To see benefits as a safety net, not handouts?

[ForGreyStork]

It’s the way benefits are talked about. To me, they’re part of a social security system -a safety net that people may need at different points in life, rather than “gifts” or handouts.
I also wonder whether increasing conditions and restrictions risk undermining that safety net over time.

AIBU?

The UK benefits system differs significantly from the "Scandi" (Nordic) model. While the UK relies heavily on flat-rate, means-tested safety nets (Universal Credit), Scandinavian countries use generous, insurance-based in-work benefits tied to previous earnings, actively penalising inactivity and making it far more beneficial to work. However universal in-work benefits include heavily subsidized state childcare, and "flexi-jobs" for disabled workers. There is an expectation that everyone who can participtes in the labour market as part of one's duty as a citizen. There is a profound and deeply institutionalised social stigma in Scandinavian countries against individuals who are capable of working but choose not to. It is viewed as a violation of the social contract.

I can remember that idea of a contract from the 1950s when we children were forbidden to pay with those of a neighbour who chose not to work. We need to get back to that. Benefits should never be a substitite for work except for people who are genuinely too ill or disabled to work. The bar is too low and the entire system needs a shake up.

In theory you are absolutely right they are a safety net. In reality they very much rely on class. They won't EVER give someone like me benefits even though I'm entitled to them.

Can you explain?

Punishing children for choices their parents make and shunning them is something that needs to be left in the 50's.

There are also other reasons why someone may be unable to work. I'm not too ill or disabled to work but I have a disabled child as an example.

Class?? Give over. Benefits are given according to your income and capability to work. What ‘class’ you are is irrelevant. If you’re struggling financially fill the form for Universal Credit.

https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/how-to-claim

Tell me you know fuck all about addiction without saying you know fuck all about addiction...

I've known many an addict during the course of my working life. I've never met one who hasn't had a significant history of abuse, deprivation, etc and many of them have had underlying MH issues and use drugs and/or alcohol as a form of self-medication.

It's classicism I'll give you a couple of anecdotal examples of this. There's a guy I know he has the same education level as me (masters degree), he has the same earning power as me but he lives in a better area than me and pays 1/10th the rent I did, why? He was born in a council house and was provided a council home with below market rent when he became 18 he had a kid which he didn't want with a woman he was unmarried too and because he was already on the system they got extra benefits. I was born in a rather sought after area of London and I'm not one of sixteen children.

Another example: I'm epileptic and my brother has Aspergers. When we were little mum got Invalid Carers Allowance and we had a lifetime award because epilepsy and autism don't go away. When we became 16 that turned into DLA. Around 2004 the government decided to change the criteria for DLA so my brother and I lost our lifetime award entirely, apparently we weren't disabled enough. I fought that for years with the justification of 'well you're well enough to work' as the justification. Well duh? How else would I survive?

When Covid rolled around like many people I lost my job. It didn't take me long to get a new one but when I applied for JSA I was refused because "you'll have no problem finding work and you've got enough saved up to keep you going".

Meanwhile you've got people like my DH former friend who is 'disabled' like all of his family, unemployed and borderline illiterate and because all his family are on benefits for various things (ADHD, Autism, BPD). He gets benefits and then flies off to Japan for 90 days. Happily bragging about it.

I mean David Cameron profoundly disbled child was awarded DLA so it cant be anything to do with class
DLA and PIP have differrent criteria
And whilst your right both Autism amd Epillepy are llife long condtions
They are both conditions that vary greatly in how rhey impact a person
My oldest son has type1 diabetes this is also life long he isnt eligible for PIP either
If you are able to indedepently care for yourself , prepare food , independently undertake a journey from A to B you are unlikely to be eligible for PIP regardless of what " Class" you are.

If it's not applicable to everyone than it isn't a safety net it's a handout.

Im sorry your not making sense ?
PIP is awarded on need not condition
If a person meets the criteria than they can clsim regardless of where they live or how much money they have in the bank.

I have worked with hundreds of families who have never worked. It may be localised to my area but I doubt it.

You would not be refused JSA as long as you had worked and paid NI contributions. It sounds like you may have applied for the wrong benefit ( universal credit ? ) rather than contributions based JSA ?

Talk of property price increases got me wondering what my old flat from back in my single days (late nineties when I was living/working in the home counties) was worth now. It's a nice flat but only a small 1-bedroom one. Just looked up its current estimated value online and there's no way I could have afforded it now if I was the age I was then and single, especially as pay rises in my line of work haven't kept pace with inflation. I doubt many young single people now who are trying to get a foot on the ladder (as I was) could afford it, at least not without having to spend yonks saving for the deposit beforehand. And if it's being rented out I probably couldn't have even afforded to rent it at today's likely rate.

Absolute madness when people who are working and striving aren't even getting paid enough to put bricks and mortar around themselves. And as per usual, so many on this thread and others like it aren't channelling their ire in the right direction, i.e. Britain's low pay culture, actual (as opposed to perceived) benefit cheats, and the various governments over the years (not just the Tories) that have got us into this state. Instead apparently the solution is to make the poor even poorer.

The poster below was published in 1929. How depressing that society seems to have learned nothing in almost a hundred years.

The basic issue is need vs contribution. People who are paying tax are the contributors, but in terms of what they get, the level of benefits is poor. During COVID this basically got admitted with people being paid huge amounts on furlough.

Yes there should be a greater emphasis on people working but government of all kinds has tried that. If you really wanted to change things you would start with very basic benefits for none contributing people and those who had worked would get much more. Other European countries do this but we do not. As it is we have a system that seems to incentivise behaviour that encourages a degree of dependency. Need expands to fit the criteria. Thats the issue.

I guess what will happen is that more and more criteria are put in to prevent access.

Exactly. My brother has lifelong epilepsy but is well controlled, has never felt the need to even try to claim a disability benefit. He has limitations of course and cannot drive so is provided with a rail card. He has worked constantly since the age of 16( now 60). He has had to change careers due to his epilepsy. On the other hand you can have people who have multiple seizures a day and the impact on their life is huge.

A safety net implies that no matter your circumstances you can get help. So if you're diagnosed with a condition that is disabling or you lose your job or god forbid you lose your home you should be entitled to help, that's the point of a safety net. If two people have the same condition for applying for benefits but one is refused it's not a safety net.

But conditions can vary enormoursly in how they impact a person
Thats how it works 💁

And having the same condtion doesnt mean two people have the same needs
One persons needs could be a lot greater than amother persons.

It's not as straightforward as that, though. I have a chromosome disorder which has left me with a growing number of problems, but it is unlikely that two people with the same condition will present in exactly the same way. Prior to my stroke, I would not have qualified (as although I was on medication and attending regular appointments, I was living independently and able to work full time). Ithink was the stroke on top of everything else that changed things.

Well that's not a safety net. Just to be clear I'm talking about the welfare system in general not uniquely disabilities. How would you discern who is more deserving? because that's really what it comes down to. It also gives incentives to not improve themselves.

I get that but if the system is built to be a safety net than it shouldn't matter who's got it worse it should matter that they need support. I am talking in general to be clear.

It is there, based on need, be that financial or disability-based. Unfortunately it can't catch everyone so some will fall the wrong side of the line, which I appreciate is tough if you feel you need help but can't get help.

Then by definition it is not a safety net. It is an exclusatory system.

To some extent it is because disabillty benefits are paid at different levels
But unfortunatley there are people who miss because their level if need isnt aa great aa others and i agree thats not fair .

Yes it did happen. I live in a deprived town. So you can fuck off with your useless sarcastic pie chart 🙄 so original