'Would you work or claim benefit?' poll discussion

mindymoo1

karenfielder wrote: »

Do you know you are absolutely correct, you would get all these treatments free if you were on benefits, it really is not fair - incidentally I was having a similar conversation with a lady yesterday who questioned why scotlish residents are entitled to free presciptions regardless of their working circumstance - do you know that I could not answer - does anyone know why, although we are all part of the whole country NHS why can only scotland get it all free?

In answer to Palicia and Karen: the welfare state and the NHS is to try to reduce inequalities in health and many reports support the fact that those who have not got as much money have less opportunities, less access to healthcare (but this also applies to other areas such as education) and the idea is that someone on benefits would not be able to afford dentistry and medications. Certain medications are 'free' to working people in England, people with diabetes don't have to pay for example. The prescription price 'we' pay is in fact a lot less money than buying that drug from the company and therefore we do get a discount. Drugs can cost a phenominal amount of money and lets please not forget that if we ended up in a hospital bed (God forbid) whether you work or not it is free....a bed on an intensive care unit for example costs >£2000-3000 minimal per 24 hour period.

Why is it free in Scotland: well they voted for an independent, Scottish parliament...where there children also still get 'free' university education.

Seeing as the question gave the information that you were struggling whilst on benefits I would have to say regardless of my home situation I would have to stay on benefits. If you take into account the travel to and from work (and child care if you have children), the extra outgoings of council tax, then it defeats the whole object of going to work in the first place and could make you financially worse off. However if you do have children you can receive tax credits and also if your wage is low you MAY be entitles to some help towards rent. It's not that easy though because you have to regularly show 3 months bank statements to the council to prove you aren't stashing money away somewhere, you may have someone come to visit you also.

Whilst I agree that it is important to work there are other ways of contributing to society if you want to get out of the house/ demonstrate to your children about not 'dossing' at home etc. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to get a job that pays a decent wage and not everyone is in the position because they're lazy. If you can't earn enough money to cover your out goings and you're already spending only on essentials it is not realistic to take the job.

No, I suppose it isn't fair. I've worked hard to get where I am, I work hard to stay where I am but life isn't always fair and these 'free' dentistry treatments, prescriptions etc are paid for somewhere....we can't expect to keep having things for free the math just doesn't add up!!

jockosjungle

Why is it free in Scotland & Wales? Nothing much to do with the Scottish Parliament really.

What happens is when they got their independance the British government let them keep all their current privelages (NHS, benefits, etc.) but then they also gave them a massive amount of money on top of this to spend on whatever they wanted. To keep themselves popular they made some popular laws.

However what they should be doing is paying extra tax, in reality we all pay the same tax but in England we get less services because we're subsidising Scotland.

Best hope for England is to give Scotland its independance fully and leave them to manage on the money they make from the taxes of 5 million people

Back on topic though, the system doesn't really accept very easily that people who work are poor. Before I got my current job I earned £14k and supported myself by renting a place and I was poor, needed a car to get to work, £450 rent a month, bills, council tax, paid taxes, living expenses.

I earned just enough money to get no help at all, I used to fear the letter sending me for a dentist in case I needed to pay for a filling. When they put up a checkup to £15, I really felt it. I had a skin complaint and the Doctor wasn't sure which it was and wanted to give me two prescriptions, I had to tell him I couldn't afford two prescriptions.

Walk past a council estate without exception they all have Sky TV, they smoke, they drink, they go out and sit in pubs - all things I couldn't afford to do - although I have a much better job now I still cannot afford these things as my wife who is unemployed. She got a letter yesterday saying the jobcentre won't give her any money because I earn too much money, so we struggle on one income but supporting two people.

We want to have children in a few years, we want two but we'll struggle to afford one. If I didn't work and we both claimed benefits, we could have as many children as we liked, in fact the government are paying poor people to have more children.

So we end up with a situation where working people have to crunch the numbers to see if they can afford one child whereas people on benefits are paid to have them.

