If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
why is there no help for people that work?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Sometimes I think the government/council want to encourage people to be unemployed.
I need an eye test and glasses. If I didn't work, this would be free. This is going to cost me about £20 for the test, and anything from £20 upwards for the glasses.
Everytime I need an inhaler I have to pay for the prescription. I'd like to do evening classes, which are free for unemployed people, but the council has doubled the fees for employed people. Even stuff like swimming is more expensive.
No wonder people stay unemployed tbh.
I need an eye test and glasses. If I didn't work, this would be free. This is going to cost me about £20 for the test, and anything from £20 upwards for the glasses.
Everytime I need an inhaler I have to pay for the prescription. I'd like to do evening classes, which are free for unemployed people, but the council has doubled the fees for employed people. Even stuff like swimming is more expensive.
No wonder people stay unemployed tbh.
0
Comments
For some people staying on benefits works better, especially if they have children, but for most people it isn't better.
I can't believe you seriously think it would be.
Thanks. Well said.
True BUT out of the money I earn I have to pay tax, rent and council tax, which I wouldn't have to pay if I was unemployed.
I don't want to be unemployed, just think there could be more help available for people who work instead of being taxed so much. Getting more than 25% off council tax for single people households would help!
PussyKatty - you are categorically better off working. Yes, life's more complicated, juggling different bills etc but please remember the underlying principle of welfarism is to provide a safety net for people who are INCAPABLE of helping themselves, for whatever reason. You are clearly quite capable.
Best laugh I've had in ages - Kermit - "For some people staying on benefits works better, especially if they have children"
You haven't got kids, have you mate?:rolleyes: I have 3 - my wife and I both have decent incomes and we find it enough of a bloody struggle. However, we don't know we're born compared to parents on benefits. Rent wise they get thrown (generally) onto sprawling council estates with all the social problems that entails - not least watching their kids growing up to get embroiled in the various gang cultures. Whilst the kids are young, they can barely afford to clothe them, never mind buy them decent playthings, take them on holiday etc. The kids get teased sometimes mercilessly by some of the better-off kids (usually the ones with ultra-material parents, I have noticed over the years) and generally have a bloody horrible childhood. Every parent wants the best for their kids - I can't imagine anything more heart-wrenching than watching my kids suffer like that. Kermit, if you really think free prescriptions, housing benefit and council tax exemption is compensation for all that, then you're living in a dream world, pal.
What the fuck you on about?
I was brought up on a council estate with my mum on benefits (she had 4 children), fair enough we didn't go on holiday much but I never got teased or ended up in any gang. Just because you hear all this shit on the news or read it in the paper doesn't mean it happens.
ETA:I'm also in university so I recieved a good education as well.
No, you wouldn't have to pay, but you wouldn't have a nice flat and nice clothes either. As a young single woman you'd be nearly at the back of the queue, with a choice of bijou flats (with free running water down the walls) in only the least salubrious areas.
Why should you? The policeman comes if you've been burgled regardless of how many people live in your house. The fire engine costs the same to put your fire out regardless. The bin lorry costs the same.
Jezzer, what the hell are you spouting off about? For some people staying on benefits does work for them- they earn more on benefits than they ever would in work. As for the rest of your rant about the smelly working class, grow up a wee bit.
Oh, I see... YOU didn't get bullied therefore nobody ever does...YOU didn't get sucked into gang-culture therefore there are no gangs...YOUR mother coped OK therefore everybody in a similar situation is equally happy....
I'm not basing my comments on media stories - I have seen this shit happen with my own eyes, over and over again. My kids are 21, 19 and 9 respectively so I have watched 2 of them right through the system and seen the fate of their peers, as they all went through school together. There are always exceptions (yourself being a case in point), but I can guarantee you that the ones that slipped through the net and became alienated are very disproportionately from the more poverty-stricken backgrounds. And no, I'm NOT saying ALL kids from these backgrounds suffer this fate - not at all. Just because all kangaroos are animals, doesn't mean all animals are kangaroos. What I'm saying is that kids who grow up on benefits are far more likely to suffer the types of consequences I described earlier, than those whose parents can afford better lifestyles. Just cos this phenomenon didn't happen to you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
All the research into exclusion backs this up - the likelihood of turning to crime, of suffering severe mental health disorders etc etc are all massively raised for children in poverty - every study that has been done in this regard points inexorably in this direction.
So you can ask me 'what the fuck I'm on about' as much as you want, child. Perhaps when you've added some experience to your wonderful education, you'll have some idea.
Yeh, maybe you want to make the distinction that not all working class children end up like scum before you get all wound up in a future rant.
Don't read so well, either, do you? Given that I was talking about life on benefits, why do you think I'm referring to the 'working' class?
Even putting that obvious distinction to one side - I was not attempting to sound snobbish in any way, shape or form - if that's what you're implying. And I'm certainly not trying to be judgmental about people on benefits - merely pointing out some of the obstacles they face when bringling up children - for which (if it wasn't patently obvious to you first time around) they have my every sympathy.
As for earning more on benefits - yes, its possible that a tiny percentage of people are very slightly better off. But if you add up all the different benefits they receive, it doesn't exactly amount to a fortune. They're hardly hundreds of pounds a week better off! It certainly doesn't make any significant material difference. What is more common is a situation where working would only provide an extra 10 or 20 quid a week - thats the benefits' trap. Working 40 hours a week for an extra tenner? No thanks.
