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?

How do you expect private rents to be lower? Build more houses? It’s a market. The only way to lower the price of something is to increase the supply.

And who is paying for this social housing? The same people who are paying for people rents today?

It’s ok you don’t need to do the disclaimer at the start ;

Being unemployed at say 22 can be a massive problem, for mh and life chances. Politicians should use something bold to break that, the tax one below is bold but may need to be at employers. Once people are out of work there’s decline.

And SM use is often the result not the cause as Milburn cited today.

Cc I'm getting really pissed off now.

I'd love to get paid for working myself to the bone, but since I became disabled no one wants to pay me to get up, shower & get through the day until bone weary I can get back in to bed again.

my work ethic was great for 40 years, but sorry you find it sub par now I'm disabled & my morals aren't up to standard.

I think people are too often assuming that people on UC don't have a job. Everyone I've ever met who claims it does have a job. The real problem is that people on a full time wage, even minimum wage, should be able to afford to pay for housing and bills. But they can't because the cost of housing is often almost as much as a minimum wage job without even factoring in anything else, and this got out of control years ago now.

Quite obviously (as you'd see if you read my actual reply on this thread) this clearly does not apply to disabled people who are unable to work.

If local authorities built huge amounts of social housing they’d then be getting those housing elements back off the government and could re invest in local communities. It would keep the money where it’s needed

So who does it apply to if not disabled people. Carers. Minimum wage workers because that pretty much covers the majority of people on benefits

Im on uc and have a job. Im also on pip and have a job. Being on benefits doesn't mean not working

Yawn 🥱 🥱 🥱

I don't know lots about it and I don't know how it changed in its complexities, but benefits used to be easier to claim for alot of people.
As a person on disability benefits and knowing other people that are, in reality, I can tell you that any benefits are very difficult to claim.
Very.
The ridiculous lengths that I've had to go to to claim mine was insanely difficult and likely will be next time also.
The rate I am on is low and also 'too low' for my life affecting conditions because of the points system literally designed to throw you off, and then there's the other variables such as the reasonable possibility of enduring a dismissive benefits assessor that may well lie (happened to me) about how seriously your conditions affect the you and the meeting itself.
I didn't claim benefits when it was easier for people to do so.

But at the same time, MN is a horrible place for disabled people because they are constantly told that they are lying, exaggerating, faking it. When you hear that rhetoric all the time, it's understandable that people get defensive.

The problem as I see it is that there is a gap between what is possible in the workplace in terms of adjustments and support and the needs of someone who isn't in work. In the MH Trust where I work, we have a team who specialise in getting people with serious mental ill health (back) into work. It's very successful, the dropout rate is low. But services like that cost, and when the electorate is howling for cuts, getting that sort of thing to be the norm is extremely difficult.

And the criteria for determining whether there was intergenerational worklessness are very specific.

You could have a case where person A is 56 and never worked, lives alone. Their child B has never worked and lives with her two under-16 children. Her child C is 18 and has never worked, but has moved in with her boyfriend and his family. Her boyfriend has also never worked, but his mother had a job lasting 6 weeks when she was 19.

This would not count for the purposes of the report as intergenerational worklessness, but we can all see that is actually the case.

I’m disabled and I don’t see this website as hostile. I do see a lot of very fed up taxpayers who are watching a soaring benefits bill and querying whether somebody should get £400 a month for ADHD, and I think that’s totally fair.

Absolutely this. And told that your experience of claiming pip and the lies that are told in the pip process can’t be true.

People on here still think we have the benefit system of the 90s get pregnant get given a council house sit on benefits until your kid is 16. They don't seem to understand how significantly its all changed

Nobody get benefits based on a diagnosis if your truly disabled and been through the system you would know this

I don't think anyone is saying or implying that.

But go ahead if you want to make it all about you.

It's often used as a way to try and shut down discourse when it doesn't apply.

Yes, that must have been incredibly scary. It's scary when you live alone, but at least I don't have any dependants!

mine was literally overnight. Went to bed as normal & woke up disabled. I was 55, full of life & plans! Finally able to concentrate on my my retirement funding... ha fucking ha. Now after 40 years of working, begrudged a small amount of pip, mainly by people who haven't even been alive as long as I've been working!

Don't be so nasty how is she making it all about her

You could be born in the 50s and have 4 generations not working.

You are assuming over 18 mothers

I've been on benefits for a long time, over 2 decades. I've never seen it as handouts, but the term "safety net" implies a short-term rescue. It hasn't been short term for me due to disabilities in the family which will last for life. For me I feel it's an entitlement and a right, and I don't get hung up on how other people discuss it. It makes no difference to me if others think I'm not deserving - the only opinion that matters is the decision maker or perhaps an appeal panel.

I know the legal entitlements and we've never struggled to be awarded due to lots of evidence and medical input, or had any pressure to come off benefits. It's unlikely that I'll return to work as the disabilities and caring responsibilities will always be there, and I've got used to budgeting and understanding the system for my situation.

It has changed significantly.

But social housing doesn't mean council housing, there are lots of housing associations providing housing still paid by the taxpayer to allegedly single Mums (and in some cases Dads) and it depends where you live. And if you can claim a disability which bumps you up the list. And includes non-physical disabilities.

If she feels this thread is attacking her when it patently isn't, then yes. she's making it all about her and trying to shut down discussion.

As are you saying 'don't be nasty'. Where was I nasty saying this thread isn't about you so don't try and make it so?

Yes, they are,

It's a bit of both.