not returning back to work after maternity leave

portly1

jules1964 wrote: »

Benefits are there for people who cant get a job even though they have tried and people who are disabled and cant work. NOT for people who would rather stay at home and sponge when they have a perfectly good job already. My brother and his wife have just had there third child accidently. Its all hands on deck to support them re childcare so they can both go to work and provide. There struggling and would be better off on benefits, but they have something this country often lacks PRIDE!

I'm sorry to say this but many disabled CAN, COULD & DO work. It is wrong to say that benefits should be restricted to the disabled that CAN'T work.

Ah so you think that those that don't work for whatever reason DON'T have any pride?

I'm disabled (DLA - HRM & MRC) & sick/ill (ESA Support Group).

Despite my disabilities and my illnesses I believe that I could work. But as I don't want to (too old - 65 next June) you suggest that I have no pride and am a scrounger.

What a narrow minded and bigoted opinion.

jules1964

Your totally misreading what I have said. You are obviously someone who comes on here trying to pick arguments with people that dont agree with you. Try understanding what I have written before you jump down my throat. My point is, benefits should be for people who cant work maybe due to a disability, illness or if they just cant get a job, not people who cant be bothered to get off there backsides and work. There are thousands of disabled people who work, just like there are ones who are too poorly too work. My friend has terminal cancer in her lungs and cant work because she is very unwell. I repeat READ whats written....!!!!!!

jules1964

I will repeat this again, so please read carefully.

If you are well enough to work and can get a job, you should work, rather than expect the taxpayer to pay. If you cant get a job even though you are actively trying, or your unwell, for example living with terminal cancer, you should get benefits.

What makes me so cross, is my friend had to jump through just about every hoop going and various appeals to get a few quid to pay her bills etc before she dies, whereas you seem to think people who just dont want to work should be allowed too claim benefits.

Unbelievable!!

Okydoky25

Another way to look at this could be that if the OP gives up her job to look after her child untill school age giving her children the (I believe) best start in life then this also frees up her position to someone who is possibly unemployed and claims JSA so possibly win win situation.

dealer_wins

portly1 wrote: »

Do what most do in this country and play the system, except in this case it is for a very worthwhile cause!

This is the attitude that causes benefit cuts for the real needy, government borrowing deficits causing the pound to weaken, causing energy, goods and food bills to rise, and standards of living to gradually fall year on year.

portly1

jules1964 wrote: »

Your totally misreading what I have said. You are obviously someone who comes on here trying to pick arguments with people that dont agree with you. Try understanding what I have written before you jump down my throat. My point is, benefits should be for people who cant work maybe due to a disability, illness or if they just cant get a job, not people who cant be bothered to get off there backsides and work. There are thousands of disabled people who work, just like there are ones who are too poorly too work. My friend has terminal cancer in her lungs and cant work because she is very unwell. I repeat READ whats written....!!!!!!

I understand quite well what you were saying.

I still can't agree with you. You seem to have this black and white attitude. Those that the DWP have deemed to be severely disabled and sick (in my case ESA Support Group & DLA HRM & MRC) yet could still work - should do so and not be allowed to claim benefits? And for those that are deemed to be the same severely disabled and sick, but can't work, should be paid benefits?

Surely the test for a disability/sickness benefits award should be based on that disability/sickness and NOT on whether they could work or not even with that disability/sickness issue?

Besides which, how on earth would you propose to assess those that are severely disabled/sick yet are still capable of working? I doubt very many would volunteer to state that they can work when claiming ESA or DLA/PIP.

Let's take two people with identical disabilities. DLA/PIP is awarded to both of them at the same rate as is ESA. They both have the same care needs and mobility issues and they are both awarded ESA - Support Group on the basis of not being able to mobilise more than 20 metres.

If one says that they can work but chooses not to and the other denies that they can do any type of work - how are you going to distinguish between them? I presume that you would only award full benefits to the one that keeps quiet about their working ability and nothing to the one that doesn't want to work, but is honest enough to say that they could?

portly1

dealer_wins wrote: »

This is the attitude that causes benefit cuts for the real needy, government borrowing deficits causing the pound to weaken, causing energy, goods and food bills to rise, and standards of living to gradually fall year on year.

Errr where does the REAL cause of the economy crash come into your way of thinking?

You seem to be suggesting that the problems we face today and have done since 2008, are all down to benefit claimants? Yeah! too right

bigadaj

portly1 wrote: »

I understand quite well what you were saying.

I still can't agree with you. You seem to have this black and white attitude. Those that the DWP have deemed to be severely disabled and sick (in my case ESA Support Group & DLA HRM & MRC) yet could still work - should do so and not be allowed to claim benefits? And for those that are deemed to be the same severely disabled and sick, but can't work, should be paid benefits?

Surely the test for a disability/sickness benefits award should be based on that disability/sickness and NOT on whether they could work or not even with that disability/sickness issue?

Besides which, how on earth would you propose to assess those that are severely disabled/sick yet are still capable of working? I doubt very many would volunteer to state that they can work when claiming ESA or DLA/PIP.

Let's take two people with identical disabilities. DLA/PIP is awarded to both of them at the same rate as is ESA. They both have the same care needs and mobility issues and they are both awarded ESA - Support Group on the basis of not being able to mobilise more than 20 metres.

If one says that they can work but chooses not to and the other denies that they can do any type of work - how are you going to distinguish between them? I presume that you would only award full benefits to the one that keeps quiet about their working ability and nothing to the one that doesn't want to work, but is honest enough to say that they could?

So you choose not to work, which is by definition scrounging is it not or at least playing the system, don't understand why you have started this argument as you are either misguided or trolling. Or probably both.

evenasus

bigadaj wrote: »

So you choose not to work, which is by definition scrounging is it not or at least playing the system, don't understand why you have started this argument as you are either misguided or trolling. Or probably both.

Both...........................

BoroPhil

are some posters in here basically saying only the rich should be able to have children? or at the very least it should be a lot easier for the rich to have children?

you are aware that starting a family is a fundamental human right?