To wonder on the future of generous welfare in the UK

[happybug1234]

It seems increasingly obvious that many middle-income families are becoming frustrated at how squeezed they are financially, while at the same time seeing people on universal credit receive a growing range of subsidies and support — £1 attraction tickets on days out, a 6% rise in benefits this financial year, childcare costs reclaimable through Universal Credit, housing benefit, and so on. I see thread after thread on this on this site and also increasing momentum in the media on this issue (income cliff edges etc)

In my own extended family, 1 unemployed parent with the other on min wage, in social housing appear to have more holidays and more disposable income than we do, despite us both working full time with a household income of around £95k. Once childcare, mortgage, insurances, commuting and tax are taken into account, we 100% have a lower level of disposable income than they do as they do not have any of these work related costs and their rent is paid. They have recently gone on a 2 week holiday whilst the most we can ever afford is 1 week.

Quite a few teachers in my friendship circle are declining promotion opportunities or TLR because the extra pay often doesn’t feel worth the additional stress once tax, pension contributions and childcare costs are factored in. Instead, some are putting more effort into private tutoring, which is tax free cash in hand.

What is stopping the government from addressing this as people seek to be responding accordingly in their behaviour!

LOL!

So, let me get this right @XenoBitch

You are advocating for single parents/mum’s to only work 16hours per week so that they can get the maximum benefits they are “entitled to” — Yet for the rest of the population and those of us who actually contribute to the tax system, your attitude is “don’t have kids if you can’t afford them” is that right?

….whilst also mentioning the declining birth rate.

The biggest welfare payments are pensions. I think we all agree they should be higher too but we have an aging population who are using more resources without largely paying in.

We actually need immigration to boost the workforce and pay taxes as you are correct. It's unsustainable long term

Gosh, all the Tory Oxford grads faked their credentials then? The Labour Party Deputy Leader until recently was an unmarried mother at 16 and left school with no qualifications and the Green leader was trying to earn his keep by hypnotising women to increase their breast size, so please don't try and convince me that the Left is the epitome of intelligent!

I absolutely can, but have already done so on multiple threads about this and I'm not wasting time going into it again. Tired cliche it is indeed, but posters are not obliged to write essays to back up their views.

Correction: we need controlled immigration to boost the economy. We need more net contributors. Not takers. We have enough people receiving welfare in this country already.

So don’t come on this thread if you’ve nothing to contribute then…?!

Are you seriously that naive?

A single mum with a small child does not have to work at all. That is in the UC rules that are easy to find online.

People on low incomes/UC are constantly being told they should not have kids on here. All the time.

And again, I said I do not agree with the sentiment.

Yep.

I must be doing something wrong too because I have a similar experience on benefits.

We have had some holidays, funded by some charities due to my son's disability. Otherwise it would be the same with no holidays.

Serious question - what have the theme park discounts got to do with you? It’s a business decision taken by a commercial company to get bums on seats. You may not like it but then just don’t attend. The taxpayer isn’t subsidising those tickets.

Also those of you should understand the history of the welfare state, the selling off of our national assets, and the predicament we now find ourselves in whereby a family now needs a double full time income to survive, yet jobs are scarce and the economy is failing. And the fact you lose one entire income to childcare when you both work. Why on earth would people put their kids in ft child care to be £30 a week better off (that goes on fuel for the commute anyway).

Bashing people on benefits for surviving in a system not created by them doesnt achieve anything other than ignoring the fact that the government are royally fucking everyone over. Benefit claimants are just as much a scape goat as immigrants are - who by the way we desperately need to uphold our economy because of our plummeting birth rates due to the fact no one can either afford to have kids or will accept putting their young baby in childcare especially considering every week we see another article about babies and toddlers being raped or killed whilst at nursery.

Those of you who think youre gods gift cause you're a bootlicker to capitalism need to pull that long stick out of your behinds and give yourself a whack round the head with it.

But you're quoting the criteria for claiming UC like its the law of the land rather than relating to something that should be considered an emergency measure. Can you really not see that you should be financially stable without Government intervention before having children?

Where does it say that?

Well, I would have done but as a teacher I was too busy educating the next generation while my children were at nursery costing me nearly my entire salary. Maybe give yourself a whack instead?

Studying at Oxford has nothing to do with IQ my love. Regurgitating information into a passable essay vs the ability to think critically.

And youre really showing your arse there with your criticism of a single teen mum who despite adversity has achieved more than you ever will.

Where does what say what?

You made that choice stop being bitter because others made different

Makes no sense.

Do you have any empathy at all for working people who receive no benefits?

Maybe workers wouldn't come across as bitter if they weren't paying for other people's lifestyle choices while also paying for their own.

I have empathy for anyone struggling regardless of their circumstances.

Oooh you have no clue about the adversity I faced when a teenager so don't even go there. Was I busting a gut at school at 16 because I realised education was my ticket out, absolutely I was. Clearly I just should have been shagging instead of revising. Grangela is only where she is because the unions recognised a gobshite and as a woman she was different from the John Prescotts of this world so attention grabbing. Also nothing to do with IQ.

And I'm not your love.

Working full time in this country doesn’t pay off. I feel resentful towards women who have multiple children funded by the state and get to be stay at home mothers while I have to slog away at work and have most of my pay taken off me to pay tax.

No, putting a roof over my children's heads dictated that choice, I wanted to be at home with them while they were small. But, because at that time I was married and we couldn't claim anything I had to leave them in nursery and work bloody hard.

No, they're not; but those who start these sorts of benefits bashing threads are rarely concerned with actual facts. What will follow is not a rant at you.

Like I pointed out on a recent thread that was very similar to this, private attractions like zoos etc., are often charitable organisations who have a remit to provide education/support to certain groups. The funding for these tickets isn't gauged from those who pay full price. It's usually provided by some form of grant. If you take London Zoo, their original funding for reduced price tickets ran out. It proved so popular that they sought further funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, and have opened the criteria to other groups. UC includes those on pension credit and they also offer reduced prices for community groups and disabled people. Relatively cheap training (CPD approved) is also available for teachers.

Would the same people whining that they'd be so much better off if only the people on UC were made homeless and left to starve feel the same about reduced cost training for teachers? Do they resent that too?

And what about private attractions like Tower Bridge, for example, who offer £1 entry for all residents in the borough, regardless of income? Produce a recent council tax bill and you only pay £1 entry. Or councils that have partnered with organisations to encourage library use by ensuring everyone who shows a library card gets a discount or 2 for 1 entry at attractions like art galleries? Why is there no uproar about that?

It's shit many can't afford to get on the housing ladder. That won't improve just by removing benefits. 10 years ago, a single person in London needed to earn at least £40k to get a mortgage (I'm sure there are outliers who managed, but this was the general rule). It's no surprise that figure has risen, particularly when house prices have continued to rise at a greater rate than salaries.

Evidence from various Universal Basic Income schemes suggest that the main effect is increased financial stability and improved mental health. Although it usually goes hand in hand with improved employment (it doesn't always), certain schemes have seen residents who were at risk of dropping out, continue with their education; whilst others have supported artists and freelancers to set up their own businesses. We should be looking at what has worked in these schemes (and similar, like the Finnish 'Housing First' strategy) and what may work for our population, rather than demonising those on benefits and threatening to remove them.