AIBU to be miffed about Chester Zoo?

[Stillinshock123]

I need a space to rant but then I welcome feedback and general common-sense.

Chester zoo have posted about £1 deal for those on benefits such as UC, DLA and PIP.

Now, I understand that for some this may be the only opportunity to attend the Zoo given their already ridiculously high prices.

However AIBU to be upset that yet again working families (full time not claiming parts of UC) don’t seem to benefit from much?

We attend the zoo only once a year because of how expensive it is.. so that’s a luxury. So no thanks, no support or discounts.

I emailed them about this, and they replied saying that it’s part of a charity scheme to give back to families who otherwise can’t afford it. But then.. why shouldn’t it be first come first serve?

I’m sure you would give anything for your child to be well. I get that completely.
But that does not mean that other people aren’t struggling in different ways. Having no money and knowing you will receive no help is incredibly stressful too.

@DysmalRadius I think it probably needs a review. If we don’t have the money to add more to the benefits bill, I would look at sharing it out amongst more people. The cost of living crisis is drawing more people into financial difficulties.

So cutting it from people who are already struggling? A single person on standard UC gets £400pm. What is there to cut from them?

I wouldn’t get it anyway but having a mortgage and ‘living beyond your means’ because of a cost of living crisis should be seen as just as ‘deserving’ as someone who is struggling because they didn’t choose a decent partner. And why should some low income jobs be topped up and not others?

I don't understand why your solutions are all based on redistributing the meagre resources of the poorest and most disadvantaged? Why not increasing the minimum wage or redistributing some of the wealth from those with abundant resources?

Or addressing the rising costs of food, housing and energy.

Which aspect of UC is calculated based on your job type? I thought it was purely income based? I agree that the type of job you do shouldn't affect your entitlement to support.

It doesn't. It is what you earn that is important.

I’m on board with this. I would also suggest making companies pay proper wages so benefits aren’t needed as a top up. Wages should be enough for people to have a decent life with a bit of joy in it.

But the cut off point means that some people will receive less despite earning more. They are the people for whom I feel sympathy.

Having a disabled child is expensive. Even though I receive UC and then DLA for him, things are still financially difficult and it is still a struggle.

But raising wages will cause price increases for the goods/services they are selling/offering. And any benefit from increasing wages is just wiped out from rising costs again.
I am not sure what the answer is... I am not a politician or economist. Maybe caps on the profits of energy companies.

Wages used to be high enough. I used to live alone in a NMW job and had a decent life. I was not counting the pennies or anything like that. Times have changed so much.

Me neither and I’m just throwing ideas around as the situation is so grim. Let’s hope we can get back to a time when you could work and do more than exist.

I can imagine it is very difficult, in addition to all other costs at the moment. I don’t doubt you really need and deserve all the help offered. My comparisons are more like for like, where two similar families receive very different support.

I am not sure in what circumstances you would, for example, have 2 families with the same amount of kids, no disabilities, and the parents are on £50k, where one family would be on UC and the other not. Maybe unless one is in an expensive part of London. Or one family uses extended family for childcare, and the other gets UC towards childcare. I will admit, I am not sure how the whole childcare hours etc works with UC.
I know rent and childcare is a big contributor to some of the large UC amounts that some people get.

I think it needs remembering that UC is actually about 6 different benefits. Some people are on several and some on are one.

And charities need to be wary of using "gets benefits " as interchangeable with "in need" . It's lazy and it doesnt work any more and charities need to wake up to this.

Of the last 10 sets of bank statements I have looked for work at I would say only 3 were people genuinely "in need" and one of those doesn't qualify for any benefits despite ill health.

The others have large disposable incomes (largely or wholly from benefits) but spunk lots of money every month on unnecessary stuff . Certainly their disposable incomes are far higher than mine and they spend in a way I find mind boggling. Deliveroo must be mainly bankrolled by DWP!

I was speaking for my experience when I recently went. I’m aware some adults go solo, but most groups when I went were families with young children.

OK, so are you saying that if someone on benefits has money left over after the essentials are paid for, then they don't need benefits?

I work full time and claim uc. If the zoo means so much to you, claim uc and reap the zoo rewards!

No, but if they are spending well in excess of £1000 a month on Costas and take aways and trips aways then they most definitely do not fall into the "in need " category for the purposes of charity expenditure

(I don't count in things like spotify/apple music /sky TV and occasional cinema trips are needed as I think some treats are ok , but many who don't get benefits cannot afford to spend on these things)

Just on free days out - the National Trust do free coupons for all. They are limited by date but they have done this for years. They have no restrictions other than having to have the coupon on paper or on your phone. The odd property eg the Beatles homes, are excluded but the majority are included. They have been available via Facebook posts, via the online version of newspapers and in the physical newspaper. They are so ubiquitous that I have now pledged to pay for an annual pass when I retire and have time/ money as I’ve used so many over the years! I’m not on UC but I wouldn’t have visited so many times without the free tickets.

I work full time and I don’t claim UC. Aren’t you lucky to receive a boost to your wages and to receive special offers too?

It isn’t about the zoo tickets or people claiming what they are given. It is about seeing there is a group who are increasingly struggling and receiving nothing. Please appreciate your situation.

Exactly. It's astonishing the lack of empathy for people who are struggling and don't get any support

And it's infuriating that charities don't seem to understand that "in need" and "receiving benefits" are not remotely synonymous

It isn’t about the zoo tickets or people claiming what they are given. It is about seeing there is a group who are increasingly struggling and receiving nothing.

@BustopherPonsonbyJones That group should be writing to their MP, complaining about the freeze on personal allowances, which is one of the main reasons, they are struggling! Had Rachel Reeves agreed to raise personal allowances in line with inflation for the rest of Labour’s term in office, the squeezed middle would be much better off, than they would be getting one subsidised zoo visit.

It’s not down to charities, who are bound by their objectives, and the terms of the grants they receive, to fill in all the gaps in the welfare state, left by the last Tory and this Labour government. Charities do not have the resources.

I think there are anomalies where people are better off on benefits and it’s typically a temporary thing. The obvious one will be

Family A happen to have a council house in a relatively expensive area and receive standard benefits for someone where both parents are working part time with a child, childcare costs are low, lots of time available to shop, cook etc.
Family B are buying their home in same area, Both work full time and earn a bit too much for UC. Mortgage and nursery/wrap around bills are high and take up a lot of their net income. They are time poor, which can also be expensive.

Once their kids are a bit older, they’ve had several years of pay rises and they own a bigger portion of their home so can get improved mortgage deals family B will undoubtedly be better off. That said in the here and now they may well have less income available to them after considering mortgage/rent & childcare & they are responsible for repairing anything that goes wrong with their home. In the short term things are pretty rough for family B & it will feel super unfair to them when they are working full time and seeing their neighbours work less hours with more disposable income and state support.

The other I’ve seen in the past as a bug bear is child maintenance not being considered as part of household income. So two single mums (they are almost always mums realistically) work identical hours for identical pay and get same UC but one gets nothing at all from her child’s father and the other gets £1,000 a month. Even if the mum without support worked enough more to not get benefits st all she still might not make up that difference and it would feel very unfair

Generally though of course you will be worse off if you need benefits. As an individual you always will be. It’s other surrounding circumstances that create the anomalies that feel unfair rather than the actual benefits