isn't there something wrong in Government when unemployed get more benefit, IE help with rent, council tax etc

Question

In your opinion shouldn't it be the other way around, that if your working you should be better off.

Answer 1

Its true in a way. My partner currently works about 60 hours per week at two minimum wage jobs and we can barely afford to eat - we have a mortgage to pay (no housing benefit for us), council tax on top of all our other bills, food and so on. We never go out, never go on holiday and really struggle sometimes. Some weeks we've been left with £20 to get by on after everything's been paid for.

I know people on the dole who have more money than us as they get their rent and council tax paid and then anything they get on top of that - their income support, child tax credits etc are theirs to spend. My in laws are always on benefits and they drive a £20,000 car, have all the mod cons and go on holiday every year!! I don't know how they do it.

My partner is desperate to retrain to get a better job but we are not entitled to any help as he's working. If he was unemployed for 6 months he'd get all sorts of training courses and grants etc. Everytime we go somewhere for help we are told "Sorry you're not on benefits" (we even had to have our cat put to sleep because the PDSA wouldn't help us as we were not on Council Tax or Housing benefit!)

I sometimes think we would be better off on the dole. But my other half is too proud and prefers to work, even though we get nothing back for it.

Answer 2

Angie/Pinhead, why are you complaining? You've obviously got enough money to support an internet connection and computer. Maybe you should use your money more wisely? Have you got Sky TV as well or did it all come as part of a package? Either way, it's nice to see my tax money is being wisely spent on supporting yourselves.

As it is, the question is valid. If it wasn't for the fact that some of us actually go out and work for a living and pay extortionate amounts of tax (increasing yearly under Labour), then many of those protesting on here wouldn't be getting anything at all because it is our taxes that are paying your benefits. I don't have a problem with those in genuine need getting help from the state, but the plain fact of the matter is that the system is being abused and it is working population who are having to pay, and that is what I resent.

Bill Clinton had the right idea with his tough-love reforms that limited provision and forced people to work. Net result was that child poverty fell by 1.6 million, family welfare caseloads were cut in half employment of singel mothers surged and the explosion of out-of-wedlock child births decreased dramatically.

I hope David Cameron looks at what Clinton achieved in the US and adopts it when he becomes Prime Minister. It'll be nice to finally sort the wheat from the chavs.

I thank you...

Answer 3

Your reply from 'angie' sums it up for me.
It means basically that if some one is working and they don't get enough to live on, the government helps them out. The government of course is 'us'!
The adverse comments you have received, ref' socialism are up to you to sort out in your own mind.
I believe that it is the main job of the government to find us work, not to make profit for the employer!
Is that socialism? If so I am all for it.
I also firmly be live that all folk should have enough income to live, even a basic life we are not all 'tossers' and layabouts. And once again I think that is the basic job of government. That must also be socialism? OK I'm all for that also.
Right, now the general public, do 'we' really give a sh*t about the unfortunates in our society? I would guess not 'we' are far too interested in our own well being.
Ah well, I've had my say, if your idea of life is "I'm OK jack stuff you" then the world is a better place, is it really???
Maybe I'm from another planet and should return from whence I came ASAP?
Good luck with your other 'unbiased' answers from folks making enough to survive on.

Answer 4

He makes a sturdy element! Why trouble? (im in larger coaching and artwork area time by potential of ways, not rich, no supply) I see many human beings on reward spending money in my shop (luxuries not nutrition!) and that i will work out why they don't trouble; they have extra time at abode, few if any concerns and loose each thing (for sure some human beings have actual reasons for desiring help, yet we are discussing the freeloaders!). it truly is a disgusting project, and strange for a supposedly capitalist united states of america, as we glance extra communist than something (with the wealth divided between the loads). If i became in his place, i might probable say an identical element. there is not probably any incentive to objective, once you relatively do income extra from not. regrettably persons like him won't exchange till they're given a reason to (nutrition stamps insted of money for drink and medicines, communal housing truly of inner maximum ect.), in line with threat if the equipment became replaced, so as that nutrition stamps have been paid to income human beings cleansing the steets, helping in properties or graffiti removing etc, it would be less complicated to get them working, plus it places something returned into the community. effective little rant.

Answer 5

I don't know where you're reading your facts from but in my line of work i have discovered that the majority of people on benefits are just about 'getting by'.
What gives people like you the right to demoralise the unfortunate people who are genuinely in need of financial help from the government.
What would you want happen in the UK then, throw the unemployed on the streets and make them starve?
Most of the unemployed are not there by choice so stop your hate campaign and realise that people who work are better of than people who don't work.
Muppet

Answer 6

I'm on benefits and have 2 children at home i get £145 income support and that's including an allowance for my sons disability and although some of my rent is paid and my poll tax i still have to pay my electric and gas bills, phone bill go food shopping buy clothes for my children not named clothes mind but decent clothes and put aside money for school trips, tv licence, christmas and birthday pressies ect, I'm not on benefits because i chose to be its because I'm a carer for my son, i worked from the age of 16 until 34 until i had him and believe me id rather be at work where i was better off, so before you make any more stupid comments you should ask some one on benefits what its really like instead of believing every thing you read..........ELVIS im not complaining just stating a fact and as for having a comp (which most schools and colleges expect work to be done on now), yes i do have one which my childrens nan bought and their sister pays for the internet for them, so that they have the same easy and available information that helps them to achieve better knowledge and grades to get good jobs like their sister before them who works for the government and lets not forget i worked for 18 years and payed taxes the same as you, im glad you know your future is safe and that you'll never be in my shoes of having to care for a loved one and you'll never need government help, i wish i could of known my future

Answer 7

Yep! Especially when new parents try to work and support themselves while still caring for their child - but can't get help with rent, council tax or tax credits - and get hassled by the bank because they dip into an overdraft between paydays in order to pay the rent ...... and so it goes.... round and round and round.. Yet others who don't work get all sorts of help and support. Totally wrong and unfair. Where's the motivation to set standards and teach your kids to be self-supporting??

Answer 8

I will answer your question with a question of my own:

Isn't there something wrong with Government when they pay the obscenely rich billions of pounds a year for doing nothing while large numbers of the most vulnerable in our society are left with nothing?

I'm talking about the £15K per year, per employee we pay to arms maufacturers.

I'm talking about the £20billion (and rising) cost of the unnecessary NHS IT programme.

I'm talking about the billions spent on consultants, with absolutely no benefit for it.

I'm talking about the sell-off of our water, gas, electricity, etc. for a fraction of their value so the Government's rich cronies could make a few more millions.

I'm talking about the billions spent killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia, East Timor, Columbia, Haiti, etc. etc. purely to make it easier for multinationals to exploit them.

All of this money adds up to much, much more than is spent on the Welfare State.

If you want to get angry with the Government, at least get angry for the right reasons...

Answer 9

no your definitely better off working the unemployed must get really bored after a while.

Answer 10

no

there is something wrong with society if people get more money on benefits than they do working

if wages werent so lousy people would work

blame the greedy fat cat capitalists who award themselves millions in bonuses whilst paying workers peanuts

angie's answer shows how stupid your prejudice is