No point working - why not just go on benefits?

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

From http://www.firststeps-surrey.nhs.uk/workinglifeandmentalhealth.htm



All these positive benefits from working and you want a 'substantial' premium over and above the money that the benefits system can provide? It's depressing just thinking about that attitude.

As much as I agree in theory, many don't see the benefits of work and just see work = missing Jeremy Kyle.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

As much as I agree in theory, many don't see the benefits of work and just see work = missing Jeremy Kyle.

There was a family on benefits highlighted on the BBC website who were going to be worse off following the housing benefits changes. Their position was one of 'well what are the government going to do for us?' - options that involved them doing something for themselves i.e. negotiating with the landlord to reduce the rent, moving to a cheaper location (two miles away), or heaven forbid, going out and getting a minimum wage job were not on the agenda.

This government has the opportunity to do something over the next few years to change these attitudes. I'd suggest a firm but fair squeeze on benefits so that the work vs. benefits calculation is slowly but surely nudging people to the work side of the equation.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

So what do you suggest

ILW wrote: »

The problem is not the people who take advantage, but a system that allows them to.

Nearly correct, people with no dignity,morals or actual need to be on benefits will steal every penny they can get from the working man via the benefits system and our government allows it and will continue to allow it, ive said it before and ill say it again, stop giving them money, give them food and clothes instead because im pretty sure that would save a few quid plus make me happier because im sick of watching every scrounging scumbag around me spend my tax on stuff i cant afford.

ninky_2

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Nearly correct, people with no dignity,morals or actual need to be on benefits will steal every penny they can get from the working man via the benefits system and our government allows it and will continue to allow it, ive said it before and ill say it again, stop giving them money, give them food and clothes instead because im pretty sure that would save a few quid plus make me happier because im sick of watching every scrounging scumbag around me spend my tax on stuff i cant afford.

sorry but that's not very practical. there's a lot more to be paid for than food and clothing.

my thing would to be to make benefits less attractive by making people clock in and out of a jobseeking centre for a certain number of working hours. it's the availability of increased 'leisure' time (which should really be jobseeking time) that really makes benefits attractive to some.

personally if i was looking for work i'd actually welcome the chance to go into a centre with on-tap advisors, computers, printers and perhaps free postage. i'm sure the professional longterm claimant might not find it so appealing.

Jimmy_31

ninky wrote: »

sorry but that's not very practical. there's a lot more to be paid for than food and clothing.

my thing would to be to make benefits less attractive by making people clock in and out of a jobseeking centre for a certain number of working hours. it's the availability of increased 'leisure' time (which should really be jobseeking time) that really makes benefits attractive to some.

personally if i was looking for work i'd actually welcome the chance to go into a centre with on-tap advisors, computers, printers and perhaps free postage. i'm sure the professional longterm claimant might not find it so appealing.

Ok so there is a lot more too be paid for, so why doesnt the government pay for it directly so that the benefit claimant never gets to see the actual money, i think you can see the point im trying to make, even if this method sill didnt spur people into even attempting to get a job id feel better knowing that they can no longer buy cigarettes, alcohol, ipods, ps3, xbox, and so on.

Red_Doe

In addition to providing an income, employment can serve as a source of achievement, satisfaction, and a boost to one’s self-esteem. Work gives structure and purpose to the day and can provide opportunities for social contact and making friends. Work can also provide people with an identity and stated role within society. Many studies have shown the benefits of work for people with a current or previous experience of a mental health problem.

Conversely, we know that unemployment can have a detrimental affect on health and general wellbeing. Unemployment is associated with stress, low self-esteem and increased feelings of depression.

I`m self employed. I`d actually be financially better off on benefits and in fact have been told, on this site, more than once, why not give up and sign on.
Well, it would make no sense for me to do so. If I quit working and sign on, I will have the government on my back (rightly so) pushing me to find work in an area in which there is none (remote, rural, `dying` through locals moving away to find work) and no, I can`t afford to move, since moving involves not only travel money but rent and key deposit etc. I also have responsibilities here.
My work used to provide me with that satisfaction and sense of achievement but now, only provides me with what is displayed in the final part of the above statement.
So people like me...working but for a pittance...are most certainly not in an advantageous position, but we still resist all we can to end up on Jobseekers.
I`m sure I haven`t explained this well, but it`s actually an emotive subject for me. I do see others on benefits and they appear to get a lot more money than I do working...the nature of my work means income is erratic at the best of times....and somehow, they seem to wriggle out of the whip the job centres wield over them.
If I quit and signed on I`d be genuinely unable to find work here yet would have to endure that whip.
Catch 22, I guess.
I`ll keep on working, but please don`t everyone believe that everyone who works is raking in the money. We aren`t.

ninky_2

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Ok so there is a lot more too be paid for, so why doesnt the government pay for it directly so that the benefit claimant never gets to see the actual money, i think you can see the point im trying to make, even if this method sill didnt spur people into even attempting to get a job id feel better knowing that they can no longer buy cigarettes, alcohol, ipods, ps3, xbox, and so on.

because not all claimants would have the same need - small women need fewer calories than large men for just one example.

because administering a scheme whereby the government calculated and paid directly for all the needs of an individual claimant would be totally impractical and unaffordable.

i'm a freelancer on contracts too and so would not get any benefits if i found myself out of work either.

however what you are suggesting is just not feasible.

ninky_2

Red_Doe wrote: »

I`m self employed. I`d actually be financially better off on benefits and in fact have been told, on this site, more than once, why not give up and sign on.
.

well as you don't pay class 1 nics you wouldn't get contributions based benefits anyway.

Jimmy_31

ninky wrote: »

because not all claimants would have the same need - small women need fewer calories than large men for just one example.

because administering a scheme whereby the government calculated and paid directly for all the needs of an individual claimant would be totally impractical and unaffordable.

i'm a freelancer on contracts too and so would not get any benefits if i found myself out of work either.

however what you are suggesting is just not feasible.

I think its perfectly feasible to be honest, you mention calories and how people have different needs so therefore its not feasible, meals on wheels works well so why not extend this to everyone on benefits on the same estate seeing as the meals on wheels delivery vehicle is going to the estate anyway, or just provide food stamps that cannot be used for anything but food, not alcohol or cigarettes or scratchcards just food

There are plenty of ways the government can save money but too many times they choose not too because its not feasible, am i right in thinking that single people who recieve child benefit and are earning above a certain wage will now have this cut or stopped but couples wont because its too much work for the government to cope with ie not feasible

Jowo_2

It's worth mentioning that perhaps the self-employed with no or low turnover could be in for a shock in the move to the Universal Credit system as the proposal paper says they will be treated as if they earn the National Minimum Wage for the hours they report.

Currently someone who is self employed can expect to maximise their benefit entitlements - tax credits, council tax rebate, local housing allowance - if they report low profits and therefore are relatively cushioned from the consequences of their poor trading.

Under UC, they will be treated as if they have earned the NMW (even if they don't) which will make them appear wealthier under the means testing and reduce their top ups, making them much more reliant on their trading to form their household inocme.