Person with MH problems should not be better off no working

[YourTidyScroller]

Just that really. Someone working a minimum wage job full-time should not be worse off than someone not working due to mental health problems and claiming benefits.
I know several people in this situation claiming UC for housing benefit, council tax, ESA, disability top up and PIP. They all have no work record and few qualifications so would probably only get a minimum wage job. But their income would reduce. So they have a financial incentive not to recover.

@Crazydoglady1980 Online shopping is not an additional cost. Even paying for delivery can be cheaper than travelling there.

PIP money is not given to people to spend in a specific way. People can spend it how they see fit and to make their life easier.

I know people, carers can provide all kinds of support for people with mental health difficulties, helping them to access the community, organise their home (doing housework, paperwork etc) as well as many other tasks. As a pp has said, just because your friends chose not to use their money to meet their additional needs, doesn’t mean that the people don’t

Childish comment. Grow up.

Depends where you live and what you access to shopping would be without your MH condition. You could live next door to a Tesco’s or Morrisons and not be able to go there

Some of us have family that take the place of a paid carer. Doesn't mean we ar not entitled to PIP. It is based on need, not costs.

Online shopping can be an additional cost. Delivery costs from different shops you could otherwise shop in during the same shopping trip. Returning items because you e.g. can’t feel them or try them on before buying. Minimum basket charges for some shops.

For a few people okay. Most people have to drive, or get a bus or taxi, whether they are disabled or not. Or pay for online shopping. It costs me 99p for delivery, I choose unpopular times, and that is less than the cost of going there myself. But 99p once a week is not a large amount.

Yes they are. Person I know has HA house for around 1/10 of market rent before benefits. Something is not right in system

If a disabled person can't do an everyday task that an able bodied person would take for granted, such as going shopping on the bus for example; they have the choice of paying extra for a work around, such as a taxi, or not going shopping. Some disabled people may choose not to go shopping, so will not have the extra cost of the taxi. The aim of the benefit is to give them the choice. A choice that an able bodied person would take for granted. Do you think disabled people should have fewer choices than able bodied people?

But to get that price I assume you have to spend £40/50 at a time? Otherwise there is another cost added? Not everyone can afford that.

Perhaps not, but they would only be awarded the money if they had successfully proven they couldn’t manage independently. So if they chose to waste the money and not use ot for it’s intended purpose, that thing that they couldn’t manage without assistance, just wouldn’t get done?

so which is it - your three friends have conned three separate assessors, your three friends genuinely all have independence issues, but splurge the money on other things, or c) none of the above cos you’re making it up as you go along.

They are not representative of all people on benefits for MH reasons though. I am on nowhere near min wage on my benefits, and I know plenty of others that are not too.
People who work can get a HA house too.
Also, my house is owned so I get no housing cost. Not everyone on benefits rents and claims housing.

@Sirzy Yes I do.
At one time I struggled to spend this much, now its easy.

Its tricky isn't it, I think what you are trying to put across @YourTidyScroller is that there is little incentive to move from benefits to working for some people with mental health issues ?
However you don't incentivize someone by simply making their life harder, quite often that will result in actually maker them more unwell and so harder to help them into any meaningful work.
I think what you should be asking is what would help people back into the workplace ? what are the barriers currently and how to break them down and help people past them. It needs a holistic approach at an individual level, and a focus on what people can do and not what they can't.

Let's just focus on those people with MH problems who could work. Yes, there are a number who could do so with suitable adjustments. But someone has to be willing to employ them. Employers may be reluctant to employ someone who has not been in work for a while; who may take more time off than average; who may need more of a 'handhold' and more adaptations than some other employees; who may sometimes be more preoccupied or more emotional than others. In order to encourage employers to take what they may see as a risk, some incentives may at least initially be needed: e.g. a reduction in NI contributions and/ or direct funding of workplace adaptations. I would strongly support such measures, but they cannot be seen as a fast way to save money.

And will those, who think that currently unemployed people with MH problems should get jobs, be prepared to accept colleagues who are absent more than average, who may burst into tears at times, or who may not socialize with others? Will they, as customers, refrain from complaining about shop and hospitality workers who may serve them efficiently but without a smile or cheerful chat? My answer to both these questions would be YES, but it wouldn't be everybody's (just judging from some MN threads!) and frankly, those who are not prepared to accept such differences, cannot then justly complain about people with MH problems not working.

I don’t know - I can’t see into the future, unfortunately. I think it’ll change, but I don’t know what those changes could be. Means tested, perhaps?

housing association houses aren’t 1/10th of market rent. But even if they were, that just means the benefits system is paying 9/10ths less to that person than to someone having to private rent at ten times the price (but who is still eligible for help).

They only get paid the amount of their rent, they don’t get to find a bargain house and pocket the rest….

You don't think people should have social housing?

But what if an unpopular time is the time they need to be in bed for? Or can't manage to get themselves out of bed for? Or is unavailable to them? What if they have severe OCD and need to have their shopping done aby 10am on a Saturday morning, when the cost for delivery is higher?

You don't know enough about these people's lives to judge what they get or why and whether they should have it.

Lots of people with mental health problems do not spend PIP paying for care. They either manage by pushing through, they get family/friends to do it for them, or it does not get done.
It really sounds like you are talking theoretically and do not know anyone or many people with mental health problems getting PIP.

I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

I think you mean work should pay OP.

But think about it, if you are in a flat, claiming benefits, perhaps you could work but you have worked out a way to be ok not working. What choices do you have? What human interaction do you have?

Even employees on minimum wage could, move to the coast, if they wanted. They have the opportunity to upskill, earn more, have more choices.

Being stuck in a property because it's being paid for and to move would be almost impossible because moving areas, finding housing that will set you up as you are in benefits is virtually impossible.

So why would anyone choose this?

Say you are young, just entering the workforce, have got in a rut claiming benefits for mental health, let's say depression, but not "real" depression, just enough to get the benefits depression, what happens then? You see your peers, friends, in a year or two, move on, get better jobs, have relationships, go travelling, have holidays, move away and you are there in the same property, doing the same things, filling out the same forms, no one around in the day because they have stuff to do.

You get little real human contact, never make work friends, never see what is possible because you are mentally trapped.

If you are older, more middle aged, you are not working towards adding a bit, even just a bit, towards your pension, you are likely to either be dependent on a relationship that could fail, being taken advantage of or never really having the attributes to be a desirable partner.

It might seem unfair that people can stay at home, not work, have bills paid, particularly in the winter when you are scrapping the ice off the car or waiting for public transport that's late and having a cross boss. But is it really? 10, 20, 30 years of the same old, same old, stuff on tv, looking for the cheaper foods in the supermarket, not being able to book pricey tickets for a show or an artist.

Is that better because they get their council tax paid for?

There is existence and there is life. And life is outside, it's people, and mess and hard work, and being part of a team, and progressing, and oh loads of other things.

An old school friend of mine has played the system since she was 18, her whole family have, they have definitely had more disposal income in the past than I have but would I have ever swapped, god lord not a chance, she was miserable, the same conversation topics over my annual visits of 30 years, 30 years the same thing. THIRTY YEARS (and counting .....).

Yes work should pay, benefits should be a safety net for those that can't.

There are so many other things that work gives you aside from money. There really is. Stories, complaints, not the same thing for 30 years and counting.

It's nothing, nothing to envy OP. Nothing at all.

Daily mail reader

I am saying it is fundamentally unfair that someone dragging themselves into a brutal minimum wage job gets less money than someone not working. And that it is disincentive to improving your mental health enough so that you can work. It makes sense to stay on benefits if you can.