Working for a benefit funded lifestyle.

[danot]

The pay gap between the lowest paid workers and countless benefit claimants is quite narrow, leaving many benefit claimants no worse off than someone who works a forty hour week so where's the sense in working to maintain a level of lifestyle that the family down the steet are given on a silver platter?

 

But why is their lifestyles so similar? Are low paid workers paid too little? Sounds a silly question I know but some might feel that you earn what you're worth, they might also share the views of others who feel that state benefits are too generous, too easy to abuse which is the primary reason too many benefit claimants choose this lifestyle as it's the better option, the sensible option considering the alternative offers little more? And assuming this is the case, can anyone blame them?

[pretty_big]

Very true ! I've been in both situations and often think that is it worth the 40 hour week for the tiredness/commute and stress when you could quite easily sit back and not be too much worse off.

[Quik]

I think a lot of the worst problems have now been solved by things like the benefits cap, better monitoring etc. Un blair it was possible for someone who never worked but had a few kids to live better than working neighbours, i don't think thats the case anymore.

[El Cid]

The pay gap between the lowest paid workers and countless benefit claimants is quite narrow, leaving many benefit claimants no worse off than someone who works a forty hour week so where's the sense in working to maintain a level of lifestyle that the family down the steet are given on a silver platter?

 

 

Minimum wage = £6.70 x 40 = £268

 

Contribution-based JSA = £72.40

[danot]

Minimum wage = £6.70 x 40 = £268

 

Contribution-based JSA = £72.40

 

Life choice benefit claimants. Not someone in-between jobs.

[Quik]

Minimum wage = £6.70 x 40 = £268

 

Contribution-based JSA = £72.40

 

Yeah but there is housing benefit and child tax thingys too.

[max]

The difference, in my view, is aspiration. Once on the work ladder it's easier to set and achieve goals than when on benefits. Watching lifestyle programmes whilst on benefits is just that, watching. Whereas, once working, one can watch the same programme and know that some day it may be possible to live that life.

[I1L2T3]

Yet employment is higher than ever we are told.

 

Truth is that your typical welfare claimant today is a worker, probably in receipt of tax credits and housing benefit. Or perhaps somebody working for themselves and topping up their income with tax credits.

 

There will be pockets of the country where there are higher concentrations of workless households but they are not the norm.

 

I can honestly say I don't know any adult in my circle of family and friends who is under pension age and does not work at least some hours a week. A few of them claim tax credits etc... But they all work.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2016 at 20:53 ----------

 

The difference, in my view, is aspiration. Once on the work ladder it's easier to set and achieve goals than when on benefits. Watching lifestyle programmes whilst on benefits is just that, watching. Whereas, once working, one can watch the same programme and know that some day it may be possible to live that life.

 

It's about self-respect too. Earning your own crust and paying your way.

Edited March 17, 2016 by I1L2T3

[danot]

The difference, in my view, is aspiration. Once on the work ladder it's easier to set and achieve goals than when on benefits. Watching lifestyle programmes whilst on benefits is just that, watching. Whereas, once working, one can watch the same programme and know that some day it may be possible to live that life.

 

I see your point but no all families whose lifestyle in state funded lack aspiration or drive. They may very well have their fingers in many pies and have a budding Alan Sugar among them.

[AmourDesign]

Could i go live in the south of France or Ibiza and claim benefits?

 

Tuscany would be nice.