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.

But people staying at home are not funding it. Anyone not paying tax is being supported by those who do. Simply not claiming benefits is not the same as funding your lifestyle, unless you have found a way to bypass the system and pay your share towards the NHS, education, defence, police, roads etc. I suppose the average large lottery winner will spend more on VAT than the average person, but someone spending a spouse's salary isn't doing that either.

I think people going to work are just fed up with all the burden falling on them all the time. Most people aren't upset about helping out disabled people, but don't want to pay for others to sit around all day.

They're the same who turn a blind eye, or actively participate, in the black economy, tax evasion etc., by buying duty free from people in the pub, paying "cash in hand" to a tradesman to avoid VAT, doing cash in hand jobs such as cleaning and bar work, etc and not declaring the income (causing both tax evasion and benefit fraud often). It's ALL inter-linked and we need a govt with the balls to tackle ALL aspects of the black economy.

That's why, IF, we need to increase taxes, it should be increased on indirect taxes that are harder to avoid, i.e. VAT, alcohol/fuel duty, air passenger tax, landfill tax, council tax, etc. So that we still get a "fair share" from people who aren't working and aren't therefore paying income tax and NIC on wages. If anything we need to continue to reduce employee NIC and ultimately scrap it altogether.

You do realise that a large lottery winner or those with investments will pay income tax and/or capital gains tax, don't you?

I'm really not interested in the tiny number of people who win the lottery😀. I mentioned them only as the poster I was replying to had done so.

I am responding more to the idea that non-working partners are not taking from the system if their spouses work. They are, whether they claim benefits or not.

I agree with @Badbadbunny that finding ways of taxation that don't mean the burden falls on workers is the way forward. The current way is unsustainable, and will get worse when AI takes hold.

I am responding more to the idea that non-working partners are not taking from the system if their spouses work. They are, whether they claim benefits or not

It’s not as simple as that. One earner on £60k will pay £11,432 tax and £3,210 NI each year. Two on £30k each will pay, between them, £6,421 tax and just under £2,800 NI each year. Who is taking more from the system in that situation, the couple who both work or the couple with one non-working partner?

The single earner would pay that amount in tax as that is their obligation in a graduated tax system, whether they are part of a working couple or not. It really is as simple as that.

It would be fairer if all benefits are based on previous years contributions. No contributions no benefits?

Maybe it would be 'fairer', but what would happen to people who have no money? We can't not pay anything to people who have nothing. It's different if someone has a partner who can 'support' them so they don't starve, but not everyone does, and a welfare state needs to be there for them, whether they have paid in or not.

But couples choose who works which hours. So they have flexibility over how they earn and who does the earning.

If both could potentially earn £60k full time but need one person to do the childcare, surely it makes more sense economically for the country (but definitely not for the family) for one person to work full time rather than two part time? How is the non-working partner taking from the system when as a household unit they’re paying MORE tax and NI?

They would need to work (any work) if they wanted to have the option of benefits at some stage in their life . Low paid to well paid work would qualify. I.e similar to state pension system.

Personally I’m more for stick and carrot approach - ones that have crossed my mind- I’m actually social minded but do feel that some ‘in your wallet’ ‘incentives’ to actually be productive might be needed -

anyone that has 25 years record of ‘paid in’ tax and NI ( and not NI that is covered off by the gvt) gets a 20% uplift in state pension or maybe a £20k a year personal allowance at state retirement age

start offering a sizeable section of social housing ( new and old) to singles and couples and families that have at least 10 years tax and NI paid in by themselves (no buying option )

That's what successive governments tried to do with the state pension - to include a higher element based on earnings level, i.e. graduated pension then SERPS then S2P. But the whole lot got scrapped and replaced back with a single rate for all. Completely bonkers to bring in such a system then keep changing it and then scrapping it.

It seems that you're arguing in favour of a form of poll tax where everybody pays the same because they're all consuming government services.

That was the argument for the poll tax - i.e. why should a family with five working adults pay the same overall tax for their household as a single widow living down the street.

Perhaps there needs to be a poll tax for non-working people, but i suspect those people opting out of work to claim benefits as a lifestyle choice would be given yet another exemption, whereas families with a SAHP would be screwed over yet again.

@Crikeyalmighty

"start offering a sizeable section of social housing ( new and old) to singles and couples and families that have at least 10 years tax and NI paid in by themselves (no buying option )"

In Australia they evicted long term benefits claimants from central Sydney social housing on the basis that if they couldn't even find work in central Sydney then the housing should go to key workers instead.

Perhaps we need some of that robust common sense in the UK?

Not higher benefits. You would be entitled to benefits for a longer time period if you had many years contributions.

No, I'm not arguing for that. I think everyone should pay tax, yes - but it should be commensurate with what they earn, which is why I don't think a spouse's income covers two people. When people choose not to earn, it's more difficult, but it is not fair to say that single parents are a burden on society for not working, and sahps are somehow not.

I would absolutely scrap the NI contributions paid until the youngest child is 12, and I would pay child benefit to all parents with no means-test. It is wrong that a couple who can afford for one parent to sah should get CB if the working parent earns just under the limit, when another couple can have two working parents - so two lots of tax, two commuting bills, work clothes and other working expenses, and probably a huge bill for childcare, too - yet not qualify if they earn slightly above the limit between them. That's off topic a bit though.

Maybe there should be an obligation for everyone who is able to do so to do something to contribute to life outside their own home and family, whether that is paid work or some sort of organised volunteering? I don't know. I'm not looking for ways to penalise people or to enforce particular lifestyles, but I don't buy into the idea that single parents take out of the system and sahps are cost-neutral.

start offering a sizeable section of social housing ( new and old) to singles and couples and families that have at least 10 years tax and NI paid in by themselves (no buying option )
This is a good idea. Carrots are better than sticks.

It is hostile when people get sanctioned for ridiculous things like cancelling an appointment at the job centre because they have a job interview. Or for collapsing and being in hospital.

They're extreme examples, but people also get sent on courses, with the threat of sanctions if they don't go, that are essentially a waste of time because they'll be teaching below the level of skill the person already has. It's making people jump through hoops for the sake of it rather than finding things that would actively help someone and be useful for them.

I working a field where I see absolutely loads of people that opt not to work. You can simply not work if you have young children. Those that are "carers" to a mainstream child woth ADHD. Mum that is "anxious".

Except those with a genuine long term disability (who deserve more not less). Benefits should be paid in the form of vouchers. It should be compulsory to attend education/ training. Support budgeting and learning to cook. Online mental heath webinars to manage symptoms.

Solve the problem of life being comfortable without working.

@ThisOldThang I probably wouldn’t be quite as harsh and make an exception for those over 50 and those with children but yes I see the point

@ThisOldThang oh and the physically disabled too

There are definitely some people out there who are actively looking for jobs and struggling to find employment. I don't think anyone thinks they are lazy or should be penalised while looking.
There are some people out there who are too sick to work, and that was my situation for a couple of years about 12 years ago.

What working people are tired of are people who claim they cannot work when they quite obviously can. These people DO EXIST because nearly everyone knows at least one of them. We're not allowed to challenge them without being shouted down and told we don't understand how things are for them. Working people pay more tax from our hard-earned money 1. to support non-workers 2. because non-workers don't contribute income tax. The cost of living crisis is hammering working people and it feels extremely unfair.

People wouldnt be sanctioned for things like that so long as they have provided ecidence and not missed loads if previous appointments.

Vouchers lol how's that going to work, for all the things you need and whose going to do the admin side of it. Unworkable.