered jobs whilst collecting benefits so are not exactly unaccountable. Also, if they take a job they are over qualified for because an employer chose them over an appropriately qualified person that's more sad

I was just thinking the exact same thing myself this morning and nearly posted about it. I also know a family exactly like you describe who got a sporty little mini which they didn't need and I can see absolutely no real justification for.

I think Motobility is a nice little earner for car manufacturers to flog unnecessarily expensive cars to people and let the taxpayer pick up the tab, including the cost of insurance and road tax exemption. The parameters for qualifying are far too wide and unless an adapted vehicle is required then it absolutely should be means tested. There should be a very limited range vehicles available for people who otherwise would be hugely incapacitated by not being able to afford a car if they are dealing with disability. As it is, it's an absolute scam.

Hopefully this lazy option won't be an option for much longer

Im Not encouraging anyone to have children in their teens I'm just asking people not to drag teen mum's into a thread about lazy bums/benefit fraud etc as people usually love to do. I work full time and so do most of the teen mum's I know.
Some people actually take these stereotypes seriously and take it out on actual teen mum's just trying to mind their business

Several members of my family have chosen the never working route. I'm not close enough to them to understand how they wrangle it. I have one cousin who at 37 has 9 children (I understand child benefits are capped now) with a 10th on the way. She left school at 15 the first time she was pregnant and has never had a job. She has a large house which was extended by the council to accommodate her growing family and seems to enjoy expensive holidays, but I have no idea of her actual financial situation or what benefits she claims/receives.

Another cousin works a minimal number of hours as she's topped up by Universal Credit. She pretends to live alone as a single mum but the father of her two children (and her fiancé) lives with her full time and contributes to the household. They're avoiding getting married so she can continue claiming. Again, no idea of the financials but presumably it has to be worth it.

It's difficult not to compare sometimes. I'm single and live on my own, basically just getting by month-to-month. I've also just found out that my service charge (I'm in a shared ownership property) is increasing 50% with immediate effect. I've had to take a second job just so I can cover my bills, which means I'll be working 7 days a week from April, indefinitely. I'd love to have a child but I'm 33 and can't see myself ever being in a financial position to be able to give them a good life.

I’d like that but I can’t see how it could realistically be stopped.

We are allowed to discuss the issues with teen pregnancy.

What's it got to do with this thread though? Laziest person I know had her children in her late thirties and hasn't worked since kids are really naughty and neglected/scruffy.
I'm sure you'll say that's just an anecdote but so was the original comment I replied to.

@Galashiels you are taking comments personally when the poster who posted the stats about teen mothers/parents was talking generally.

Of course not every girl who gets pregnant at 16/17/18 is never going to work and live the rest of her life in poverty, but the statistics show that she is more LIKELY to struggle than someone who has a baby at 26/27/28. That's not "dissing teen mums", it's fact.

Exactly. I run my own company and if you employ someone there’s tax and NI involved from the employer’s side.

Statistically, teen parents are more likely to rely on benefits annd other government provisions than someone who didn’t have children in their teens.
That’s why it’s relevant.

My parents were teen parents. I’m more likely to have become a teen parent and followed that pattern. I haven’t. It doesn’t make me angry that people are concerned about people opting out of work while still teenagers.

Agree! Their family life is their own business. (I further believe there should be family-based taxation & investment/savings accounts to let people fully make their own decisions within their marriages.)

And if people want to retire at 55 on their own funds, or take a gap year on their own funds, or have a sabbatical in Italy on their own funds... More power to them. Completely different scenario.

There's a "sweet spot" between people having children too young when they're not mentally, emotionally, physically or financially capable of looking after them properly, and older people having children at a riskier older age in later life when there's increased risk of disabilities, etc. I don't think it's optimum at all for teenagers to be having children before they've finished their education, got jobs etc., nor do I think it's optimum for older people, say mid 30s due to higher risk of disabilities etc.

I actually think the current system is encouraging people to not live with a partner or H , even with children - especially with low earners and yet housing wise needs 2 of you in a lot of cases to afford housing.?it also encourages people to lie about their situation - a lot of people may not be astute when it comes to getting well paid jobs but are pretty astute when it comes to knowing how to maximise benefits - maybe we should be employing a fair few of them to get out there investigating ( on money that makes it worth their while of course)

I agree, especially with "pooled" taxation and finances for families. It's nonsense that a single worker with a non working spouse/partner pays more tax on an income of say £50k that two workers both earning £25k each. Of course, we don't want to go back to "separate taxation" where the wife was taxed on the husband, but no reason why a couple can't elect to be taxed together to share tax allowances/tax bands, etc.

I'm afraid I also know of two people who have made a lifestyle choice to not work and live off benefits, one is a family member the other a former neighbour. The former neighbour even ran their own business from their garden cash in hand. The family member is perfectly capable of working but has only had one job since leaving school (27 years ago) and is well versed in playing the system sadly.

To add to this I then know of two people who have severely autistic adult children, both of whom are non verbal one with severe mobility issues as well.
Another adult child suffers from chronic epilepsy.

I wish that we as a nation properly supported those that genuinely need help throughout their life in a dignified and appropriate manner. But there really should be no financial reward for those that just choose to maintain a life on benefits as a lifestyle choice without any justification for it apart from their desire to not work and live a life on benefits that others fund.

The fundamental bedrock of the benefits system is that you get more money if you are more vulnerable/need more money.

A single mum needs more money than 1/2 a couple to survive. So she gets more money. Fine.

The problem is that "vulnerable" correlates highly with "not in socially desirable circumstances" (whether that's single parents, unemployed, on drugs, etc). I don't think this is a controversial point.

So you end up with a system that provides financial incentives to enter socially undesirable circumstances.

I don't know if there is a way to square that.

All of your posts come across across as very naive OP. I assume you are speaking with the perception of a claimant, not as a DWP employee, as I can assure you there are plenty of people taking the absolute piss. This did not change drastically in 2013. Although the rhetoric changed then, in practice those who choose not to work largely continue(d) to do so. Or moved to a sickness related benefit.

You clearly have some issues from your own childhood/parents and are tarring all teen parents with the same brush. Personally my kids have a good life better than a lot of their school friends who have older parents. And becoming a mum doesn't mean you're "opting out of work" maybe temporarily but mothers of all ages have that issue

Like I said, that's not really how the system rolls as you are going to get assessed at some point

You can do what you like with your time when you’re not claiming benefits?

Who’d have thought it, eh?
What exactly seems inequitable about this to you, op?
The state only cares whether you work for a living or not if you choose not to and you’re expecting them to pay your way, this is not news to anybody.
Except you, perhaps?