'Would you work or claim benefit?' poll discussion

jfke

Not sure it is possible to be "better off on benefits" in monetary terms. Housing benefit, council tax benefit and tax credits all being payable "in work" offset a lot of the "benefits trap" mentality.

The question really is "Would you work 40hrs a week knowing that your income would only be marginally more?"

The answer to that seems to be "No."

dandy-candy

I'm married with 3 kids and if I were in this theoretical situation then I would have to say it would depend on how much the difference in income was. If I would only be £10-£20 out of pocket then I would rather work but if you're talking larger amounts and I was finding money tight already then I would stick to benefits.

Tippytoes

SomethingWitty wrote: »

i sympathise with your situation and I agree that there are serious problems with the system.

Where i take serious issue with you is with this It is the same system for "the workshy" and "imports" as you describe them. It is, I admit, a poor system. I agree, often the training courses are poor. But, there is a lot of help out there, from people like citizens advice, entitledto, these very boards, etc to help. Cold comfort I know but please bear this in mind before lobbing allegations that claimants are all "workshy" or before using dubious, nasty and unpleasant language such as "imports".

Oh, and I'm not impressed by your latin. Nor should the DWP be.

Thse system stinks yes, but it is a lot better than many countries have, by a long long way. I could start a whole new debate about why it is not as good as it could be but don't get me started. Take the bull by the horns, get whatever advice you can and see what you can do. Write to your MP, look at the sources of advice mentioned above, but please, please, whatever you do don't accuse "imports" as you call them (whatever it is you mean) of getting an easy ride. Being in a difficult situation is absolutely no excuse to make an ill informed, prejudiced, and ultimately baseles judgment as this.

Well I will give you a WELL-INFORMED opinion, no a STATEMENT about the "imports" - if my interpretation of an import is correct. Many imports come into this country without having any information about the place they have landed in EXCEPT the location of the nearest JCP and CAB. Illegals are actually rather smug about their illegal status. Those who speak not a word of English are assigned interpreters (at approx. £70 per hour). They demand (and get) benefits and other handouts. Any resistance and they will wave the race card. Imports are actually very, very crafty and know exactly how to manipulate the system to their advantage. I would love to whistle-blow, but I signed a confidentiality clause.....

Passiflora_Polar_Bear

dgbnlm wrote: »

well i just wish the government would wake up.we work but the people on benefits seem to get a better ,worry free life,kids meals paid,rent paid community charge paid,free laptops,free school clothes,discount on clubs, free swimming its endless so this makes us feel inadequate that we cant provide these things for our kids.its now the ones that work that are the poorest,the saying here is do the kids have diners at school i have to say no we work i cant afford them.then you got tax credits that take it off you :mad:and the csa if you so manage to get some overtime.its a catch 22 .

This just strengthens the case for a higher minimum wage. It is losing things like free prescriptions that have to be taken into consideration when looking at whether you can afford to work for the minimum wage and keeps you in the benefits trap. I gained advice from a friend who works at Citizens Advice Bureau. Bearing in mind he was working on 2007-2008 benefit data he calculated that if you earned under £100 week you can keep all your Housing / tax benefits etc, but if you earn between £100 & £220-230 week this help drops disproportionately so you are actually worse off working. Over this amount taxes stabilised and you started to keep the money you earned.

(They also give you a 'better off in work' calculation at the job centre to encourage you to take low paid jobs - caution- you need Martin's budget to help you calculate your real expenses more accurately).

SomethingWitty_2

Tippytoes wrote: »

Well I will give you a WELL-INFORMED opinion, no a STATEMENT about the "imports" - if my interpretation of an import is correct. Many imports come into this country without having any information about the place they have landed in EXCEPT the location of the nearest JCP and CAB. Illegals are actually rather smug about their illegal status. Those who speak not a word of English are assigned interpreters (at approx. £70 per hour). They demand (and get) benefits and other handouts. Any resistance and they will wave the race card. Imports are actually very, very crafty and know exactly how to manipulate the system to their advantage. I would love to whistle-blow, but I signed a confidentiality clause.....

Well informed based on what? Please, pray do tell what on earth you are on about? Confidentiality clause with who?

From here that reads like nothing more than a racist diatribe. Who do you class as an "import" exactly? How do you define someone who is not an "import"? And what gives you the right to question their reasons for being here? Or their rights to benefits? Are you involved in the decision making process? Do you know the detail of these cases? If you do, then I would suggest you know little about what you do.

