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.

There’s a massive difference between what we want in an ideal world and what we can actually achieve.
The money should go into schemes that help people become independent, rather than actually supporting them.

Simply because the statistics show we are all heading down the pan. The amount extra people can pay to support others is insufficient to the numbers claiming.

It’s not about what we want to see, it’s about what we can make happen.

I’m starting to think we should be feeding people at work, feeding people at school. Being in work needs to be beneficial.

@Amberlynnswashcloth if a healthy, able-bodied person can't get an employer to take them on, what should they do?

Many people with chronic health conditions, neurodiversity, mental health conditions, learning disabilities are not diagnosed with anything. Much like needing an employer to employ you, you need a specialist to diagnose you. There are so many barriers in place, you need to be incredibly tenacious and knowledgeable for employment to happen, even more so for a diagnosis of something.

Many Autistic people are healthy and able-bodied. All of the above fall into healthy working age people statistics.

Do you think someone in a minimum wage job, who has regular expensive medication should not be entitled to benefits?

I can't get riled up. Huge numbers of the population receives 'benefits', UC goes to 'normal' working families, not just those on NMW/ out of work. Nursery hours are a benefit, so by MN standards if not being hypocritical, parents shouldn't use those either ditto Child benefit...healthcare....education..and so on..
Either accept people make choices based on what's available or restrict 'benefits' and make people pay for every choice, not just those deemed 'acceptable'.
Very few are contributing more than they take, most, even the judgemental MNers.

I didn’t have an expensive education, I was state educated and I have literally zero generational wealth. I DID have luck, good heath and good timing and yes, I did work hard. I also pay huge amounts of tax. The top 1% of earners pay more than 28% of all income tax and the top 10% pay more than 60%. How much more do you want?
We cannot continue as we are. There is simply not enough money for the people who need it through no fault of their own and too much being given to other people because of their own choices.
Too many net takers, not enough net contributors.

If it’s compulsory, it’s not volunteering.It would however create an industry all of its own - people to recruit, train and manage vpeople in forced work placements, so it would improve job availability.

16 year olds in the care system often have to move in to a flat and fend for themselves.

Some parents throw a pregnant child out.

Absolutely agree that if you haven’t worked you shouldn’t receive benefits!

You benefit from having much higher take home pay. It is not a meritocracy, you have not necessarily worked 'harder' than someone in a lower paid industry that scrambled themselves up to £32K.

Your particular skillset and neuro wiring, along with your hard work, have coincided with lucrative employment.

You do have more to give, you have more than most.

DH and I are middle rate tax payers, working hard, supporting our dependents (no benefit entitlements) and a working age adult. I think we should pay more, rather than a lower income household having their benefits cut.

Jesus Christ, some of the comments on here!!!!

I was that teenage mum!! I was 17 when I had my DD. Zero support from my own parents (I'd left home/really crappy upbringing). Sought solace in a completely unsuitable/abusive relationship with an older man. Got pregnant. Was a single parent from when she was 7 weeks old. No support from her dad who went to prison/disappeared off the face of the earth/subsequently died.

Yes there have been times I was on benefits while I sorted myself out AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE FOR.

I've worked and gained an education (2 degrees). I've been married since my mid twenties to a truly wonderful man and haven't had any help from the government for a very long time. Both work full time and have for many years.

But that desperate teenage version of me and my baby? Yes we needed the help. I was grateful of it. It was shameful enough being a single teenage mum (yes I was aware of the judgement all the time). I'm glad I was able to turn things around. I'm glad I was met with a bit of kindness along the way.

What a judgemental lot some of you are.

When I say "healthy and able bodied" I mean mentally healthy and robust to be included in that. Even without a diagnosis there will be some evidence of issues such as neurodiversity to support a claim, so, letters from GP, school or proof of referrals. That's how it works now. You can't just turn up at the DWP and say you're "neurodiverse" so can never work. There should be a traceable background of difficulties to prove it.

It would never happen anyway. There will always be some support available. Some people are luckier than others in life and it’s easier for them to judge those less fortunate and who aren’t born with the same level of luck.

In fact, what I really mean is that you are taking more. DH and I are taking more. More goes into our bank accounts than most others.

The economy isn't fair, people dont have equal skills, opportunities, intelligence, social skills.

Higher rate tax payers get more than their fair share and they tend not to be very magnanimous about it.

People have the odd idea that support from welfare state should be based on what they subjectively feel is fair, and should be allocated on the basis of who deserves it.
In fact the principle underpinning the welfare state is quite different. It's simply that a civilised society ensures that people have their basic needs met.
So the child of a mother who chooses not to work must be fed and housed. A person who chooses not to save for retirement cannot be left to die of hypothemia, someone who wilfully damages their own health should still be given medical care to ease their suffering.
These things are the baseline principle on which the idea of a welfare state is built. And if we're going to start excluding some people based on circumstances rather than need then we're eroding that principle.
Alongside the principle, there needs to be rigorous measures to ensure as few people as possible reach that position of need and that where possible they move out of it.
Whether this be in the 'soft' form of education and incentive, or the more draconian criminalisation of behavior likely to lead to dependency, action needs to be at the preventative stage, not simply snatching away the means of survival of the 'undeserving'.