I was one of three children, my father went to work my whole life and my mother looked after the children. When i grew up, I followed my fathers example and got myself a job. My children, if we can afford them, will grow up seeing an example of people going to work and will to seem natural to them to seek employment, pay taxes.

If we were on benefits, well for a start I'd tell them we were both single people and not bother to get married, we'd maintain two council houses (rent free) but i'd spend every night at hers, you get more tax credits like that. We'd have so many children that a council house would be too small for us, so they'd have to buy us a nice six bedroom house somewhere, we'd have about 9 children. We'd get child benefit, pay no rent or council tax, our only expenditure would be on utilities and food, we'd get a charity to give us all the baby stuff because they won't see children suffer. They'd get free school uniform, school dinners, so we'd hardly have to feed them. And we'd get about £30k in benefits, cash in hand and spend it all on fags and booze.

Our children would grow up and look to the example of their parents and see that the best way for them to get ahead is to have loads of kids and never work, and the problem moves on to the next generation.

So we end up with a vicous cycle of decent people having few children, benefits people being paid to have them and eventually the country will be bancrupt.

Gordon Brown talks about getting kids out of poverty but has no real way of doing it except to pay anyone who has a child enough money to get them out of poverty.

How long can the country afford it for?

R

R

Jomo

frmarcus wrote: »

Not a useful poll: depends how much worse off you'd beas to whether you'd take the job...

Not everybody thinks like that :cool:

mindymoo1

hmmm so perhaps it is to do with parliament then

I was youngest of three children, my Dad was self employed and my Mum went back to work when I was 9yrs old, financially things were tight especially before my Dad became self employed, he was made redundant, co-inciding with my Mum being really ill so he was looking after 3 girls and his wife, looking for work and drawing some pittance of whatever benefit it was called in the 80's.
I've worked at the same time as going to college and then through uni.. I love my job and I do various bits for charity aswell but whether I'd be able to afford a child and then childcare costs is another matter although I'm sure something could be worked out....there are childcare vouchers for parents with children aged 3yrs to when they go to school but whether this differs on your postcode???? and it obviously doesn't cover any sort of costs up to 3 years of age.

Whilst I agree there are people out there who abuse the welfare state there are people that struggle financially. It does annoy me, to say the least, that it is abused at such a level but I know people who struggle and I come across clients at work who struggle and not all of them are on the scrounge. I still don't think that if the job would pay LESS than the benefits it would be a realistic option and debt would start creeping up. I think it's a bit unfair to categorize everyone on benefits, that they want
as many children as possible, drink, smoke, that their children will grow up and stay on benefits... quite a generalization and rather insulting.

MiserlyMartin

MORPH3US wrote: »

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.

I agree with you. For all of my life I have had morals about this and believed everyone should work hard for things in life. The last few years have shown that if you are reckless you get bailed out. If you borrow more than you should you just go bankrupt and debts written off at the expense of the prudent. The government encourage people to have kids and split up / live apart through the tax and benefit system because they are better off that way. The government put asylum seekers / immigrants / health tourists above the people who have lived here all their working life and paid iinto the system and encourage them to come here.

I am sick and fed up of this country. The whole system and society is wrong. If I knew of a country which is like the UK before it was ruined by this government I would be off there. Where can we go?

UnluckyT

Im wondering what could be done then? And how do we go about it i wonder?
Id imagine we would vote for the party who would do right etc, it all fair enough having a good grumble, although isnt it about time something was done and we pulled up our own socks and did it?

elektra-2007

Well im a single parent with a child and ive been in this situation, where i was worse off in a job, with dinner money, travel costs, childcare i was about £30 a week worse off, the stress was unbelivable, and the effect it was having overall on my family just wasnt worth doing a minimum paid, dead beat job, going to work close to tears each day because i had to leave my son crying at a holiday club that cost more than i was earning, yes i got 80% childcare from tax creds but i still had to pay the other 20%.
Eventually it got to breaking point and i had to give it up. now ive got a better paid, better hours job and were much better off but its only temp.
If you read the poll, it says WORSE OFF OVERALL which would mean to me after any tax creds and housing allowances. People think it dosent happen and you must be financially better off in work, that isnt always so.
Its ok to say you would take the job for pride ect, but it wont take long for the stress and tears to kick in.

kindofagilr

One thing I see wrong with this poll is that if you are already struggling on benefit then what good would it do working for LESS money?

