Something for nothing!

[snowbear]

This is mainly for residents of the UK but I'm sure many people of different nationalities can chip in with opinions.

Just wondering what the deal is with benefits and why people feel like they are entitled to them.

I'm not saying people who really need help should feel like they can't claim help, but I was recently talking to to a few people at a party, and the conversation turned a bit sour when they mentioned that their benefits had been cut to a mere £26,000 a year and they couldn't go out as often.

This annoyed me somewhat and maybe I was a bit out of line when I asked why they felt like they should get more money than somebody who works extremely hard to support their family (I work 70-80 hours a week to barely scrape £25k).

The reply was they have to look after their kids and there isn't enough work out there for their partners so somehow its the Governments fault...

I call foul on this notion, And if this is the case why should the government pay for them to go out and have a good time and pay for luxury's in life like sky TV, alcohol, and smoking?


I guess my question is this...

Do you feel people like this should get so much money in benefits, or do you think they should forgo any luxuries until they can afford it by their own means?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I was on benefits for about 2 years and I just hated it.

I hated being a burden on the state and applied for work nearly everyday.

See, I think benefits should be a safety net. Something to feed, clothe and keep a roof over your head when times are tough, but that's it.

If getting a job is an undesirable option because your sponging enough money from the state to live in relative comfort, then the system has failed.

I'm all for the welfare state, I think it's a great thing, but like I said, it should be a safety net, not a means to live by.

 

[JoJo]

I've got to agree with Daystar, I'm fine with a safety net existing for people who genuinely can't find work but it shouldn't be more than the bare basics required to live a tolerable existence, if you want luxuries like holidays or a car or expensive gadgets then you should try harder to find a job, it's every working person's money you're spending.

As a side note I'd honestly be in favour of people of people on unemployment benefits (not disability or retirement etc) having to do a bit of work every week for the government, just cleaning the streets or something basic to give a bit back to society in exchange for being financially supported. Most the people I've suggested this idea to have supported it so I'm not sure why I've never heard it seriously brought up by politicians. Edit: I've since found out that this does exist in some countries, so consider this second paragraph a UK-only comment in regards to it never being brought up.

 

[Queen Michael]

The problem here is: What's a luxury and what isn't? Some people claim that if your benefits make it possible to afford just one little pleasure that's not completely necessary to have in order to survive then you're getting more than you should, and you're sponging off the state. Now, I don't agree with that.

I think that even if you're living on benefits, you should be able to rent a movie once in a while, or buy a manga book, or go out now and then. Not too often, sure, but you need these things in order to feel good. Few things make you feel as bad as wanting to rent the new Batman movie and knowing that you can't afford it, even though you've been living damn cheaply the entire month.

I don't believe that people should be buying a ton of unnecessary things for government money that could be used for better things, but I sure don't believe in using the term "luxuries" about everything it won't literally kill you to go without either.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

I'm not saying people who really need help should feel like they can't claim help, but I was recently talking to to a few people at a party, and the conversation turned a bit sour when they mentioned that their benefits had been cut to a mere £26,000 a year and they couldn't go out as often.



Do you feel people like this should get so much money in benefits, or do you think they should forgo any luxuries until they can afford it by their own means?

How in the name of all that's fucking holy do they get £26K a year? I'm assuming that's including housing benefit?

Dole is about £75 a week, so that's £3900 a year, then IIRC max HB is about £110 for a single person (where I live, but it's pretty cheap around here so it might be more elsewhere), so that's £5720, so about £10K a yea, so double that for 2 and throw in a bit for the kids and 26K sounds about right with HB. If so that's not too bad, rent goes on rent and the rest certainly won't get you a luxury lifestyle.

That said, whining that you can't go out as often falls on deaf ears with me.

EDIT:

As a side note I'd honestly be in favour of people of people on unemployment benefits (not disability or retirement etc) having to do a bit of work every week for the government, just cleaning the streets or something basic to give a bit back to society in exchange for being financially supported. Most the people I've suggested this idea to have supported it so I'm not sure why I've never heard it seriously brought up by politicians.

They do try things like that. The Manpower Services Commission, or the YTS, or New Deal work placements and whatever the current scheme is. It's not particularly popular because somebody who actually wants a job could be paid to do the same thing. The money comes out of the taxpayers pocket to pay the dole either way, but in option one someone is also put out of a paid job.

 

[HardkorSB]

The problem here is: What's a luxury and what isn't? Some people claim that if your benefits make it possible to afford just one little pleasure that's not completely necessary to have in order to survive then you're getting more than you should, and you're sponging off the state. Now, I don't agree with that.