If the cost of living was affordable, many people would no longer need benefits.

A single mother on the average UK salary could not afford full time childcare without help (whether that’s a second income or benefits). Renting a 3-bed semi in the south east would take up most of the monthly take home pay of of the average salary. That’s not including, gas, electricity and other bills.

So long as the UK remains a place where only those earning significantly more than the average salary or those in double income households can afford to get by, it would be evil to deprive people of benefits just because they haven’t paid into the system before.

Nowhere did I claim to work harder than anyone else. But it is simply not true that you must have had an expensive education or generational wealth to become well off.
And, if you want to pay more, which you claim to, it’s very, very easy to do via HMRC. Knock yourself out!

Very few are contributing more than they take, most, even the judgemental MNers.

Over half the population - 52.6% - are living in households who are net recipients. That’s hardly ‘very few’.

This is not to say I blame them, government a need to invest in people and ensure there are jobs for them to do - we have lost nearly 200,000 jobs under the current lot.

I didn't claim that you have to have a private education or generational wealth, I pointed out that those that do, often attempt to play down or hide the fact.

Realistically, a person without a job should probably be allowed to claim benefits equal to SMP during the time you would be eligible for it.

SMP obviously isn't very much, and it doesn't include free housing bills etc. but, it's been judged perfectly fine for a working woman to receive during maternity leave - so why should anyone not in work receive more?

OP, you yourself have admitted you didn't work until your child was two years old. No working woman can take maternity leave for two years - it's capped to one year, with a large portion of that unpaid. Why did you feel entitled to be a SAHM for two years - whilst the women who funded your life were back at work within one?

Having about half as net contribution and half as takers sounds quite balanced really- would be better to tip that a bit obviously

refusung any benefit to people who never work / like a severely disabled person? A young mum? What will happen to those people ? Workhouses ? No that’s benefits in kind . In the streets begging and stealing ? Much more likely - that’s what happens around the world where the safety net isn’t very strong

and that’s not what I would like for this country

why not refuse medical treatment to people who have made themselves ill through poor diet ? That would save billions for the NHS . Focus on the lazy and greedy not those who have been the subject of misfortune. if you are overweight this is not a serious suggestion- I hope you appreciate that it is however more logical than refusing benefits to children and the disabled. And if you are both overweight and thinking that benefits should be slashed - perhaps think again at how easy a target you would be next .

The non working, undiagnosed Autistic adults have not had the benefit of 'how it works now' .

There will always be people that fall outside of 'the rules'. There will also always be a very small minority (which some imply are far more numerous) that are lazy, workshy layabouts. What do we do with them? Send them to the wilderness to die? 😅

This specific example hinges on the child's wellbeing, it's not about the adult. Paying benefits to young mums who have never worked is about preventing the child from living in destitution. The alternative is that we let the children suffer for their parents decisions (which could be them being abandoned by their partner so out of their hands). To be honest I've seen young mums living on benefits and it's not a life of luxury anyway.

I say this as an older single mum who's quite well off, has never had benefits and pays an awful lot of taxes while raising my child alone. I'd rather my taxes went towards support less well off families to ensure children aren't starving, homeless or abandoned than many other feckless projects the government wastes money on.

There are no jobs where I live at the moment. What happens when your high street closes down mostly, local authorities (the biggest employer) have cut their staff to the ground bone etc.
There’s care work, but not everyone is suitable for that. Where are all these inexperienced adults meant to work?
We talk about AI but unskilled jobs have been cut down for decades. DHs work used to have a tea lady! The canteen staff have gone. The staff have shrunk so the support roles have reduced, the cleaners have gone, the full time supplies man has gone.

We’ve cut the jobs that lots of people used to do, jobs that people used to be able to live off.
Theres no jobs for teenagers, Saturday jobs are no more as they want staff available all the time. So they’re not getting experience or getting used to working.
If you want people to work you need to create jobs.

Before I got a job I went to a college which also had a nursery so technically wasn't doing nothing for two years.

I admit I wasn't thinking about what other women were doing or how my life was funded but who does think about stuff like that at 16?

Anyway I'm sure I'll be called stupid now but statistics show there's way less teen mums than ever before so I'm not sure why these perfect posters think the countries economic problems will be solved by ruining the lives of the few teen mums that there are in 2025

A teenage mum going into their first job has far more barriers to work than a mum returning from Maternity Leave. They are not idle, they are working, doing a job that another person would have to be paid to do in their absence, they are just earning a wage through paid employment.

There are so many types of unpaid work that are paid when outsourced to someone else. Adults should be fed and housed as well as children imo.