And no I am not on benefits, I work full time as does my OH

karenfielder

jockosjungle wrote: »

Why is it free in Scotland & Wales? Nothing much to do with the Scottish Parliament really.

What happens is when they got their independance the British government let them keep all their current privelages (NHS, benefits, etc.) but then they also gave them a massive amount of money on top of this to spend on whatever they wanted. To keep themselves popular they made some popular laws.

However what they should be doing is paying extra tax, in reality we all pay the same tax but in England we get less services because we're subsidising Scotland.

Best hope for England is to give Scotland its independance fully and leave them to manage on the money they make from the taxes of 5 million people

Back on topic though, the system doesn't really accept very easily that people who work are poor. Before I got my current job I earned £14k and supported myself by renting a place and I was poor, needed a car to get to work, £450 rent a month, bills, council tax, paid taxes, living expenses.

I earned just enough money to get no help at all, I used to fear the letter sending me for a dentist in case I needed to pay for a filling. When they put up a checkup to £15, I really felt it. I had a skin complaint and the Doctor wasn't sure which it was and wanted to give me two prescriptions, I had to tell him I couldn't afford two prescriptions.

Walk past a council estate without exception they all have Sky TV, they smoke, they drink, they go out and sit in pubs - all things I couldn't afford to do - although I have a much better job now I still cannot afford these things as my wife who is unemployed. She got a letter yesterday saying the jobcentre won't give her any money because I earn too much money, so we struggle on one income but supporting two people.

We want to have children in a few years, we want two but we'll struggle to afford one. If I didn't work and we both claimed benefits, we could have as many children as we liked, in fact the government are paying poor people to have more children.

So we end up with a situation where working people have to crunch the numbers to see if they can afford one child whereas people on benefits are paid to have them.

I was one of three children, my father went to work my whole life and my mother looked after the children. When i grew up, I followed my fathers example and got myself a job. My children, if we can afford them, will grow up seeing an example of people going to work and will to seem natural to them to seek employment, pay taxes.

If we were on benefits, well for a start I'd tell them we were both single people and not bother to get married, we'd maintain two council houses (rent free) but i'd spend every night at hers, you get more tax credits like that. We'd have so many children that a council house would be too small for us, so they'd have to buy us a nice six bedroom house somewhere, we'd have about 9 children. We'd get child benefit, pay no rent or council tax, our only expenditure would be on utilities and food, we'd get a charity to give us all the baby stuff because they won't see children suffer. They'd get free school uniform, school dinners, so we'd hardly have to feed them. And we'd get about £30k in benefits, cash in hand and spend it all on fags and booze.

Our children would grow up and look to the example of their parents and see that the best way for them to get ahead is to have loads of kids and never work, and the problem moves on to the next generation.

So we end up with a vicous cycle of decent people having few children, benefits people being paid to have them and eventually the country will be bancrupt.

Gordon Brown talks about getting kids out of poverty but has no real way of doing it except to pay anyone who has a child enough money to get them out of poverty.

How long can the country afford it for?

R

R

VERY WELL SAID, I personally have lived among (I briefly rented on a council estate) the very people that you have described and they not only do get all those things but brag about it as well! Add to that the interest free loans that the job centre give away to the unemployed (why, they are unemployed?) which funds thier holidays abroad etc., and it does question the reasons for slogging your guts out at work each day!

aurion22

I was unemployed and on benefits for several years. Whenever I got the chance to work, I was only allowed to keep £5 a week and the rest came off my benefits. I didn't just lose the JSA but also the Council Tax benefit. There was absolutely NO incentive to work and the paperwork was a nightmare.
What money I had saved also counted against me as the system assumed that I had an income and reduced my benefits even further. This against the arbitrary figure which the government, in its wisdom, said was the minimum necessary to live on.
Amazingly, this "minimum" benefit is taxable. Where is the sense in that?