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.

Sending children to school is not a complete, perfect solution, is it?

Have you got some sort of issue with mothers older than yourself , Op? Women who had babies in their thirties, or 40s? @DonaldBiden
Just a vibe I’m picking up from your posts.

Thank you. Both DH and I are from India and we both didn't have much growing up. My own mum and dad could barely make ends meet at times. One thing my parents drilled into me, and I drilled into my children was the value of education and working hard at school.

I understand there are still socio-economic gaps in the country that we need to address. People from disadvantaged backgrounds do get into Oxbridge. Many universities are trying as well with widening participation. Lord Sugar went from council estate to Billionaire. I'm not saying life will be easy, but at some point you take what you've got and try and do the best for yourself.

One of DD's friends is currently in retail after graduating with a 2.2. They don't want to stay in retail forever so they are self studying an investment management certificate in their free time. They are taking the steps to better themselves.

YABU

When my DC were in primary there were a lot of children that just spend their evenings and weekends playing call of duty on their Xbox and PlayStation. They went to the local comprehensive. All my DC went to the grammar school.

Of course not. But according to some posters it doesn't matter anyway and they may as not bother going - there fate is already set. Anyway I'm going to keep encouraging my kids to work hard and school so they get good jobs, if others want to do differently that is up to them.

No sorry my own mother was approaching 40 when she had me. My point was people don't mind when older mums need financial assistance but when they say people who've never worked shouldn't be able to get benefits that would mean young mums wouldn't be able to do the same

In answers to your op, people need to take responsibility for their actions, which means not getting pregnant if they can’t afford a baby. Does it even need to be said?

It’s not feasible but if it was I absolutely support withholding benefits from people who have never contributed in any significant manner to the welfare state.

I also have zero sympathy for young mothers who choose to have babies they cannot support themselves.

What 16 year old is in a formally committed partnership with a breadwinner partner?

If a 16 year chooses to have a kid she cannot support she’s an idiot.

To a point yes. But how many of these positions are paid on an hourly rate or based on shifts? To me that's what makes those working in the NHS more unique.

Most other professions climbing the pay scale receiving an annual pay rise versus hourly rate change (thinking of teachers for example). So they are generally doing the same job and hours for a pay increase. Those who get an hourly pay increase may find it actually makes emotional/health sense to work less because of taxation bands and the cost/benefit.

Don't have a solution - flat tax rate isn't any better. The UK thresholds haven't kept up with inflation and is part of why many people have less disposable income despite having had pay increases and perhaps even working more hours.

If your pay jumps to a higher band everyone can cut their hours.
If the contract allows that is, many don’t and employees get a raise and end up worse off financially especially if it crosses the child benefit / xxxx thresholds etc etc etc

so actually in many industries shifts would be a bonus or at least a contract that allowed for more flexibility to change your hours.

There trying to make a ludicrous comparison that because someone is self sufficient and needs to use childcare for some of the time, that that is in anyway similar to relying on the state to feed your kids.

I think we actually agree with each other here. I was responding to someone who was upset a midwife had decided to cut her hours as taking 25 hours of extra shifts left her worse off. I was explaining why this happens and that it's not just about staying on benefits. But clearly no one wants to work more and make themselves worse off!

We are fortunate enough to live in a country where forced abortion and forced adoption are no longer legal, thankfully. Barbaric practices which serve no one and do so much harm.
They are not the only alternative however. We also have free and ready access to reliable contraceptives.
Yes, I was totally foolish in hindsight at 15, not at all helped by a chaotic, neglectful home life. I did not however think for one minute I was capable of raising a child so the pill and condoms together it was, because I didn’t want an STD either. I wanted to get out!
And while OP is quite correct in saying it’s not generally legal to work in the UK until you are 16, the age of consent is also 16.

Whilst obviously no child should suffer, I think education is the answer, to prevent people repeating the cycle that they know.