I think that even if you're living on benefits, you should be able to rent a movie once in a while, or buy a manga book, or go out now and then. Not too often, sure, but you need these things in order to feel good. Few things make you feel as bad as wanting to rent the new Batman movie and knowing that you can't afford it, even though you've been living damn cheaply the entire month.

I don't believe that people should be buying a ton of unnecessary things for government money that could be used for better things, but I sure don't believe in using the term "luxuries" about everything it won't literally kill you to go without either.

£26000 per year from the government is luxury.
I work 40+ hours per week and I make half of that. If i was getting so much for free, I wouldn't want to get a job because it would mean getting much less money. I think that benefits should be lower than a full time wage, otherwise the government is actively encouraging people to stay unemployed.

 

[Doclector]

I almost want to agree, but I've struggled for years to get a job and got nowhere. Stuck in this damn recession with less and less useful help and advice, I can't see that changing anytime soon. I honestly resent the government. They helped cause this shit. As for the country's taxes, I struggle to care that the people who won't give me a chance might one day pay my benefits.

In short, I want to give something back to this country, and I will, but only when they let me.

 

[Queen Michael]

As a side note I'd honestly be in favour of people of people on unemployment benefits (not disability or retirement etc) having to do a bit of work every week for the government, just cleaning the streets or something basic to give a bit back to society in exchange for being financially supported. Most the people I've suggested this idea to have supported it so I'm not sure why I've never heard it seriously brought up by politicians.

I do that. Here in Sweden, I earn my 11,000 kronor (roughly 1,657 dollars or 1,032 pounds) a month by sorting papers and proofreading for the government.

 

[snowbear]

Thanks for your replies, you all make good points.

Honestly I was astonished too at the amount they get paid and dumbfounded that before this tax cut they were getting considerably more.

I think the scheme should work were the people on the dole should maybe do a bit of work for a small company that can't afford another full/part time colleague. I think that would help out both parties with little negatives.

Anyone that isn't willing to actually earn money and cant prove they are willing to try shouldn't be able to claim a penny.

I almost want to agree, but I've struggled for years to get a job and got nowhere. Stuck in this damn recession with less and less useful help and advice, I can't see that changing anytime soon. I honestly resent the government. They helped cause this shit. As for the country's taxes, I struggle to care that the people who won't give me a chance might one day pay my benefits.

In short, I want to give something back to this country, and I will, but only when they let me.

This is a pain that I know all too well. I was made redundant from a really good job, I guess I was lucky and had a fair bit saved away. There is work out there though you just have to be persistent. I now have two jobs working to keep up with my bills.

My first priority from loosing my job was to get back into work asap so my family didn't suffer. I wasn't thinking about claiming money for going out partying. Benefits should be a last resort and not a case of how many sprogs I can pop out to keep the child tax credits coming in.

It honestly makes me sick that these people at the party were better off than my and my girlfriend. having had our first child we really felt the pinch, both of us are working what ever hours we can just to scrape by. We can't afford Sky, we certainly cant afford to go out more than once a month, and to top it off I get next to no time with my GF or my son.

All while these people sit at home all day watching sky and had the cheek to complain that the government had the check to only give them £26k this year.

All in all it makes me want to give up with working as it seems I would be better off and happier to boot, but part of me just has too much self respect.

I am sorry for this rather miserable thread. I hope you are all well.

Oh and Doclector good luck with the job search I truly hope you find something soon.

 

[Atrocious Joystick]

In the end, I much prefer that they get too much than they get too little. I think it is always important to remember that aside from a few opportunists nobody wants to be unemployed and on benefits and that actual benefits (as in benefits, not all of the welfare state) is a relatively small part of the budget. And that they have little to no power over the economy. The ones who actually fucked us straight up the ass got off with golden parachutes.

And dude, you work 70-80 hours a week, almost twice what a person should work and you get just average salary? You shouldn't be asking why some schmuck gets a few scraps off the table. You should get a few of your coworkers together and ask why the fuck you're not getting paid more or why you don't work much less.

 

[JoJo]

As a side note I'd honestly be in favour of people of people on unemployment benefits (not disability or retirement etc) having to do a bit of work every week for the government, just cleaning the streets or something basic to give a bit back to society in exchange for being financially supported. Most the people I've suggested this idea to have supported it so I'm not sure why I've never heard it seriously brought up by politicians.

I do that. Here in Sweden, I earn my 11,000 kronor (roughly 1,657 dollars or 1,032 pounds) a month by sorting papers and proofreading for the government.

That's cool, I wish we had something like that over here in the UK, though as Zykon pointed out it'd have to be something that wouldn't take away from existing jobs.

 

[Rawne1980]

I claimed incapacity for a short while a year ago after doing some damage to my spine and really hated it. So ... bored.

I don't like sitting around (well, laying around, I couldn't sit up properly).

