To think too many people are happy to live off benefits forever?

[BritishQueue]

Okay, I know this is a touchy subject here on MN, but I need to ask, AIBU to think that too many people are just choosing to stay on universal credit rather than work?

Obviously, I’m not talking about people who genuinely can’t work - disabilities, carers, etc (even though a lot of those who claim to be unfit for work are perfectly capable, and I’ve seen “carers” for people who don’t actually need any care…). But I know multiple people who are completely able-bodied and yet have no intention of ever getting a job. They say things like “it’s not worth it” or “I’d be worse off working,” and honestly, I don’t get it. I work full-time, pay tax, and yet I see people getting rent paid, extra handouts, and still managing holidays and luxuries I can’t afford. Not to mention that a lot of women think the government should subsidise their SAHM lifestyle.

I just don’t understand how it’s fair? Surely benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice? AIBU?

yes I understand they pay VAT but what about council tax and income tax etc. we all pay VAT. I appreciate some of them work

I am on benefits and pay council tax. I get a reduction, but I still pay towards some of it.

Look it’s the ethos of claiming state benefits and then pissing off on five long haul holidays. Proper three week travelling type holidays not AI round the pool package's.

I’m sure it was all very legal but it can’t actually be right or fair can it?

What do you think is wrong? If someone else has paid for the holiday, then what is wrong with it?
Or if someone has saved up? Some people on UC can and do save. There is even a government scheme that encourages it.

Because it sounds like you think that people on benefits are not allowed to do "nice" things.

She open about w

I have a family member who has been on benefits for years, works plenty of cash in hand jobs though, always seems to have plenty of money for hair/nail appointments, foreign holiday every year, driving a year old car, it is absolutely galling!

That is because they have cash in hand jobs, not because they are on benefits.

I would find it galling too, TBH. I am scared to even sell second hand stuff in case DWP thinks I am working on the side.

What about when it’s not a case of wanting something but needing it (food, heating) to survive?

I think in that case the benefits should be stopped and let them survive on cash in hand or perhaps then they might have to get a proper job

This.

Kids increase benefits. Kids with adhd increase benefits more.

Unfortunately it’s true, there’s a whole subculture in certain places where few of the adults work. My eldest’s school was in one such area and they had families who were on their 3rd generation not working supposedly, how they get away with it I have no idea but most do have some sort of “condition” that is not provable and the authorities do not have the resources to check every claim for fraud. Many work cash in hand though. I had connections through work offering services to this sub group and it was pretty grim, I would not want to live like that, I can assure you they are not going on holidays etc. not beyond Skegness or similar at least but I can confirm people do choose not to work

I do know a very small number of people who live on benefits AND cash in hand work . They say they make around £400-£600 cash in hand. Seem to be okay-ish materially but there is a lot on pay monthly and so there is a high debt level relative to income. No assets or savings.

Seems like hourly wage is too low with most benefits going to in-work people. The tax payer is topping up employers. That said, I assume this is all modeled by government and think tanks etc… …and this way is cheaper than what might happen if wages increased (increased unemployment and related costs).

That makes no sense: “I’ve seen the Eiffel Tower” is not rebutted by: ”I haven’t seen it, so it doesn’t exist,
so you can’t have seen it”.

OP observes something and thinks it happens too much. You can argue it doesn’t happen as much as she thinks or that it’s not a problem.

But you can’t say that commenting based on personal observation is an illegitimate move on MN.

There isn’t much that’s fair or right in an adult world, is there?

Presumably you would be fine with a working person having holidays paid for by family members? Why is it different if claiming UC?

I think there’s quite a big ethical difference. The person earning is getting money through a free exchange. The person on benefits is getting it from others, ultimately, on threat of prison.

I still think we need taxation and a welfare state. But I don’t think putting a system in place entirely eradicates the ethical distinction.

If your bread were confiscated to feed someone who is starving with no support, I think that’s more morally defensible than if it were confiscated to feed someone who has their own or who is already being fed by their family.

The latter person might legally be equally entitled (depending on the rules) but I don’t think ethics derives wholly from rules.

@Pickledpoppetpickle because UC is for those who need wages topping up to abate minimum.
It’s not there to top up the holiday fund for people that can afford not to work that much.

Have you ever visited countries without the support systems in place? People who don’t want to Work still exist even in those horrendous poverty stricken environments you will come across lazy people.

