Would you be better of on benefits?

Detroit

Guest101 wrote: »

Don't forget CB and CTC in 22 weeks

That will bring in an extra £84.54 per week.

FBaby

OP, very bad idea to start this thread here. The reality is that a large proportion of the population agree with you, at least those who know enough of the system, despite not relying on it, to be aware that many people do indeed end up as comfortably financially not working, or working minimum hours than those working full-time.

However, maybe because most of these people are much too busy trying to fit everything in life to come and relax on this forum, you won't get many responses from them. You are more likely to get negative responses from those who rely on people like you to contribute to the system and worried that if more people decide not be 'suckers' any longer, they might be more demand than supply very soon

Guest101

chelseablue wrote: »

I think I am better off working, I get £32,000 a year and have one child. I hope people aren't getting paid that much to sit at home!


My partner works full time too

No they aren't paid that much 'to sit at home', whether they are (or used to get) that much as part of their entitlement is dependant on individual circumstances

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

OP, very bad idea to start this thread here. The reality is that a large proportion of the population agree with you, at least those who know enough of the system, despite not relying on it, to be aware that many people do indeed end up as comfortably financially not working, or working minimum hours than those working full-time.

However, maybe because most of these people are much too busy trying to fit everything in life to come and relax on this forum, you won't get many responses from them. You are more likely to get negative responses from those who rely on people like you to contribute to the system and worried that if more people decide not be 'suckers' any longer, they might be more demand than supply very soon

I work full time, used to do 60hrs+ a week, and I don't agree with the OP...

Person_one

FBaby wrote: »

OP, very bad idea to start this thread here. The reality is that a large proportion of the population agree with you, at least those who know enough of the system, despite not relying on it, to be aware that many people do indeed end up as comfortably financially not working, or working minimum hours than those working full-time.

However, maybe because most of these people are much too busy trying to fit everything in life to come and relax on this forum, you won't get many responses from them. You are more likely to get negative responses from those who rely on people like you to contribute to the system and worried that if more people decide not be 'suckers' any longer, they might be more demand than supply very soon

Wow, that's some ugly bitterness right there.

Maybe you should leave your job and sign on, just for a bit, then report back on how cushy and easy it was. Its making you unhappy and you seem to think you'd be fine without it.

Lambyr

I'm on benefits.

I receive £62.10 per week in Carer's Allowance because I care for my disabled mother.

Until recently, I also received £90ish every fortnight in Income Support. However, recently my girlfriend's father offered me a small job doing a bit of work for him which I'm able to do at home around my caring duties. It pays under the threshold for losing CA, but over the threshold for continuing with IS, so I no longer claim that. I'm not massively more better off with this job financially, but I'm actually glad I'm doing something.

I don't really have that much to go on comparing the me who now works - because the government don't regard caring as actual work - and the me who didn't, but I'd say after almost 15 years of caring I'd probably have been much better off in employment.

I have nothing to put on a CV since I've been a carer since I was almost 20, so I have no real future prospects regardless of how many qualifications I've managed to accrue while being a carer through the Open University.

My health, both physical and mental/emotional, has suffered as a result of being a carer.

CA makes my state pension contributions for me but that's it on that front.

Honestly, if this job I have now doesn't work out, then I'm pretty screwed when I'm no longer a carer.

Meepmeep

I do know what you mean, although personally I would rather work than not, as I'd be bored doing nothing plus I do end up with more money than being on benefits. If I were single and had kids, this wouldn't be the case though and I'm guessing if be better off not working (assuming I had money from the father too)

A friend of a friend used to say that she had an income of £2,000 a month and this is after having her council house paid for. She didn't work and hadnt done for years, I don't know the specifics of how her benefits broke down, but she had three kids by three dads and they each paid good CSA money to her. I realise lots of people on benefits don't have this much by a long shot (before people misunderstand me and think I'm saying a life on benefits gets you loads of dosh). I never quite understood how some people I've spoken to on benefits are scraping by and others end up with loads more? Is it the CSA - if you have generous ex they pay up if not your in trouble???

She certainly had / has more money a month than I do after I'd paid the rent.

When she won the lottery I couldn't bl00dy believe it. I think it was about 50k from what I recall. This is a few years ago now...she blew it on expensive holidays, cars, and it had gone in a year.

The thing is, given the economy and all the cuts to services and the NHS, I think it's going to become harder and harder to receive benefits. So there are some people now who are sitting pretty but will have a big shock in years to come and unfortunately it will hit those who don't deserve it.

Personally I don't mind money going towards people who need the benefits, but I really resent those who milk the system. I think we have a duty to look after each other in society, and not everyone can go out and work. E.g of example above, carers. And we should support these people. In my line of work I see lots of desperate people who really do need benefits (e.g disability benefits) but don't qualify, but then see others who manage to get quite a bit and are taking the pi$$. how does that happen? I'm genuinely interested to know...

euronorris

What you get, that they don't:

Own your own property (by your own admission, they're unlikely to ever be able to afford even the discounted property)
Likely live in a nicer area
Pride
A sense of achievement
Access to better schools (if you're in the nicer area)
A private pension (state pension may not even be around in years to come)
Prospect and ability to change/improve your job and therefore your income a damn sight easier than them
Additional benefits that (may) come from having your job - private medical insurance, life insurance, car, bike, additional contributions to your private pension, study support, chance of bonus, commissions etc - obviously don't all apply to everyone

This list is not exhaustive. But generally speaking, those who work (and especially those who own their homes) are a lot better off than those who rely solely on benefits.

I work full time. I rent, but I still know that I'm a lot better off than those solely reliant on benefits living on the local council estate.

PasturesNew

Years ago the difference between working/not was bigger. It made working worthwhile.

In the last 20 years a lot of wages have remained static, while a lot of benefits have increased and new ones added, plus systems/rules that mean you have opportunities to "work the system" + forums like this to demonstrate/explain how the system's worked.

Overall, for a lot of people, if you're not in a great area, or don't have the right qualifications, nor the time/access/cash to get them .... it does seem that benefits would pay better - and you don't have to get dressed up/commute and leave the house at OMG o'clock only to be emotionally drained and psychologically abused by bosses.

Detroit

The reality is, there are winners and losers in the benefit system.

A couple like OP and his wife, currently without children, would definitely be worse off. As would single people without children.

The two factors that make a dramatic difference to the amount of benefits received are having children, with each extra child increasing the amount of entitlement (to the benefit cap maximum) and having someone in the household entitled to disability benefit.

People in these circumstances can have a considerable higher income than people in work, although, arguably, in the case of people with disabilities, this extra is justified to enable the person to meet the additional cost of disability.

Another, often overlooked, income generator, is working tax credit. People with multiple children can be on huge sums of money, far in excess of that which they could hope to earn, by working just 24 hours per week between them if a couple, or just 16 if a single parent, on NMW.

Working these limited hours enables them to avoid their benefits being capped, as they would be if not working at all, provides a take home pay the equivalent of an excellent salary, and requires them to work a fraction of the hours of most 'full time' workers.

It is circumstances like this that give the impression that life on benefits is lucrative; but it should be remembered that this is by no means the situation for all claimants.