Oh, and please think hard before telling people to 'grow up.' Apart from highlighting your inability to read, this latest post of yours shows even more naivety than the first one.
Where did I say all working class children are scum? Certainly not in the passage you highlighted. I am a working class bloke, whose father was in and out of low-paid work throughout my childhood. I have seen it from both sides of the fence.
It certainly looked like it. I get your point, just remember before posting to think things out and explain them slightly better. I've been guilty of it myself. :thumb:
I'd rather work and pay for my prescriptions, eye tests, dental treatment and evening classes because I value having a job. I enjoy seeing my lovely wage slip at the end of every month and value the feeling of self worth that having a job gives me. If you ask those on benefits why they choose to be on benefits I'm pretty sure none of them would say it's because they get to learn French for free at the local college.
Would you give up all of the great things you do (all the trips I'm uber envious of!) so that you didn't have to fork out for your specs? I sure as hell wouldn't give up my holidays, clothes, dinners out etc just to avoid paying council tax.
Cheers, mate - point well taken!
Are most people better off on benefits? No. Did I say they were? No. Perhaps you should take up some of those remedial English lessons that you seem so fond of promoting to everyone else.
But parents being trapped on benefits, being only able to earn a few extra pounds, if any, by working, isn't that uncommon amongst the low-paid. It's a disgrace, but its a fact of life.
Not quite sure why you've come charging in like a bull on heat in a china shop, especially as I was agreeing that benefits are not great, but hey ho. *shrug*
Well, perhaps we're both guilty of mis-reading/mis-interpreting each other's posts then. For the record, I'm not angry - I genuinely laughed at your first comment - and I did pick up your general point - it was the 'benefits are better for some, ESPECIALLY people with kids' (my emphasis), which I felt the need to respond to. I can't think of a social group which is potentially more disadvantaged by being on benefits, than us parents!
Anyway, mate, I certainly didn't mean to come across as snobbish, nor I did mean you any offence, so apologies if my posts read like the proverbial bull in the china shop - didn't intend it that way!
I get all your points people, I don't want to be unemployed, I have been before and it's shit.
And Kermit, if I became unemployed now I would still have my 'nice flat and nice clothes' as I already had them and benefits would cover my rent.
Bumblebee, of course I wouldn't give up work just to get some free stuff. But it can be hard when you're in debt to have to pay for things that loads of others get for nothing.
And Kermit, I do think there should be a 50% discount for council tax for single people. I presume you share the council tax with your wife, therefore you pay half, yet I have to pay 75% of the total which I don't think is fair. As a single person I use fewer council services and create less rubbish!
Agree about the council tax: 75% for single occupancy is a right jip.
Not necessarily true any more, I'm afraid. Housing benefit no longer simply hands over your rent without a struggle. They look at your personal circumstances and decide what type of property you need. If you are a single person this will mean a one-bedroomed flat. If you are under 25 by the way, this means a bedsit - unless you have children.
Each area office has a guide as to the average market rent for each type of property in their area. So for yourself (assuming you are over 25, single and have no kids) they would pay you the average rent for a one-bed prop in your area. Their ideas of market value rent err (inevitably) on the low side, so if you are in a nice flat, it is very unlikely you will get anything near the rent your landlord is asking of you. You would be left to pay any difference out of your benefit money (or sell your nice clothes, if you prefer
And if you are under 25, I'm afraid its average bedsit price only.
(And before anyone jumps down my throat - I work in property management and have done for many years!)
You don't use fewer services though. The streetlights aren't half as strong on your street, the bins don't get emptied half as often, the fire brigade don't just put out half a fire, the police don't catch half a burglar or mugger.
I understand your logic, but I don't agree. Many council services are fixed-cost, and that is per property not per person. Two people in one property cost less than two people in separate properties, and it is only right that single-occupiers pay the true cost of the services they receive.
75% is totally arbitrary. If you're going to start ammending it for people's differeing circumstances then it needs doing properly.
If you live alone you produce less rubbish so processing costs are less; if you don't own a vehicle then your won't be using the money that's spent on roads and car parks; if you don't live in an area that's being regenerated then you should pay less under regeneration projects section; if you don't have kids in education then you shouldn't have to pay as much for schools. The list goes on.
It is totally arbritrary, but it is provided to try and make the tax a little bit more fair. The tax is per property not per person, after all.
It is indeed totally arbitrary - but the only alternative, as you say, is to charge people appropriately to their individual circumstances. This would be nigh on impossible, imo, and would lead to massive arguments and I dread to think what the costs of processing forms for every UK household would run into. I think anything other than 'arbitrary' is probably unworkable.
With regards to prescriptions, is there any way you can buy cards or something so that you don't have to pay everytime? (I'm sure that was mentioned on here a while back)
I see what you mean about the eye tests and glasses - I now have to start paying as I'm over 16 but do get a discount of some sort because I'm a student. (and I think last year I got money off but still had to pay a little bit)
I'm sure I got told that if you do evening classes, you can get a grant to pay for them.
Agreed
Agreed