Let me play the "race card" as you call it for you: what you have said is xenophobic nonsense.

I would love to know the answers to all these questions, do fill me in. So I (and hopefully everyone else here) can demolish your pathetic vitriolic argument.

And I thought I lived in a tolerant country. Maybe I was wrong.

jockosjungle

Well I voted to stick on benefits!

Although I have always tried to work and have been employed for five years when i was unemployed I got £40 a week jobseekers living with my parents.

This situation is perfectly plausable, when I helped out trying to get young people employed with the Prince's Trust through work I came against this problem with some of them.

For example simply not being able to read very well gets you disability, unemployment, rent paid, etc. Some of these kids didn't work and were considerably better off than I was in that they often had £150 a week just for fun money.

The moralistic people who said they would work instead of staying on benefits I imagine are not in this situation, and are speaking from a holier than thou perspective (no offence). What the poll should say is would you work a really awful, repetitive, job for 40 hours a week and pay £30 a week for the privelage - that is what the poll is really asking and the truth is you wouldn't.

The truth is that the lowest paid worker should be considerably better off than the highest paid person on benefits, and it simply isn't the case.

R

Debtfix

Benefits from central government give access to local government benefits of rent and council tax benefits. To take a job where the income is lower than the overall amount given on benefits could mean eviction and visits (and very high additional costs) of bailiffs collecting for CT arrears. It would be financial suicide to take this option in the hope that your pay will increase "in time". Employers generally are looking for cheap labour and we have to resist this as the economy is set for another steep decline while the banks hoover up all available money in circulation.

There is also an argument concerning the mechanisation of work. Social security benefits represent a social wage in compensation for the lack of employment because of capital investment in automated production machinery. Increasingly there will be less work in industry as robotic machines take over. The Guinness plant is what we can look forward to in warehousing. This UK distribution point is run by computers with very few men employed and none of those are required to have a fork lift truck licence.

asc99c

Debtfix wrote: »

There is also an argument concerning the mechanisation of work. Social security benefits represent a social wage in compensation for the lack of employment because of capital investment in automated production machinery. Increasingly there will be less work in industry as robotic machines take over. The Guinness plant is what we can look forward to in warehousing. This UK distribution point is run by computers with very few men employed and none of those are required to have a fork lift truck licence.

As someone who writes the software to control automated warehouses, I tend to have a very different view of this. Money doesn't just appear from nowhere - the reason wages can go up on an overall trend is simply that individual workers get more done. A major factor in this has been increasing automation and computerisation of processes.

When a warehouse goes automated, certainly some people will get put out of work. However, most of the lost jobs are low paid, and the replacement jobs available are much better paid - maintenance engineers and the like. Also there are good opportunities for the low-level warehouse staff to really show some more initiative in an automated warehouse. I've seen basic pickers and packers starting to take an interest in the fault conditions on the machines and in one case been promoted right up to effectively operations manager for the site. I'm paid a flat rate for out of hours support, so I'm pretty thrilled to find the people who can keep these automated sites running without calling me at 3am! And from my experience the automation almost always opens up a whole host of career paths for those willing to learn.

wildthing01

i know the job market is terrible at the moment, but i'm surprised there are people claiming that they are unable to get work because they're over-qualified, or have the wrong qualifications, and can't get work in their preferred field. i did a professional qualification, so i'm lucky to have been able to walk more or less straight into my career, but my husband did a history degree, and has never really found a satisfactory job yet, and certainly not ever one that was in any way related to his degree/interests. after various redundancies etc, we were in a position where he had to work, as my income was just not enough any more. he is currently doing a job that you don't need any real qualifiations for, for a very low wage, because we need the money. although he gets the mick taken at work a bit, his employers certainly never said he was over-qualified (which he clearly is) - they were in fact grateful to have him.

i think in these times, you have to be prepared to do whatever you can to provide for your family, and remember that very few people are lucky enough to be able to do their dream job - most of us have to do something less than ideal, just in order to survive...

Moneypenny1

Dependent with kids.............

If I was struggling on benefits how would taking a job giving less money help situ??? I pride myself as a working person however what do you do if you're willing to work but the £££ don't add up???

Having paid taxes all my working life I would look to the state to help me in my time of need. Not to suggest I'm shy to go out and work but it needs to pay for it to work.

Without wishing to get slaughtered on this forum, I do feel those who haven't put into the state are taking the mick......sorry if this sounds harsh but just being realistic after all it's not a bottomless pot.