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.

Feels like the thread has moved on a lot.

But in regards to the original question, I wonder what is the rationale of saying someone must have worked in order to get benefits? I think most people in the UK, working or not, are actually net receivers from the state: when you consider things like the cost of schooling to 18 (ifs.org.uk/articles/seven-charts-ps73000-cost-educating-child). Big life expenses that everyone has. This is without thinking of things like child benefit, free nursery hours, hospital treatment, prescriptions etc. The state pension, which is a benefit - does someone with 3 kids who has worked in a minimum wage job (full time) for 35 years really think they paid in more than they get out?

The "I've paid in" argument doesn't make sense for most people. Yes, you may have paid in, but you've actually taken out a lot more than you've ever paid in. So, in that case, what does it really matter whether someone has had a minimum wage job for 10 years or not before getting benefits? The amount of tax they've paid during the time is tiny. Let alone people who only work part time, or are self-employed and fiddling the books.

Most people in the UK pay very little income tax and NI relative to the tangible benefits they received over their life. Even if they have never claimed unemployment benefit. Maybe a person hasn't worked yet, but they will in the future and will be a net contributor- do we leave this person to die? It feels very arbitrary and like irrational gatekeeping of resources.

Benefits should be about need and safety nets. Else, get rid of all income taxes and benefits (including NHS), and make everyone save from wages or capital for a rainy day.

If it's about not having children suffer, then we need to switch to a voucher system. T

Hmmm

Like that worked until the 60s when the pill became available, and abortion was legalised?

Have you any idea how many illegitimate children there were in Victorian times - when women suffered great stigma and hardship, because there were no benefits? I looked through the parish records of a rural village church from 1690 onwards. There were frequent records like this:

”John/Janet (substitute any traditional first name of your choice), bastard/illegitimate child of Elizabeth Smith (whoever)!”

Some women clearly had one illegitimate child after another, as their names came up repeatedly over the years.

If the threat of social disapproval, the risk of being thrown out of home and having to support themselves and the baby, when few options would have been available to them then with no real child care anyway except baby farms; or the workhouse didn’t stop women having sex outside marriage; why would it magically work now?

I think practically speaking, these protections end up being a double edged sword. As the more the law tells employers they must adjust for, in reality the more reluctant they are to employ a disabled person.
Very few business would or could consider paying someone full time who could only work 75% of the time. So I think making it the responsibility of employers to suck it up or face tribunal (which puts the onus onto a disabled person to fight their employer for their right to work, another issue!) is only ever viable to a point.
At that tipping point employers push back and discriminate at recruitment (which is so difficult to prove in practise) making things even worse for disabled people.
Personally I'd like to see the government providing support to employers so that they can make adjustments without impacting the needs of the business. Also, extending the access to work scheme so more disabled people can have state funded assistance in their jobs would help.

A lot of people who are on benefits are on benefits for a long time because they are unemployable.

Perhaps they don’t qualify or aren’t quite recognised as having a disability or learning disability but let’s be honest how many of us hire the most stupid person we interview or the most socially awkward?

I have interviewed a lot of people and received a lot of applications and I know who will be on benefits for most of their lives and it’s not always because they aren’t trying to get a job but unfortunately there are lots of people who are not particularly bright who are untrainable due to lacking intelligence or comprehension.

I wouldn’t employ them and I wouldn’t want to work with them so should I bitch about them being unemployed or claiming benefits?

I do agree.

I think that people who criticise those on benefits need to take this into consideration when being critical though.

They wouldn't be happy if I was their colleague who was absent 25% of the time, and they aren't happy that I'm on benefits. What's the alternative? They're quick to criticise but never to provide meaningful suggestions.

Finally! Over half the country contribute 9% of the tax receipts. The top 10% contribute 60%. Squeezing the middle is inevitable as how much more can the other demographics contribute. I read about increasing corporation tax but these companies employ people who are part of that 10%. The loss of jobs in the top 10% segment is not a zero sums game. The general public needs a wake up call as what they advocate for is a fast track to everyone being worse off.

@5128gap I agree and you were the person I was hoping would comment! I do think a lot of people get very anxious about trigger points though, and knowing that this is something that can be considered a reasonable adjustment can be very helpful for those with disabilities and chronic conditions. But yes if there is continued frequent absence despite reasonable adjustments, it does make things very difficult.

Relative to the time sleeping around was immoral, why do it? Every time throughout history has social guidelines that people adhere to.

If you have never worked then that should be because you have a medical issue or are a carer perhaps, so you should get the benefits designed for that. Women having babies go on maternity leave, its not a situation where you should get benefits.

If you choose to never work when you could work, or choose to be a stay at home parent, then that's a long term situation and its on you to make sure you have private means to fund that, partners salary, inheritance or whatever. We need ro go back to benefits being a short term measure to tide people over in difficult circumstances. It shouldn't be a lifestyle choice.

As someone in the 45% tax bracket I don't feel happy forking out benefits. Disabled people I get. Healthy people who should have made better decisions in life.....

There are some really judgemental people on this thread!

By getting someone else to look after their child.

Not all parents want their daughters in their house if they get pregnant and they kick them out. Some grew up in care and don't have parents if you read the thread there's been quite a few teen mums say they grew up in care.

Anyway who said anything about teen mums automatically getting a house? Maybe 30 years ago. Luckily there are charities to help

lifecharity.org.uk/covid/life-housing/

Clearly the biological drive over-rode moral disapproval then; and it still does!

Then clearly the mothers instinct to look after her child kicks in. Therefore go out to work to provide for your child. Cant have it both ways.

Sorry if I upset you, it wasn't my intention to say that everyone who is disabled is capable of some work. (And sorry if I misunderstood your post too, as you can see - my poor brain is addled enough these days!)

I'm also very supportive of those who can help themselves, but certainly don't begrudge the others who can't. Certainly in the case of people like my DH's friend, she may have more issues than I knew about, so therefore is in perfectly reasonable receipt of long term benefits too.

I am struggling to see how the person you describe would make a good parent. Are you saying you think they shouldn't have children? Or, please say how they would be a good parent?

Evidently there are people who would like to see a return to Victorian times, with starving beggars on every street corner, people divided into deserving and undeserving poor, with the former given woefully inadequate handouts by the parish. When they have succeeded in getting rid of all benefits, they will complain about the existence of starving disabled people who they have to walk past on their way to a Michelin starred restaurant.

What, like the decision to be a carer for a family member? Or the decision to be made redundant? Or the decision to be in a low paid essential job like social care or retail in an expensive area where these jobs are needed just as much as anywhere else? Or maybe its the decision not to be able to afford to buy a home and to be forced to pay extortionate rent that your wages don't cover? Or the decision to be too old to work?
Because if you're on benefits as a healthy person you will likely be in one of these groups, as the lifestyle choice claimant tends to exist only in the exaggerated anecdotes of people with half a story and a big imagination.

It amazes me that someone who seems to lack basic critical thinking skills, is in a job that enables them to pay so much tax!

It amazes me that people who bandish the term critical thinking, can't see that the world owes you nothing.

Indeed. And as we're on the subject of what we don't like forking out for, I don't care for having to pay out more than I should for things that I need because someone somewhere in the process is being paid more than they need to earn.