Friend would rather stay on Benefits

[Mavan1984]

Hi everyone

I have a friend who is in her early 40s. She has 5 kids, eldest being 17 and youngest being 4. No disabilities in the family.

Friends husband is on minimum wage and Works about 35 hours a week. Friend is SAHM and has never worked, they have always been topped up by CTC and WTC.

Friend has recently been transferred over to UC and said she is slightly worse off and she's been told that she needs to start looking for a job.

Friend told me she has no intention to get a job because she thinks she will be worse off- would this be the case? She also said she is very unlikely to get a job which will match her benefit payments.

I'm really annoyed with her attitude. She basically has no intention to work and would rather just claim. In her case what would the jobcentre do?

I love friend to bits but her laziness is really starting to get to me. Me and DH both work average salary jobs, we don't get any benefits apart from Child Benefit and there are times where I've really envied her life of leisure.

I'm not against anyone who works hard/has disabilities and claims but I really think it's unfair that people like her can choose to be a SAHM and expect to get money handed to her on a plate.

I'm not really sure why I am even posting this but I just needed to rant.

My school age child is out of the house for school for about 40 hours of a 168 hour week, 39 weeks a year. Thankfully he sleeps for some of the time he's not. Other parents of autistic kids aren't so lucky on that front.

.

@headache your friend does work though - is she a lone parent? Are you? It does make a difference to the practicalities of working full time when you have several young children who need picking up, dropping off and potentially have health issues. Especially when their father may not be involved despite the children being planned.
There are hordes of UC claimants out there working full time or part time and many have disabilities.
People who are fortunate enough to work full time, live comfortably and have their health should consider themselves very fortunate.
As mentioned upthread if the wages in this country were as they should be alongside a functioning successful child maintenance recovery system then most people wouldn’t need or want benefits. We all know of someone who abuses the system and appears to be quite wealthy despite never doing a days work. The reality is somewhat different.
There is no solution. Someone upthread mentioned that in the past dad working full time and mum at home looking after the children was classed as acceptable. Many lived a comfortable lifestyle. There was no stigma attached to this set up then. Would people expect a family to turn down their benefit entitlement just to appease the ‘benefit bashers?’
My experience of these benefit bashers irl is that they are usually very fortunate people who seem to believe they are superior due their special talents or their work ethic. They also see things in black and white.
@headache if you suddenly developed lots of health issues leaving you in a position to only work part time would you accept the top up UC monthly payments you would be entitled to? Or would you refuse due to your principles?
You can do you but what if ‘you’ and your circumstances drastically change overnight? It’s a massive grey area and whilst people assume that UC claimants are all sat at home having a great time watching their huge TV the real villans get off scot free (the government) as nobody questions the status quo.

I thought there was a certain amount of money you had to earn before UC didn't make you get a job. Couples have to earn it between them. Surely the husbands full time job would be enough?

My DB and SIL work a part time job each and that keeps UC off their backs.

I swear all of these benefits threads are really the Tory government trying to stir up hatred and support before the elections. Stop falling for it!!

Well it's something to consider....
People on MN often get annoyed when this is pointed out and start on about Sudan or South American dictatorships. .
UK are just better at it, more practice.....
Ask Saviano...he wrote a book about Naples called Gomorrah.
Now he is working on a book about the UK I believe.

@QueenOfTheEntireFuckingUniverse they will have to work/or look for work for a minimum amount of hours per week.. Everyones situation differs so the amount of hours is determined by your responsibilities for caring for a child/ren and their ages and other circumstances such as health and caring commitments.
Your relatives will have personalised Claimant commitments with all this information detailed.
The amount of money earned during a month is deducted from any entitled UC monies due.A tapering system is used after a certain threshold is reached.

I think your 'friend' needs better friends.

If you don't respect her enough not to diss her online, you should do the decent thing and stay away.

You're only making yourself look bad by benefits bashing this made up person.

Yep, I always imagine Tory interns typing the posts.

She will likely get away with not working if her husband works full time. the couples AET remains ridiculously low despite just increasing. The whole system is a joke when it allows people to just not have to work for years on end. Meanwhile some of us who have worked for the past 40 years just carry on paying tax to support these people.

The thing is you don't pay tax to support people on benefits. Where do people get this idea?
Your tax goes on all kinds of things.....defence for example, or subsidising MPs expense accounts.

The couples AET mentioned by babyroobs is what I was talking about.

I know my relatives situation. Youngest dc is 6, no caring responsibility. As long as they earn whatever the AET amount is (£1200 according to DB) between them then they don't have to look for more work.

Yes of course it pays for all sorts of things including 69 billion on benefits.

And private jets!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/28/david-cameron-under-fire-for-hiring-42m-luxury-jet-for-central-asia-tour

I'm not really sure why I am even posting this

You’ve made up a load of bollocks to support your benefit-claimant bashing agenda?

You’re a Tory?

You’re a bot?

You’re a troll?

You’re a bad friend?

You’re just not very nice?

🚨🚨Tory Shill Alert 🚨🚨

@Thequeenofwishfulthinking you are making a lot of assumptions about me you don’t know my situation at al. Alsoi think a lot of what I was saying kind of got lost in translation a bit, I was saying I wasn’t really bothered anymore with all this benefit bashing and what other people were or weren’t doing. I do actually think it’s a bit pathetic to always be going after benefit cheats who are in effect few in number when you have huge companies “legally” not paying a penny in income tax. And millionaires finding every tax loophole they can, the shit Government we have is more interested in keeping their billionaire mate happier and richer and vilifying disabled people.

@QueenOfTheEntireFuckingUniverse I was talking generally and that’s how it works. The amount of hours will be set out in the CC. I’m not suggesting you don’t know their situation.
They must be both in a ‘light touch’ group.

@Babyroobs don't work and pay taxes then if all you are going to do is complain about people who don't.
Your tax does not pay for people to be on benefits.

@Babyroobs most of the 'benefits' bills is actually the state pension.

(As you know)

@Babyroobs I've seen you be incredibly helpful on MN in terms of access to benefits. I don't really remember many posters, but I do remember you and I always think you are so generous with your help and advice when people (mostly women, because they are usually the ones who need access to benefits) need it most.

I've quite surprised about some of your posts on this thread?

Surely the AET applies to everyone with school age children? Nothing to do with light touch. The government website says couples have to earn £1437 between them. It's gone up recently. So provided OPs friends husband earns that much she won't have to look for work.

I absolutely have no problem with people claiming benefits when they need to - disabled people, parents of disabled kids, the elderly.
That doesn't mean I have to agree that someone choosing to have five kids should be able to claim large amounts ( and we all know it will be very large amounts with only one parent working a minimum wage job and most of the kids born before 2017 ) in benefits and not have to work even part time.
I have four children myself. I have never not worked to support them. When they were little I worked nightshifts around my dh's 9-5. It was bloody hard work. the AET threshold on UC is ridiculously low, exactly the same at the WTC hours of work requirements have been for the past 20 + years where claimants could work just 24 hours between a couple and get topped up with working tax credits.
I guess some situations just niggle a bit.
I do agree as pp says that maybe this person ( if she even is real) could be lacking confidence in returning to the workforce and there needs to be more support.

Yes exactly. His earnings will be enough for her not to need to look for work. It's also unfair that single parents don't get the option to stay home wheras one of a couple does?

Well, the gravy train won't run forever. Has she got any kind of plan for when her children are older? She has no recent work experience so it won't be super easy job wise