The difference is, you will be stepping over starving children in the street on your way to Starbucks to get a latte. You might not even know it, but you will.
I couldn’t sleep at night.
Most people by their very nature want fairness for everybody, benefits provide a baseline of fairness and it’s not even that good.

Jesus wept. It’s not about morals, is it? People apply for UC and get it because they are eligible. A family member wants same person to enjoy a holiday and pays for it. There’s nothing at all moral there, is there? Unless you are suggesting people on UC - the majority of which actually work - don’t deserve family support?

because UC is for those who need wages topping up to abate minimum.It’s not there to top up the holiday fund for people that can afford not to work that much

And it is still topping up wages? Just a family member paying for the holiday?

Are you trying to argue that if the family member can pay for the holiday, they should support the person concerned?

@Pickledpoppetpickle

“It’s not about morals, is it?”

That’s the crux of what we’re disagreeing on, yes.

If you think ethical considerations start and end with “do the rules permit it?” then I can see why you’d feel there’s no ethical distinction.

As I said in my original post, I support their being tax and I support their being a welfare system. I’m also not saying that this is the worst sin, by a long stretch.

But yes, I do think a scenario in which those who can be supported voluntarily are supported in that way, reserving more of the budget pot for those who have no such options is better, yes. It involves less compulsion, and targets help better at those worst off.

Particularly as the UK runs a public finances deficit, i.e. it’s not just giving the restaurant bill to the person who has the most money, it’s leaving the bill at the table for the next diners to pay for.

This.

A condition that means they receive pip and/or kids have a condition usually adhd to get dla. These all help the 3rd generation not work. It's sad really. However, the genuine people with dame conditions get tarred with same brush. How do you work put genuine from nit with many conditions it's difficult.

Politically biased myths imply there are social housing estates around the country which are populated entirely by unemployed benefit scroungers who are having a ball at taxpayers’ expense.
If these (or anything like them) actually exist then clearly there’s a major problem & that needs to be addressed. (I don’t know if they do exist but then I’ve never gone to look, tbh.)
However as PP said, a small number of examples isn’t proof of a systemic problem.
I guess policy makers need to know the reality before they can fix it.

I claimed tax credits for a reasonably short amount of time when I first became a single parent, I worked all the way through but making ends meet was hard.

I'm a high rate tax payer now and work full time for a ftse 250 company. Obviously I'm proud of where I have got to but christ the system is hard to get out of. I don't think I could of done it without the support of my family. Everytime I took a pay rise, I swear my tax credits dropped by nearly double of my pay rise take home. Obviously I don't regret it and I think I learnt very early on in single parenthood I was the only one I could count on, if I was going to have to work full time I had to do something I loved and I had to take the risk of dropping the tax credits faster than I could take pay rises for my dream career (and I love my job now). However that first year out of Tax credits left me mainly skint and with a bill of £1500 to pay back. I'm not saying that it wasn't worth it but I can understand why people feel beaten by the system as it feels impossible to win..

So you think family members should support if they can. I am not against this, except to say if my mother had supported me in full as a single parent, we would have romped through her money. That’s money that paid for her care home when she had dementia. And as current rules stand, she (me, actually, who would have had to deal with this) would have more than likely come a cropper when being assessed for care home fees, having willingly given her money away to me for years. Simply put, the council would have trawled her accounts, come up with a figure she was deemed to have given away and then refused to pay that amount in care home fees. I would have then had to pick up that cost up to that amount - and we paid nearly £900 a week.

So…no, for my family, it wouldn’t have worked. It would have left me with a period where I would have been unable to support us. It probably wouldn’t have been long, but enough to lose the roof over our heads and more.

If you want a moral system that means families are financially mutually supportive, there is an awful lot that needs to change.

Great post.

for me, once you’re running a deficit as large as ours it goes beyond morals and into simple maths. We can no longer afford to be running a system as generous as the one we have. Whether one thinks it should be even more generous is irrelevant - the facts don’t care about anyone’s feelings.

It’s depressing really, but that’s what happens when you run a policy of managed decline across multiple governments and accept the folly of brexit. It’s also depressing that many of the posters moaning about benefit cuts would probably also pop up saying “good riddance” on any thread talking about the number of millionaires/net contributors leaving the uk.

Kids cost more. Kids with disabilities cost even more than that.