Why are some people financially better off on benefits than working?

Question

This is 100% wrong

Answer 1

Because the present UK government sympathise with the unemployed, and feel its their duty to take more from working people (decreasing their standard of living) in order to give to the unemployed (increasing their standard of living).

A person in a low paid job, who is struggling to make ends meet, may see that a person out of work is nearly as well off, or even better off, than themselves. In addition, a lot of low paid jobs are anything but desirable, and are usually more demanding than high paid jobs!!

This creates a system in which a person on a low salary may question the viability of working, especially if their job is unpleasant, and that they can avoid the daily slog and still attain a similar (or better) standard of living by going on the dole.

The state tries to create safeguards to stop people doing this, but there are ways people can circumvent them.

Answer 2

This is 100% wrong alright. In general, people aren't better off financially living on government assistance.

Any extra money they get has to be returned, if they make a little more their benefits go down for the month, and what they get for food and housing is really not that much. The medical is perhaps the best thing they get.

But if somewhere, it happens that the poor do best on public assistance, you go after the leaders. They should focus on training, and helping these people become self-sufficient. It is a trap, because most are single parents with coward men that left tehm on their own with kids, and it is hellacious to try to make ends meet when daycare costs are overwhelming.

Most of these people are good people wanting to better themselves, and the system pushes them back into public assistance. It is so heartbreaking.

Answer 3

i agree, it is totally wrong, however, i am in this position. my partner works full time and has 2 jobs, we have a 1yr old daughter and another due next month, we also have a mortgage to pay for and all other household bills. i have not worked since i left work to go on maternity leave in april of last year. i must say that i was planning to go back to work, but we found that any money i earned would just be paid to the child care provider, so we agreed that i would stay at home. i will say that i am planning on going back to work after new yr as im bored at home all the time.
anyway to answer your question, there is so many different types of benefits now that ppl can claim them all, working tax credits, child tax credits, job seekers allowance just to name a couple. maybe if the minimum wage was more than peanuts and benefits were not so readily available, then people would go find a job

Answer 4

Once you take into account the Housing Benefit, Council Benefit, Income Support/Job Seekers allowance, school meals, prescriptions, glasses, etc the amount a single parent or couple parent would need to break even when comparing working to DSS is apx £250 per week. Thus the question is "is it worth the trouble and effort of working for £300 a week?"

Many on DSS benefits are caught between the two areas DSS provides security of income, bills paid and little risk. Working no security of bills paid, you have to pay each yourself, risk of losing job, etc!

I am not on DSS but can understand why many are caught in the trap!

Answer 5

A lot of the scum are abusing the benefit system, I agree, but in some cases I really think it seems more reasonable to stay on benefits. If there's a single parent who wants to get into a job, she'll lose out on a lot of things that she will then have to cough up for. Where will the children be? Who will look after them? That costs money too. Wat's the point of sticking a single mother in a meaningless dead-end job for minimum wage when she could be at home looking after her own children? In this case it is, unfortunately, seems a better idea to stay on benefits.

Answer 6

No I dont agree. My child minder costed me £5.00 per child per hour, i've 2 children = £90.00 a day. I dont earn that a day! Whats the alternative? I get £45 a month tax credit and £116 a month Child benefit. I would prefer to be out earning £1400 a month + bonuses!

What is wrong, is people that can't be bothered to work and take benefits. Or those who work for cash in hand, get a council flat and still get benefits, thats whats 100% wrong.

Answer 7

I work in a Jobcentre & try help Lone Parents back into work every day, a major tool in doing this is a calculation showing them if they returned to work how much better off they'd be than staying on benefits.

In the past 2 years I can only recall 1 or 2 calculations that has shown they'd be actually worse off.

Answer 8

Nobody is ever really better off on benefits, that's just a sad excuse for morons who would rather sit on their *** while Tax payers like me pay for their couch potato and their kids!

Its just pure laziness and ignorance, they should all be cut off to a degree where they have to go out and get a job, if half the morons in this country sitting on their *** got up and got a job, then their would be no need fro cheap labour from Eastern Europe...duhhhh

Answer 9

I had an operation that went wrong, I found out two weeks later a back specialist operated on my hip. That was six years ago and it left me disabled and made me unable to work I have been on Benefits ever since. I feel so degraded I would love to go back to work but who would have me I can't walk very far I'm on walking sticks now. But their is people that can work that's on benefits but don't want to.

Answer 10

It depends what country you are referring to. It would be a lot easier to do this in the UK versus the U.S. In the U.S., a person wouldn't be better off on benefits unless he/she had a great pension from a civil service or other union job. Most Americans would not survive very long on benefits only...