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.

Yes a person has a right to refuse a job but by doing so their benefits should stop. I thought this was officially what was supposed to happen.

Our legal immigration system IS the problem. It is utterly non-selective.

You can literally get a visa to work in a convenience store or a takeaway. I am not joking. We actually give away these visas. Many of the other visa categories such as IT workers which we think of as skilled workers are also in IT body shops which are not the very high-tech advanced skills that we think about when we think about skilled migrants - we don't come anywhere close to the skill levels they see in the US. The minimum salary needed has only recently been raised to the high £30ks - it used to be low £20ks only a few years ago.

I cannot express how utterly non-selective work immigration routes are.

This is not to say that there aren't people with genuinely rare skills coming in to the country but it is a complete myth to say that the bulk of it is bringing in essential skills that cannot be developed in the UK. (It is especially a farce when we turn away UK-trained doctors for training positions in favour of foreign ones.)

Finally, everyone always says that line about not being eligible for state support. Again, completely misleading: after 5 years, most people are eligible for ILR and all the benefits you are.

The massive wave of people who entered from 2021 onwards (look at the graphs) is about to be eligible for ILR. I am part of that wave as a skilled worker migrant. I know what I'm about to be eligible for. This wave was dominated by low skilled care workers who will almost certainly begin to rely on the benefits system en masse, and is on the scale of millions of people over the 5 year period.

Please, please look at the numbers.

Or ‘it’s incredibly difficult to claim benefits for illness, it’s impossible’.

If youre prepared to embellish and lie and keep on with visiting the GP to create a paper trail of evidence, be thick skinned and brazen it’s very easy to get the benefit.

I don’t know but I’m curious to know

Even if people are sanctioned, they would still get their housing element.

This is really interesting. I think a lot of people assume that it is quite hard to migrate to the UK through legal routes and that foreign workers (eg driving Deliveroo mopeds) turned up on a small boat at Dover last year.

This is what the conversation needs to be about, but without accusations of racism. Rishi Sunak evaded talking about this by only focusing on inflatable boats landing on the south coast. Would tightly controlling immigration affect the economy? Fewer cheap workers? I can only think it’s that, as recent governments appear to care about the economy and nothing else.

I don't think governments can afford to care for anything BUT the economy. It is not in a comfortable place ATM.

Why are they drains if not claiming and paying in to the system?

@chaosmaker as in they receive more from the state then the contribute in tax - that doesn’t mean just from benefits - but the overall cost of services provided by the state. Not just the nhs but police, roads etc etc. and as none of them have any pension savings and they rent they will use substantially more resources than they have ever contributed to.

again - I stress that these are not people with disabilities they choose not to work full time hours

Because you have to earn around £38k to pay in more than you take out, on average. So someone who isn't working/earning is taking more out in the form of public services etc than they're paying in. I.e. a "drain" even if they're not CURRENTLY claiming benefits, as they almost certainly will be in future, ie state pension, will almost certainly have benefitted from state provided education, transport infrastructure, health, police, etc etc etc

Although of course this is very rudimentary and does take into account for instance

• that someone on a low salary may be a public sector worker who will end up with a decent private pension and my have been able to earn more in the private sector so is "contributing" by providing a public service to the state
• that higher earners tend to have a higher carbon footprint

-.that the higher earners I know often are more likely to do extreme sports /adrenaline sports and cost the NhS a fortune when they get injured

• that higher earners may have bigger , bulkier cars that are more polluting and more wearing on the roads
• that some of our pensioners (among others) provide amazing "unvalued" help in the form of childcare/caring for others /voluntary work etc

To look only at salary is short sighted when wealthier people often use up far more space and resources. Just look at home much more space big vehicles take up on the roads and in car parks for instance

They must have done something right if they are not working and NO claiming benefits? Could it be they have already contributed for many many years to be in this position?

By this logic those not working and also claiming benefits are a DOUBLE drain. Only right that they are the ones forced into work first?

I'd never be able to earn 38k doing menial (as the 'high earner' but possibly low value work people look at me) care work. I enable people to live in their own homes and provide others with the ability to have a social life. I must not be contributing to society though. Cos money!

Edited for typo

It’s quite a simplistic way of looking at it though -many lower earning people ( not just lower earning of course) smoke and drink , use fuel , pay council tax, pay VAT on goods - this all contributes to tax take too and plenty are not on any benefits at all of course because they have some inheritance or own a home or have no kids still at home and just over limits etc -

The comment was that it was on a average? and the explanation also talked about how in later life and early life you don't earn, but you use resources?

My dad for example earnt well and is probably a net contributor over his lifetime. But currently in his old age is paying a low level of tax and costing the NHS a fortune!

As it showed in covid though, the ESSENTIAL workers were usually not the ones on high earnings but probably the ones that are on top up benefits - work should pay properly and companies should pay actual living rates (not what is euphemistically called the living wage) rather than be subsidised by government.

Being a single parent is not a 'lifestyle'. For many it is incredibly complex, juggling and juggling some more. For some, particularly with younger children, it can be easier not to work until the youngest is in school - this is the approach I took. I have worked full time since. I didn't ask for my ex to have an affair and leave whilst I was pregnant. But I did have to manage the resulting mess. No one has 'mutually supported' me. And yet here I am, working full time and some more. There are thousands of women out there who are SAHM to claim not to be able to work. What's the difference? Why should I work hard when they can't be bothered and make a claim on the state?

@chaosmaker were do you draw the line though in terms of wages/benefits. My 26 year old son is on a decent salary but when you break it down it’s only £18 an hour and that’s London- his girlfriend on similar.

minimum wage when we lived in Denmark was I was told around £15 an hour.

in certain parts of the country , particularly the southern half and south east in particular it’s hard to get by on less than £65k family income- and that’s with average level rents and mortgages- and little childcare needed.

a great many businesses in UK would not be viable if we were paying £20 an hour plus and that’s not helping anyone either if we have more unemployment and more benefits needed

Given that we can’t just keep upping and upping salaries in lots of cases without creating unviability we need to get a grip on costs - more proper social housing at affordable rates, and once we have more choice, rent caps in my opinion ( region dependent) - my suggestions ( non costed) would possibly include the following-

renationalise utilities to be non profit making- all profits reinvested back into the service so the gvt don’t need to be constantly bailing out ‘private’ companies.

look at stuff quickly relating to care costs so local authorities have more headroom on things like business rates. If it means we all have to pay in to an insurance scheme to get future care needs met and a max that can be taken from assets of say £80k - then so be it. Care homes regulated to have specific charges and increases allowed. Would in my opinion increase standards at the lower end of basically people can pick purely on choice.

stick 2% on tax and use towards housing and health including free annual checks at specifically built new centres staffed by health workers ( not doctors/nurses) - full bloods including deficiencies, urine, body/skin check etc -

get rid of council tax and bring in a fixed ‘sensible’ cost per person over 18 in a house. To be honest I think the poll tax made more sense- I think the huge issue was that those on very low incomes/ benefits were having to pay virtually in full -so that needs integrating into UC properly.

You don't need to keep increasing wages if the cost of living was cheaper. It is ridiculous out of kilter price hikes have become to how much wages have risen or rather haven't risen in line.

@chaosmaker I agree- that’s what my thread was saying - it’s costs that need to be kept in check

There are also other models of economy that may suit people better but capitalists don't like to think about them as less lining of the pockets of the few. money is a token and in and of itself worthless. I think it would be interesting if those in power were willing to consider other models and put out the pros and cons.