'Would you work or claim benefit?' poll discussion

Former_MSE_Lawrence

Poll between 15-22 February 2010:

Would you work even if it meant LESS income?

If you were unemployed, struggling on benefits and were offered a job, but taking it resulted in LESS overall income (assuming no other likely prospects) would you...

A. I’m single: Take the job - 16% (2337 votes)
B. I’m single: Stick on benefits - 15% (2201 votes)
C. I’m in a couple: Take the job - 17% (2551 votes)
D. I’m in a couple: Stick on benefits - 12% (1799 votes)
E. I’ve got dependent kids: Take the job - 16% (2300 votes)
F. I’ve got dependent kids: Stick on benefits - 23% (3426 votes)

Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

irishwench69

Hi all

I am in a couple and I would take the job.

Having a job is about more than just money - it is having pride in youself, and not relying on a state to look after you (you can't do that for a pension these days, let alone if you are able to work!!).

Also, the salary wouldn't necessarily be low for ever - you need to get experience and training, and can move on from there.

If you stay on benefits, how will you ever move on / up?

IW x

minerva_windsong

irishwench69 wrote: »

Hi all

I am in a couple and I would take the job.

Having a job is about more than just money - it is having pride in youself, and not relying on a state to look after you (you can't do that for a pension these days, let alone if you are able to work!!).

Also, the salary wouldn't necessarily be low for ever - you need to get experience and training, and can move on from there.

If you stay on benefits, how will you ever move on / up?

IW x

What she said.

I'm in a couple and I would take the job, because to me it's a pride thing - I worked hard to earn my money, therefore I feel OK spending it because it's mine rather than being a handout. Plus the training element is key as well. I've always said that no one should be too proud to work, regardless what the job is, and would feel like a hypocrite to say otherwise with regards to myself.

MORPH3US

Would depend on how much worse off I would be working than on benefits...

A year ago I was completely of the opinion that you should always work hard and earn a living, having been brought up that way.

The last year has really made me see whats wrong with this country, but more than that, how the government aren't bothered about doing anything to put things right.

So now i'm only looking out for myself and my family and screw everyone else. Maybe if "the stupid hard working majority" all did the same then the government would have to do something to stop people scrounging off the state as a lifestyle choice.

dealbunch

Not for everyone, I know, but I'd start my own business!

gemmaj

I’ve got dependent kids, and I'd take the job.

Bu tbh only because the post says "If you were unemployed, struggling on benefits.."

My way of thinking, if I was struggling on benefits and stayed on benefits then I could struggle for the rest of my life. By taking the job I would struggle more for a while but stand a better chance of getting a better job - whether by good references or working up in the company.

I must admit if I was doing OK on benefits then I wouldn't take a lower paid job - I would enjoy time with my toddler and being a SAHM (stay at home mum).

However having never been on benefits I couldn't say for sure!

Broxi51

If you are STRUGGLING on benefits would you take a job that would result in LESS income.
How could anybody be expected to take the job option if you are struggling to pay your bills, rent, mortgage etc on benefits if it means you get less income. How long before you are evicted, gas shut off, phone cut off etc.
No one could possibly take the job option UNLESS there is someone to bail them out or if it could lead to more money after a short time.

Mobeer

Single & take the job
Take the job is the forward thinking approach, which offers more opportunity for a better job and better income. Staying on benefits with "no other likely prospects" is going to leave you struggling for good.

Gavin83

If your struggling on benefits already, then logic would say you literally wouldn't be able to live if you took the lower paid job, and therefore would end up homeless and jobless with no benefits anyway. Only a fool would take the job in this situation. I don't wish to end up homeless so I would stay on benefits.

If it was for an equal amount of money I would take the job though.

snugglepet20

As a family we curently do fall into the 'better off on benefits' catagory mostly due to housing costs which would be free if we were unemployed and the fact I stay at home with the children as all 3 are pre-school and I would need to be a millionaire to afford the nursery fees!
In spite of this my husband still works because that is what normal people do and I will go back to work when the children are bigger. If we lived off benefits we would be shamed and looked down on by our family and friends as scroungers who are too lazy to work (If we were ill or unable to work obviously it would be different).
Sometimes it seems too many people feel 'entitled' to benefit money they haven't earned and that the benefit money is too high as they can afford to live off it long-term rather than just surviving temporarily in a crisis which is what benefits were supposed to be designed for.

cw18

The only way I can see it resulting in less money, is if travel costs took up a significant proportion of the salary ???

My DD recently dropped from full time to part time, as she was getting stressed with looking after her girls/sorting child-care/running the house and working FT.

She's a single parent, so I don't know if it's different for other groups, but on investigation it appeared that if she worked under 16 hours she'd get a top-up from Income Support to ensure she was no worse off than if she was on benefits (and she could have given up work completely and gone onto IS due to being a single parent). By managing to get a 16 hour contract she doesn't get the IS top-up, but she does get almost all her rent and council tax paid for (due to low income, and they take her share of child-care costs into account when working out how much she has) plus a not-insignificant amount in Child and Working Tax Credits. It's actually working out she's not more than a couple of quid a week worse off than she would have been staying on FT hours.


(And, before anyone points it out, I do appreciate that she only gets WTC at 16 hours due to being a single parent, and that without a child she'd have to work 30 hours to get that)




For myself, I would have to ensure I had enough coming in to pay my bills - which I don't consider extravagant, although I would look at trimming them to a mimimum (without dropping to the level of existing instead of living) when making the choice. What I'd also have to take into account is that my energy bills would drop -- less hours at home = less heating and lighting, and less water useage too (on a meter).