It IS about staying on benefits - that poster is saying that with her hourly rate increasing her benefits will reduce, so her net income will increase too little to justify her working the same hours.

She is making right decisions for her giver very wrong system. It's the system which encourages people to work less.
Across all levels - for low paid it makes little difference vs staying on benefits, for high earners marginal tax rates and loss of other benefits it makes little sense to progress unless it's a huge jump. For truly wealthy it makes sense to emigrate.

And again - that posted is not the only one, and it's not only those who are truly disabled to make the same life choices.

It's an amazing opportunity that isn't available to all people on the planet. Talking it down isn't helping people, it's holding them back.

Some people who claim PIP do work. It is not an out of work benefit, and in some cases it is the fact that a person is claiming PIP, that enables them to continue working.

Of course education is important, however addressing the barriers to education is also important, which are often rooted in social inequalities. If a child is living in poverty, they are more likely to have a parent with significant mental health issues, less likely to have good quality nutrition and less able to cognitively function as well as their peers who are not living in poverty. Children who have chaotic home lives due to poor parental mental health, domestic violence, addiction issues etc are also more likely to struggle in an educational context. There are also many educational barriers in accessing higher education, classism and racism are still prevalent.

Of course it is possible to improve your life through education and learning, but it’s not as simple as ‘just work harder’. That narrative is so damaging as it implies that those who are already working as hard as they possibly can could be rich/healthy/successful if they just wanted it a bit more. It’s tone deaf. This does not acknowledge the very real systemic barriers that exist that prevent people from being able to make meaningful changes in their lives. The onus cannot just be on individuals to make their lives better, we need to live in a society that helps them to do that, which isn’t based on blaming and shaming.

Yay we are

Im in favour of a single tax rate for all
and less means testing for things like nurseries etc.

I want to treat everyone equally and want everyone to work without financial cliff edges

I've very aware of the barriers, having worked in deprived schools myself.

The most consistent barrier I saw was lack of aspiration - kids knowing they won't have to work, their parents knowing they won't have to and would take it personally if they did.

Of course, some kids in and out of care, constant contact with the police etc did struggle. We all spent our mornings, breaks, any free time supporting these kids. But overall, what held kids back was not valuing education.

Every staff member went up and beyond to fill the gaps of deprivation - some families saw school as a way out and did well, others didn't.

@Mosaiccat Yes, I addressed aspiration and hope in a previous post. Obviously this very much ties in with parental mental health, attitudes and values, the environment, the trauma of living in transgenerational grinding poverty and how this affects a person. We all know how traumatising the care system is, and how this causes more harm to already traumatised children. This is why this problem will not be fixed by education alone.

I’ve honestly never known such a detachment between actions and consequences as there is with having babies. People genuinely act like they drop from the heavens and the parents have no say in it, ‘so why should I suffer..’

The fact is we have an absolute myriad of options which are free, safe and nearly guarantee no pregnancy. Firstly abstinence, nobody needs to have sex. Secondly, condoms - bit old fashioned but they’re still there. Thirdly, the big one that enables consequence-less fun, contraceptives! Not just one kind, but many, which last anything from a few months to a few years, are free, safe, highly effective and readily available. Even if you throw all of the above to the wind, there’s still the - free, readily available, safe - morning after pill. Even beyond that there is - free, on demand - abortion.

What exactly is the excuse for having a ‘surprise baby’ in 2025 beyond just carelessness then feigning surprise at the result? I just don’t believe that people would have so many ‘surprise’ pregnancies if they knew they would have to do all the providing themselves and not rely on the state.

You are right about the damage of care system, parental mental health, drugs and other barriers.

Having worked for years with deprived children, what I saw is the damage that lack of aspiration does. If parents dont work they may never bother to foster skills like time keeping, emotional self regulation, delayed gratification - leaving children with grim home lives. The children who had at least one parent working, did better. For me, we can do a lot for children by getting parents out to work.

I think we are concerned about the same group of people, just with very different perspectives.

Get a job.