No point working - why not just go on benefits?

SingleSue

B_Blank wrote: »

The following reasons make me think benefits is better than work financially:

1, High (and rising) cost of commuting to work eating into profit from going to work. Being on benefits will mean you wont have to commute to work.

2, Benefits are linked to inflation and wage growth is lagging behind inflation. Thus, you are assured more of a pay rise if you are on benefits. Another reason to just go on benefits.

3, Less stress - you dont have to get up at 6 am everyday, and then only get home at 7pm when you are on benefits. Just pop down to the job centre every so often and scribble some rubbish on an application form and you will be assured of getting a nice little income.

Seriously, why would anyone work in an average £15k a year job 15 miles from them home? It will cost them a fortune to get there and they wont get any wage increase. Whereas if you go on benefits you can just sit in your house (not waste money on petrol) and get access to a benefits system protected from inflation.

The BoE and government (labour or tory) dont care about the working man. You might as well just go on benefits and stay inflation protected. Heck, if you play your cards right and have a few kids you cant afford then you can get a big house (free) and even more free money every week to support them.

Also there is no point working hard and saving because the government will just screw you with high inflation and low IR and make sure that your savings are ground down to dust. Also, if you get old an dhave no savings the government will pay for everything you need, whereas if you have savings they will make you pay for it yourself. Saving is pointless in the UK. It is better to spend as much as you can as often as you can, and to not worry about preparing for a rainy day. When the rainy day comes other people who prepared for it will fit the bill for you so its ok.

COnclusion = unless you earn £20k+ a year then you should just give up and go on benefits. IF you earn maybe less than £30k a year but have to travel to work then you should also just quit and go on benefits, maybe even have a few kids (the more the better chance you have of rinsing the system). That is my advice on how to make it in the UK

Good luck.

Ok, I am taking this stance as you have used the generic term "on benefits" without specifying which ones.

1. There may not be commuting costs but there will still be fuel costs for those on benefits for a disability or those who have caring responsibilities to a disabled person. These costs can be equal to or sometimes more than the average commute costs.

2. Agreed there are in line with inflation increases but there is also drawbacks as there is no possibility of working extra shifts/overtime at times of financial stress (I understand there are some who are unable to do this while employed too). Personally, benefits should not have had an increase in the current times.

3. Again, for those who are on benefits not related to unemployment, the stress can still be there, the early mornings and late nights can still be there.

Why work for £15k? Well, pride is a biggie.....nothing more soul destroying than being on benefits. Plus also for the person earning 15k with a family, there are top up benefits which increase the incomings (which are generally not thought about when talking about benefit claimants as some don't see tax credits as benefits).

4. The big house is not a guarantee...and if the house is too big for your needs, you will not receive full LHA and will have to top it up. Those working but in low income employment, can also receive help towards their housing costs.

And the one that really gets my goat......not all benefit claimants watch Jeremy blooming Kyle!

ILW

ukcarper wrote: »

Just done a check on entitledto to see if it was worth a 24 year old where I am not working and going on benefits. He would get £51.75 income support and £80 LHA towards the cost of a room in a house share per week.

What would he get if he had two kids?

B_Blank

SingleSue wrote: »

Ok, I am taking this stance as you have used the generic term "on benefits" without specifying which ones.

1. There may not be commuting costs but there will still be fuel costs for those on benefits for a disability or those who have caring responsibilities to a disabled person. These costs can be equal to or sometimes more than the average commute costs.

2. Agreed there are in line with inflation increases but there is also drawbacks as there is no possibility of working extra shifts/overtime at times of financial stress (I understand there are some who are unable to do this while employed too). Personally, benefits should not have had an increase in the current times.

3. Again, for those who are on benefits not related to unemployment, the stress can still be there, the early mornings and late nights can still be there.

Why work for £15k? Well, pride is a biggie.....nothing more soul destroying than being on benefits. Plus also for the person earning 15k with a family, there are top up benefits which increase the incomings (which are generally not thought about when talking about benefit claimants as some don't see tax credits as benefits).

4. The big house is not a guarantee...and if the house is too big for your needs, you will not receive full LHA and will have to top it up. Those working but in low income employment, can also receive help towards their housing costs.

And the one that really gets my goat......not all benefit claimants watch Jeremy blooming Kyle!

Whats even more funny is the council house for life (which cant be rmoved from them - even though the torys are changing it for new applicants).

There are people on £75k a year living in council housing and paying 1/5 the market rate. JOKE! There are older people without any kids living in 4 bed houses FOR FREE because their kids have grown up! JOKE!

purch

There are people on £75k a year living in council housing and paying 1/5 the market rate. JOKE!

No there isn't.

Making up stuff just ruins whatever argument you are trying to make.

SingleSue

B_Blank wrote: »

Whats even more funny is the council house for life (which cant be rmoved from them - even though the torys are changing it for new applicants).

There are people on £75k a year living in council housing and paying 1/5 the market rate. JOKE! There are older people without any kids living in 4 bed houses FOR FREE because their kids have grown up! JOKE!

Social housing around here is only slightly cheaper than market rent (around £75-£100 a month cheaper).

Do you actually know how many 4 bed houses there are in social housing? 4 beds are like hens teeth - extremely rare. Most common is 3 beds but I do agree that there are a fair few where children have left home but the parents still live in the family home.

B_Blank

purch wrote: »

No there isn't.

Making up stuff just ruins whatever argument you are trying to make.

Er yes there are.

purch

List them.

chucknorris

Money isn't the only reason for working. I retired early about 10 years ago (but was still running two businesses on a part time basis) when I sold one of the businesses I felt the need to do something else. So last year I tried my hand at university lecturing, which was driven by the need to do something fulfilling rather than for financial reasons.

krycek985

Iv always though why bother going to work when half the country doesnt.

Why dont we all just hand our notices in on the 31st of March and see the country collapse.

Mr_Mumble

sunshinetours wrote: »

I do appreciate you have said in relative terms, but the key point to this comparison is that for most people their working life annual income will be greater than their retirement annual income, and for many, far greater, so the relative comparison is somewhat diminished.

Yep, though I used the pension example to avoid the mention of other benefits which could lead to someone saying I was a heartless b'stard trying to steal food out of babies mouths .

The basic state pension does exacerbate the differences but you could have used almost any benefit over the past few years to show the gap between social security payments and the 'average' job - in percentage terms - fell between 2009 and 2011. The percentage terms is important for those on an average to good wage but for the low paid with kids I'm not so sure (and yes that'd take a lot of working out!).

I do think the pension example could sway decisions btw. The annual basic state pension will be £5540.60 in 2012-13 (that's assuming the OBR's 4.3% CPI estimate for September this year is correct, yes, unlikely!). Up from £4716.40 in 2008-9. Using wage growth over this period the basic state pension would be £5054.14.

For a potential retiree looking at the pros and cons of retiring in 2012-13 they'll have £485.86 more in annual income from the basic state pension than they would if it were uplifted with the average wage hike over the past four years. That's not an insignificant amount.

Now you can call me heartless for theorising about the state pension being increased in-line with earnings but I'd disagree. The genuinely poor receive a pension credit top-up. The biggest beneficiaries of the basic state pension are ladies in Chelsea and Knightbridge since they have the longest life expectancy of anyone in Britain!