To think it's a bit harsh to say people who've never worked shouldn't get benefits?

[DonaldBiden]

Was reading another thread where many were saying if someone has never worked they shouldn't get any benefits but couldn't comment because it had reached 1000 comments.

I know this might be an unpopular opinion but I don't agree because that would include young mums who can't work because they have a baby to look after. Most of them will get a job when their child is a little older. Why are they any different from older mums who've fallen on hard times and need help?

And I know people will say it's because they've never worked and haven't proven themselves unlazy etc and could be on the dole forever but why should they have their lives ruined just because of something people think MIGHT happen.

M

Yeah quite. I’d rather it’s not a race to the bottom, and that everyone can maintain a decent standard of living. I believe that most people want to work and do things for themselves and if someone is on benefits there is a reason, and people should be supported to get off benefits with healthcare (including mental healthcare), access to childcare, support for employers to take risks and employ certain groups eg apprenticeship schemes, paying sick pay and may/pat pay to smaller employers, providing workshops and courses for people to attend to increase their skills, for example. Cleverer people than me have better examples. I find it hard to imagine that getting behind on the rent and walking to the food bank in the pouring rain because you haven’t got bus fare helps a person better their prospects.

Because mum’s like me put their kids in nursery at 8 months to get back out working and paying taxes.

I don’t agree with your example. You want kids, you should have a way to pay for them. Most working parents don’t get to stay at home, so being on benefits shouldn’t give that luxury either.

I don't agree with that example OP. People should have children when they can afford them, not expect to be funded by the state on some weak promise to work in five years time.

It’s not my responsibility to pay for your children.
i worked to afford mine and stopped at 2 because I couldn’t afford any more.
someones life choice is not what benefits are for.
its to help those that need it not those that choose it

What if the dad leaves? Like it happens to older women and it's ok for them to get support but apparently not a 16 year old? When you can't get a job before 16 so of course they've "never worked" does not mean they never will though

Pay for your own life choices

Why have you started two threads and what’s going on with your username?

Surely there should be limits. How long can we keep supporting these people? What if someone keeps having children, do we keep supporting them, providing them with a free home, free council tax, free dental care and free prescriptions?
How many women can men keep getting pregnant and expect the tax payer to keep?

Neither should get benefits. If she’s 16 she’s living at home with her parents surely?

Most of them - and most other other UC claimants only work when they're told they have too. Remember the days when single mums could stay on benefits until their kid was 16?

Use birth control or better yet don’t have sex when you’re 16.

16 year olds shouldn't be having babies.

Also, an older person with no work experience and no qualifications has no chance of gaining meaningful employment.

I don’t agree either, how is fair that a young/single mother makes the financial decision to stay at home on the tax payers money. That doesn’t imply hard times, that shows a lack of work ethic and the inability to be financially responsible for a child they have chosen to have.

I Do believe that people should receive benefits when struggling after leaving a relationship or illness. But this should not be long term, government money is intended as a safety net and not for a way of life. When money got tight in my house, I found a 2nd job and now work 60 hours a week with 2 children. I’m not unique in this, many other women also work themselves to the bone to provide for their children and also teach them the values of working hard to accomplish something.

Yes…

Seen quite a few of these posts recently, ‘oh but I’ve got young kids so I can’t possibly work / work more than 16 hours because I need to be able to do x and y, I don’t ’want someone else raising my kids’, oh how can I ever afford to buy a house on my 16h a week etc etc.

I am sure these people have their own difficulties, but I’m not sure if these people realise at all what day-to-day life looks for, for mums who are working full time to pay the bills…!

I have a friend that only seems to contact me directly if I can perhaps be useful or do something to help them. That’s how it feels anyway. But on the other hand we do get on well. I also have a dull nag in my gut that says this friend does not help themselves with their health/fitness/getting better…but I know it’s not always easy.I feel ever so guilty. Advice please.

Some people will receive benefits because they aren’t, and never will, be capable of working.

But that's not feasible financially if you don't have a well paid job. Full time nursery for a baby is insanely expensive - it was most of my salary, and I earn a decent wage.

If you don't have the capacity to earn more than minimum wage - and many don't - that's just not an option.

I think you’ve picked a bad example OP because having children is a choice, having a child at any age is a choice, and it’s a choice you should only be making if you can afford to.

I’m confused. How old is this Dad that has left in this scenario? A 16 year old can’t legally rent anywhere so how can they be supporting themselves in any real life adult capacity? It’s irresponsible and I think from the responses on here, people are so fed up of having to theoretically pay for others problems when they themselves work and pay their way and don’t get hand outs for being responsible citizens.

Quite common for parents to kick their pregnant daughters out even in this day and age

The dad can pay then, or the family of the mother. Who cares who pays. It’s not the taxpayers problem she got pregnant without getting her finances in order first. Why would it be?

At 16 you are still technically a child so your parents should be supporting you.

Because not working and living off an ever increasing minority of people who the system going is a pisstake.

And those paying for this largesse have had enough.