Should I ask my DS and his girlfriend for money

[DiaryofWimpy]

My DS2 has moved his girlfriend in with her 2 cats.

Obviously it’s another person using the washing machine,,TV, gas and electricity they are both 22 and don’t work but get benefits.

Do you think I’m being unreasonable asking them for money?

I am glad to hear you have had a relatively long working life. You must have accumulated savings and investments during that time thus excusing you from the litter picking.

Volunteering counts as contributing. Not all claimants volunteer. Why can't they follow your example?

If you can only claim benefits for 6 months in any five year period. You lose your housing element and your home. And the taxpayer has to pay much more money putting people in temporary accommodation

Savings and investments? I have always tried to save where I can but I'm single and in times where I was working full time 25 years ago I wasn't earning fantastic wages even working full time. I've always paid into a pension and paid into savings plans that mature after ten or fifteen years - but that's about it. I'm certainly not rich

Yes. There. Is.

Productivity won't be improved by forcing people to do menial jobs for next to no money.

If you lose your job and then your home it is an awful predicament. Over 50 there must have been some equity. This is why I said a higher amount for 6 months so people have a chance to get back on their feet and not lose their home.

Somewhat different from someone who never works or contributes to their local community yet takes UC indefinitely.

They're boyfriend and girlfriend but she is/was also in a relationship with someone else who was abusing her and she suddenly needed a place to live because the old situation became unsafe? If so, I'd let her and the cats stay but I'd have another conversation and make it clear that this is temporary and an emergency exception. Your son is one thing; at least you know he is actively getting help for his MH issues and is willing to be open about it with you, but you're not going to know anything about what's going on with the girlfriend. I understand she needs physical shelter and a safe place short-term but if they're both struggling, living together with you is probably not the best way for either of them to move forward. Also, I'd be somewhat concerned about the abusive (ex?) partner showing up and causing trouble for your son and you.

Your son pushing back on you saying they shouldn't pay for additional expenses you incur because you have a new phone jumps out as really questionable; if he wants to stay with you and bring friends, he can take your word for it that you understand your own finances - but also, even if you were rich, that doesn't automatically entitle him to anything. Don't let yourself be bullied out of holding your boundaries and insisting that your home be a comfortable and safe place for you, whatever it is to anyone else.

It's not benefits then though - it's paid work, for which they should be earning the national minimum wage.

Although I'm guessing you're probably against that too...

Yes but if you stop their UC you save tax payers money. Maybe that saving could be directed to claimants who are willing to give back?

If they're doing paid work, they should be paid national minimum wage. Legally, they'd have to be. So then they wouldn't actually be benefits claimants at all.

I live in council housing. I did own my last home but it was demolished by the council (who I bought it from) as were all the homes in that area. They were of a very low value so I didn't have enough money to buy a new one (not a complaint - just the reality of the situation). The council rehomed everyone as they made us homeless.

I have to claim UC to get my rent paid or I would be homeless again

.

There is a world of difference between genu8ne claimants (such as yourself) and those who swing the lead. The latter is rising hence why there is a massive problem.

You appear to be defending the latter. This is not helping your case. Why not campaign for tighter controls you would still be looked after.

Well minimum wage has lead to employers not hiring young people…

but no I’d boost the wages they get, in exchange for doing some work and the alternative being no money at all.

it would have to be below minimum wage in order to encourage people to get off and get a actual job.

Quite. No one is saying no benefits for anyone. What has happened though is people are choosing to live on benefits/ with their Mum and then pay nothing or very little and use the rest of the benefits as their own pocket money.

They turn their nose up at jobs - why work for just a little more than they get from sitting at home on their bums. Why not have a child - not planned of course and then scam the system even more.

At 22 they have the rest of their lives in front of them. Benefits arent meant to give you a luxury life and so they shouldnt but if you have no ambition and see a parent claiming why wouldnt you try it. After all - you have nothing to lose.

Christ, what a mess.

I knew you'd come out with this 'genuine claimants' tripe eventually. You've spent all this time lumping all benefit claimants together and now attempting some truly embarrassing backpedalling. You are judgmental, ill informed and unbelievably supercilious.

With respect I don't think anyone should have to justify their position full stop. The OP has said her son is on disability benefits - yet he's been called all the wasters and the scroungers on here - do you know what it's like to be called a scrounger because you are on disability benefits. I do.

People are entitled to benefits for their kids if they are on benefits. There are people on high incomes who claim child benefits.

People end up on benefits for all sorts of reasons. And there are people on UC including people who are disabled and parents who work.

You think it's just a little more. People on UC get 316 pounds a month or 400 pounds a month depending on age.

I honestly give up. Apparently I'm a genuine claimant. That's odd because earlier on I was told I wasn't.

And I am also sick of kids being used to justify this argument. Some women don't want kids. Some women can't have them. Not everyone on UC with or without kids is a scrounger and once more - if there were no safety net - it would cost the taxpayer more as people would end up homeless

Do people actually know the amount of people who live below the poverty line in the UK both in and out of work?

I've also noticed how you haven't responded to me, because you can't think how to. Perhaps you have a "thus" comment for me though in your incredibly intelligent repertoire? Us working wives of disabled veterans are a lot more seasoned than the likes of you.

He was a new claimant

so for almost 2yrs he has lwcra without anyone assessing him

This . They are only 22 and need to be working . If they don’t start adulting they’ll be with you forever . How did we ever come to this .

I have no idea when your ex claimed or how long the award was for. As I said. The assessments have been put on hold due to a backlog

I had a nervous breakdown in 2023. I was assessed and told I was fit to work. I'm still unwell but I will be told very shortly again that there's nothing wrong with me and that I'm fit to work.
I won't put myself through that process again.

The dwp told me I was fit to work with anxiety depression and broken bones and I only got lcwra at tribunal on the third attempt.

Anyway people can think what they like. Maybe it's time to be a bit kinder to people and not assume everyone on UC is on the beg

For how long tho ?

in general

not just my ex but means anyone who applies will imm get it regardless

the country can’t go on forever giving everyone extra money

But that’s not the thread

I said earlier and someone else did as as well. That now they are a couple living together they should be on a joint claim so will be less money between them

You disagreed with my post at 18.02. At 18.09 you are reprimanding me for not responding. Am I allowed a cup of tea?

Benefit claimants have increased to an out of control level. Why?

The outcome;'
A a % are swinging the lead. This harms the genuine cases. If nothing is done there will be NO benefits.

B the system is re established as a functional fit for purpose system. Tighter controls and procedures.

Which do you choose?

I am not a dwp worker. I have already said to you that the reason that some assessments have been stopped is due to a backlog. They are supposed to be starting some time this year - you are completely wrong as I have already explained. New claimants will be assessed. It's only people who claimed before a certain date that aren't being assessed just now