Labour increase benefits bill. AIBU To think what’s the point in working?

[topicalaffair]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15520831/Labours-push-lift-two-child-benefits-cap-hand-25-000-windfalls-thousands-Britains-biggest-jobless-families.html#

‘Official estimates suggest the cost of scrapping the cap will total £13.6 billion over the next five years.

The Tories said families currently affected by the cap are in line to receive windfalls worth an average £25,000 each over that period.

But the biggest families will gain far more. Thousands of families with five children will receive around £10,900 a year while those with six children will get an extra £16,600 a year.
Almost half of the families involved have no one in work.‘

Work isn't just about paying the bills (obviously a huge fundamental part of it) but it gives people a sense of purpose and a sense of pride. Helping people, being a valuable member of society, using your brain, making friends, routine, enjoying well earned breaks etc etc. I would go mad at home looking after 5/6 children (I would go mad at home with no children). I know work can cause stress, burn out etc but for a lot of people it's important for their self of worth and mental health as well as most importantly putting food on the table.

Eligibility hasn’t ‘exploded’.

If people are getting more mentally ill then it’s because

1. the pandemic has caused MH conditions and PTSD
2. the Tories stripped away mental health services in 2010
3. Schools have been stripped of money which used to support students with SEN to get the MH support they needed to stay in mainstream.

Actions have consequences.

Saying that the criteria has changed is a lie - it just is. So stop lying.

End the current system and divide the money up equally to everyone - UBI. Then no one can complain as each individual gets a share. Then it really would be choice if you work or not.

Think of the savings on admin.

😁 Yeah, communists are historically super cool about the commoners choosing to sit around doing nothing.

No u won't get unemployed benefit if you earn more then £93 a week, you can get national insurance credits but you won't get the £93 a week

Every person gets it and it would be BASIC. No extras. Thus stopping starvation but incentivising work.

I don't know about Scotland or NI but in England and Wales priority groups for housing include disability.

In most areas, you can't even get on the list unless you are in one of the priority groups.

Being in receipt of disability benefits won't automatically entitle you to social housing but it would be virtually impossible to access housing on the basis of disability without it.

Plus. disability benefits do increase the other benefits you're entitled to including housing benefit, council tax benefit so the state will be picking up more if not all of the housing costs for someone in rented accomodation.

Plus travel benefits including vehicle tax discounts of up to 100%.

Student bursaries, disabled students allowance and so on.

They're passports to lots of other things, it's not just the income they provide in themselves.

And SEN is an educational term which relates to needing educational support over and above the ordinary provision. Not all peoole with sen are disabled and not all disabiled people are eligible for dla.

I think you would be a lot happier and less stressed if you stopped reading the Daily Mail. Just try it for 30 days.

How would you get around wildly differing housing costs with regards to what basic looks like, and are you comfortable that the most vulnerable in terms of disability, with very high living costs, has to rub along with the same amount of money as someone who can't be arsed?

Please stop spreading disinformation.

The UK is not special. The increase in MH claims has not been replicated anywhere else in the world.

The difference that is driving that is eligibility and how it is checked.

This has been looked at by Economists because the gap was an outlier.

Or if you work then you may be able to afford less than being on benefits. I think thats the issue. Some people are left with a standard of living thats no better despite working their guts out

As I said very basic amount to stop starvation for all. Everyone treated equally. No deviations.

Everyone has a free rein on how they spend it. They are also responsible for any extras.

Households will still be subject to the total benefits cap so workless households with more than 2 children are unlikely to see any increase in entitlement. But that fact is irrelevant to the likes of the Daily Mail who know their readers will lap up any story suggesting benefits claimants are getting too much.

I wish they did then i could just claim pension credit and all the other discounts that come with it.

Not if you're claiming ESA. As 1.3 million people are.

Which is a big chunk of the 2.8 million economically inactive due to long-term sickness population.

This is not a DM issue.

When Labour polled their own supporters, 55% said they wanted the cap to remain.

They are going to suffer electorally for this decision in a very big way. Specially as the costs of such a policy keep increasing every year and tax thresholds remain frozen.

The only reason why I'm in social housing is because my son is disabled. It was far from as simple as I got social housing just because I claim DLA for him.

It included OT assessing my previous property which was a private rental and deeming that it was unsuitable for my son as well as providing medical evidence on top of that. The fact that I claim DLA for him isn't the reason why we were rehoused in social housing, it was because the previous property wasn't suitable for his needs.

If they had stated the previous property was suitable for him, we'd still be in that property because they would've declared us suitably housed.

@TheThinkingEconomistis right it’s not just DM readers. It’s not wanted by most.

But people would be funding it anyway. If all low earners or renters who were entitled to UC were to earn enough to not need UC/buy a house the cost of goods and services would go up. And tax wouldn’t necessarily go down because plenty of those workers are public sector.

The only people who are allowed not to get a job are those who are too disabled to work. Parents are not required to get a job for a couple of years while their child is young (and if they did work they would get childcare funding so not exactly free to the tax payer either).

If you are capable of working and do not have a young child you are expected to hunt for jobs all week and prove you are doing so.

You can’t just say you don’t fancy working and that’s that.

Or LCWRA.

I suppose the other scenario where you would not be expected to work is if you are caring for someone with a significant disability. But then the cost of full time professional care for said person would be much higher than the cost of UC for their carer. So you’d still be funding it.

Good, they deserve to suffer electorally. All this just to placate their own backbenchers.

I was just going to say. That's the reason why I don't work.

For a lot of people it is.

For a lot of people it isn't.

It depends what the job is and what standard of living you want, and what standard of living working gets you.

In fact, a lot of people think you'd be a mug to work for a living if you can live off benefits instead.

And judging by some of the posts I saw on sites discussing PIP reforms last year, there's an awful lot of people who say working in low paid, dead-end jobs caused the depression and anxiety they're now claiming benefits for; so why on earth would they want to work again?