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.

This is so true. Our kids would not be proud of us if we just sat at home all day with 20 B&H and the remote! Lol

The welfare system was always supposed to be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice as it is now. It should all be much more stringent, and in some cases means tested. Of course there will always be a need to help those with genuine disabilities and the vulnerable. Regarding the case of 16 year olds getting pregnant, well that shouldn't be happening often given modern free contraception and easily available abortions. Nobody should choose to have children until they are able to provide for them.

Welfare or UC is means tested already.
And I think a 16 year old should get help as otherwise her baby will starve. I thought we were better than that?

Statistics

I had children when I could afford them, then DH retired and I had to go on Universal Credit so the DC and I had money to live on. I'm still on Universal Credit because I'm on minimum wage 4 hours a week. I'm on a zero hours contract and my boss has cut everyone's hours dramatically.

You are exactly what the safety net is for. I hope things improve for you soon. Zero hour jobs are a travesty.

I’ve thought about this a lot especially in the example I provide in my first reply on this thread.

It’s not a cliche to see someone spending social security funds on hair and nails because I was witnessed this for myself with the family I mentioned. and an iPhone that was newer than mine at the time!

two parties also have fines being repaid which comes out of the social security funds they are supposed to be feeding their family off.

as I mentioned earlier, I don’t believe it’s a one size fits all solution and what I would do is not deposit money but allow credit up to a certain weekly/fortnightly limit for grocery shopping.

have a fuel credit, a road worthy vehicle credit, electricity credit, free GP and necessary medications, school costs including books, excursions and uniform expenses covered.

Accommodation supplement for both those with a mortgage and those renting.

All controlled by a photo id card held by the purchaser and an obligation to attend interviews and training courses.

Employers followed up in regard to interviews and those leaving employment within x amount of months of applying for this type of benefit. Retraining courses, wardrobe assistance with appropriate work ready clothing (again doesn’t have to be new but in good condition).

its not a perfect system but everyone will (or should have) food in their bellies and be warm and dry.

if it’s not agreeable, then don’t apply for it. Harsh but the money belongs to the tax payer and they have a right to know it’s being spent where it is supposed to be going.

This is still a lifestyle choice. Your DH choosing to retire when the family could not afford it.

Not really. What is the DH doing?!

I know the statistics show it's now rare for a 16 year old to have a baby but when it does happen how do you know whether it's more common for the family to let them live with them Vs kick them out?

Either way it still happens and why should they starve? Someone else said the country is going bankrupt because of this but how can it if it's extremely uncommon? Guess that must be all the older parents claiming benefits

I taught a young woman who had a baby the year before. She went for an abortion but when she saw the ultrasound and could see arms and legs and decided she could not abort.

She was in college full time and heading for university. She had also breast fed and became a volunteer teaching other mums how to breast feed.

I also worked with a doctor who had her daughter at 17, but she did have family support.

Yes that’s what annoys me. Spending on the unnecessary when others go without these things but then pleading poverty and expecting others to pay because of their bad budgeting

Of course the primary reason to work is money - that doesn't mean the other drivers aren't valid, of course they are. But the forces you're describing is at the top of Maslows hierarchy of needs.

Lots of people pass judgement on those who work less because it's punitive (tax wise or benefit wise) to work more. But, in my opinion, only a select few have the financial luxury make themselves (even temporarily) worse off by working more. You could do it now and get his by a bus tmrw.

The system was revamped so your always be better off in work... But sometimes the financial reward is tiny and just isn't worth the other costs.

I’d say government’s (including Liz Truss) wasteful spending on wars (nothing to do with us), Covid, HS2 and now proposed Digital ID cards would have contributed far more to this country’s debt; then a minority’s misspending of benefits.

The mini budget was reversed within a few days/weeks. What wars? The Iraq war? Ukraine? COVID - fair point. HS2 - badly managed due to planning laws but still an infrastructure upgrade. Digital IDs who knows.

With welfare we can't be funding people endlessly to not go to work and live off the state.

Exactly there’s loads of girls who get pregnant at 16 but no one knows because they abort and then the girls who don’t chose to abort their baby are apparently the bad ones? Getting called Slags and whores etc

I once read about a woman who had nine abortions and no one bats an eyelid

I'd actually praise the ones who don't abort. Id judge someone who had multiple abortions due to convenience.

I waited till marriage with my DH before having sex.

As they say it takes two to tango
No reason why girls should be judged
for either choices

The only judging is on both individuals not using contraception

Really? Why should people who have never paid into the system be able to suck everything out of it? It breeds a cycle of laziness within families and must be stopped.

So what about people with learning disabilities who have never been able to work? Should they get a pension?

Clearly disabled people unable to work are not a relevant demographic on this thread

There should obviously be exceptions but not everyone with learning difficulties are unable to work. Thise that can work should work and if they refuse, they shouldn't be able to get anything out of the system. Why should working people pay for lazy people to sit on their arse all day?

Nothing lazy about being a teen mum when other 16 year olds are having abortions so they can continue to laze in bed and sit around smoking weed but the one who doesn’t abort and has to do night feeds gets called lazy?

I mean let’s be honest raising children is harder than most 9 to 5s

How many 9 to 5s have you ever had OP?

A few and let’s face it there’s enough threads where ops are told their husbands should be helping out with the kids at home after getting back from work for us to be honest that raising children is harder.
9 to 5 with no kids means getting a full nights sleep at least. Say what you want but “lazy” is not the right word