My brother is on the dole because he can't get a job. Literally, can't get a job. He's been trying quite hard. This town has gone to the dogs though, there is no employment. Alas he can't drive.

He doesn't go out though. All his money goes on feeding his kids, housekeeping and travel expenses for interviews/school/college. His wife works but her wage goes on their mortgage and there isn't much left after that.

It pisses me off when I see people partying while on benefits with no intention to work.

 

[Little Woodsman]

I have to agree with the majority of people here and say that I have no problem helping someone
who's having a bit of a hard time, or is just starting out. I have a very real problem with
people who abuse the system--and I saw *sooooo* much of that when I worked retail...what was/is
even worse was/is people on benefits who had more than those of us who work and then *steal*
from the stores/working people.
A lot of people who make more money from the benefits/welfare systems simply know the ins
and outs of the systems-here in Colorado you can make quite a bit if you know everything to
apply for. Also things like knowing how to convert food stamps to cash, etc...

 

[Strazdas]

bloody hell, do they really give 26k a year in benefits?

Here the unemplyed get 450 LTL a month. Minimum wage is 800LTL (pre-tax). The need to "survive" according to our researchers is ~600LTL, according to EU researches 1070 LTL. Most people who get "benefits" barely get by. the benefits make sure they dont starve the every other day. and so on.

now while i think my countries system is kinda fucked up, i agree with you that benefits that you get shoudl not be spent on partying, that should be limited to living a "Decent" life. and that certainly does not need 26k a year.

P.S. whats up with USA and UK measuring all wages in "per year" basis, wouldnt "per month" be much better measurement? they ALWAYS measure it per month in here.

also raising kids should earn you no extra benefits. we have enough people in the world. if you want to have kids make sure you can support them, else, dont have kids.

 

[Stasisesque]

In the end, I much prefer that they get too much than they get too little.

This is also my view. I also really don't care what someone does with their money once they have it.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Something I should point out, as well as my little calculation above (26K for a family isn't a huge amount as long as that includes housing benefit, that's the equivalent of 2 adults working at a low paid job) that if the family has children then the argument is that by cutting down benefits to the bare minimum you are cutting down on the children's chances of getting a decent start in life, the "think of the children" argument, which in this case does have it's merits but unfortunately nothing actually guarantees the recipients are going to spend the money on making sure the kids are well equipped for school, fed decent food etc.

 

[CommanderL]

I have been on benefits for the last two years being a student well meant to be But the program I was going through lead to nothing so too years at home waiting for my manger to get off his ass and arrange something for me to do

I get about 450 a fortnight I live fairly well But am wanting a job

My friend who is also on benifts -the one where to keep getting money you have to apply for 12 jobs a fortnight- he has been on it for a whole year and has not gotten a job interveiw yet and I am about to go on the same payment plan as he is

 

[snowbear]

I know £26k isn't a great amount for a family I really do. But the objection isn't really to the sum of money, it's the lack of work to get it. Sure help people out, but get them to help out in return. Make it so that in order to get the benefits you have to work for it. There's plenty of Work that needs doing and would be hugely beniffical to the country as a whole.

For example cleaning graffiti, picking up litter or even something like helping out in schools or a small business.

The working 70-80 hours is kind of my choice, but when a full time job is only paying £13k per annum the second job is so my gf (who works nights) and son, isn't worse off than when I was at my previous job.

Maybe the issue is minimum wage is just far too low when compared with the cost of living?

I'm really shocked that somebody who applies to 12 jobs a fortnight, cannot even get an interview. Maybe he needs to aim a bit lower? Or is there really that little work in your area.

My experience of job hunting was, there was nothing that I wanted to do, so I asked around construction sites to see if any labourers were needed. Luckily the third one I tried said they could do with a bit of help and offered me and interview and a trail.

 

[Vault101]

I think welfare is very important and I wouldn't want it removed because some people abuse it

the people that do, and have no aspriations above living on welfare (when they are perfectly capable of working) are just waste's of spaces....its a values issue self worth comes from what you do and what you contribute

 

[lRookiel]

I was on benefits for about 2 years and I just hated it.

I hated being a burden on the state and applied for work nearly everyday.

See, I think benefits should be a safety net. Something to feed, clothe and keep a roof over your head when times are tough, but that's it.

If getting a job is an undesirable option because your sponging enough money from the state to live in relative comfort, then the system has failed.

I'm all for the welfare state, I think it's a great thing, but like I said, it should be a safety net, not a means to live by.

Tell that to my brother who hasn't even tried looking for a job for like 3 years now, since he is a lazy ****.

I completely agree with the idea of a "Safety net" but sadly we can't get rid of the current system since people who actually TRY and find work but can't get any need it I guess.