To think benefits need to be cut to fund increased spending on defence

[Viviennemary]

This is absolutely necessary. Keir Starmer shouldnt have backed down the last time. But now with the current situation with Russia drastic steps need to be taken. We simply can't afford to sustain the current benefits bill with the armed forces so depleted. The money is needed to increase defence.

This is a chat forum and anonymous one too so some people will ask questions or comment in a way that they wouldn't normally especially if somebody has voluntarily given information, that's part of the point of the forum.

I think if people (generally) could see a difference between their lives when they work full time and the lives of those on benefits there wouldn't be as much bad feeling. Ideally those who work would have their lives elevated by earning significantly more than those on benefits but realistically that can't happen so people want benefits reduced because they want to feel that work pays.

Bit I DID work bloomin' hard, full time and more, for 25 years before my health started packing in...!

Well without knowing their individual cases i wouldn't no and why do you think invisible disability is different to visible i have a visible disability and it doesn't mean im more disabled then someone with an invisible disability

And I do still work now, just more part-time.

Welfare is such a vast area though, which bits do you cut, the support to keep people in work who have low paid jobs, the support for pensioners with no income other than the basic state pension, those who genuinely absolutely cannot work , no , the ones to target surely are those who just get a free ride through life living on benefits because they don’t want any other way of life and sadly, they do exist, equally the labour back benches will never accept any attempt to cut benefits so currently its almost a pointless discussion

Just to add I don't believe disabled people are the root of society's problems. I believe disabled people feel and imoacted more by society's problems. I think they are an easy target but I do also believe that some people who claim disability aren't as disabled as other people who are awarded the same amounts but maybe that's a problem with the way the benefit is split?

I do think carers allowance should be massively increased but that it needs to be better assessed to prove the amount of hours of caring given and that the level of care is is different to what would normally be expected especially where the person being cared for is a young child.

I'm assuming you don't work now? Genuine question... do you think it's fair because you worked for 25 years to have the same standard and in some cases possibly a better standard of living financially not health as somebody who works full time?

I don't think people on benefits should have a bad standard of living but those who don't live on benefits should have a significantly better standard.

They already said they still work

Thank you. And I'm not going into what benefits I do or don't get, but I'm mostly supported by my husband.

The question still stands, should someone living on benefits have the same standard of living as a similar person working full time? Work should provide a better standard of living (in my opinion). Obviously not when people are using savings etc to subsidise.

Yes to more money for defence. Direct payments should be reduced. More hand-ups. Fewer handouts. Work should always leave you better off than benefits.

The size of the welfare bill shows that we have moved well beyond a support system. Too much of it now acts as income support for people who could be contributing more.

Welfare should be a safety net, not a means of propping up low-paying employers or underwriting the cost of poor decisions made by individuals/ parents. We should support those who cannot support themselves and expect more from those who can.

You realise working people claim benefits too, to top up low wages and to pay outrageous rents charged by greedy landlords ? What constitutes a genuine case, given that, and the fact that many MN contributors think those claiming disability benefits are scroungers and fraudsters ? What kind of a ‘lifestyle’ do you think most people on benefits have ?

And there hasn’t been a 55% increase in claims over the last year, or anything like it. The number of people on UC grew by about 1 million, to 8.4 million, approximately 40% of whom are working. The 55% increase is the figure for the growth of specific out of work benefits and health benefits such as Employment and Support Allowance and UC health elements since 2019. Seven years, not a single year.

There have been a string of what are basically benefit bashing threads lately, and in various guises. Inviting posters to speculate whether the circumstances of some of the most vulnerable in society should be reduced to increase defence spending is a new low, especially when there are many other options open which would yield far more. Such as tightening up the tax system and making employers pay proper wages so the tax payer doesn’t have to foot the bill while executives pay themselves and their shareholders fat bonuses. Same for private landlords - rents should be capped and landlords should be prevented from increasing their rents annually in line with benefit increases.

No, benefits should provide the minimum rather than level up.

They have to. What’s the point in working otherwise?

How can you read this thread about children severely disabled by cancer and people working for decades and then having a stroke and think they should get the bare minimum. Like actually think about what you are saying and the reality of that. Sorry son santa hasn't got you much for Christmas this year ( because you became severely disabled after surviving cancer now mum has no money for presents as northxnorthwest thinks we should live on the bare minimum) but all the healthy kids with working parents santa is coming to them. Heartless

I do think carers allowance should be massively increased but that it needs to be better assessed to prove the amount of hours of caring givenand that the level of care is is different to what would normally be expected especially where the person being cared for is a young child.

I agree carers allowance should be more, but the qualifying benefits already assess for the likely amount of care needed. PIP standard daily living allowance is the minimum qualification for adults and provides the basis on which carers allowance is awarded. Child DLA is the equivalent for children, and to be eligible you have to demonstrate that your child has significantly higher needs than a child of similar age without a disability. The last thing genuinely disabled people need is more conditionality, because, as has been proven historically, it’s the genuinely disabled people who inevitably pay the price for those who know how to play the system. And why would you want to spend time and resources on checks that the full hours of care are being complied with, when the payment for that care works out at less than £3 an hour ?

Benefits aren’t awarded for specific disabilities - it’s the impact of the disability on daily life that is measured. So where do you think the problem lies in the way the benefits are ‘split’ if everyone has the same basic assessment ?

Santa doesn't go to all the kids with working parents tho. There are people who work full time and can't afford more than the basics and use food banks etc. That's the issue or at least what I think is a big part of it. People who work and are just above thresholds for benefits can be less well off or living at the same standard especially when things like UC days out, FSM and lower utility rates are included.

Benefits should be a safety net to catch people when they fall but as a state payout they shouldn't be more than that when so many other areas are underfunded. That isn't heartless, it's just reality.

For a "caring carer" you seem rather unsympathetic towards disabled people. Scopes research suggests that being disabled cost over £1000 per month. If you don't give someone LCWRA (which has different criteria to pip) because they have pip what on earth do they live on?

Pip is already hard enough to claim. Else I'm sure 64% wouldn't go to tribunal and win

People with mild anxiety and mild depression aren't getting PIP. Some people who have ADHD get PIP or DLA and some don't, depending on their needs. There will be a few mistakes made but the majority of people getting dla or pip are severely disabled. Hope that clears things up.

This.

Agree.

And the people who ‘fall’ and stay Allen because of permanent disability ? Should they have to live the rest of their lives like this ?

Those getting pip who have mild anxiety and depression will have other qualifying conditions. But it would be listed. I know there's stats on people claiming for certain conditions. Many of us have more than one and that one alone doesn't entitle us to pip. For example my asthma is listed on mine but it's not severe enough (I understand a minority claim just because of asthma) by itself

So we know benefits is less then wages so your saying people earning full time wages can't afford things so how do you think people getting less cope and you want to cut that further. Carers and disabled people don't have the choices healthy people do. They can't just work more hours, go back to uni to gain more qualifications. This is the rest of their life. Most full time working couples will struggle while kids are in nursery but then their finances will vastly improve disability is forever.

Yeah asthma is on mine so is hypothyroidism, anxiety and depression but I don't actually get full rate pip for these conditions.