Is living off benefits ever smart?
Discussion
Chatting to an old mate over the holidays, and I suddenly realised they've not worked for over 5 years as technically they fall into qualification for various benefits which gives them enough to live on comfortably. They're now less than 10 years off retirement.
People who don't know them are not aware their income is solely benefits so they never suffer from the negative connotations of living off benefits - if you met them you'd think they were just your average bloke who maybe works for themselves or has some independent income.
They shop wisely but not cheaply - always having good quality food, run an average car etc and have enough savings to cope with emergencies when they arise.
They spend their time doing all the things that most of us squeeze into the little time we have when we're not working as well as giving extra support to family, friends and his ex wife. The money they receive isn't as much as most of us would be comfortable trying to live off but their happy as they want for nothing and have time to do what they want when they want to.
I was asking them if they fancied doing some interesting work that I know he's capable of but he said no, it wouldn't be very smart to do that as they'd have to come off benefits which already provide enough to cover everything they need and allows him to give the support to people around him.
When I asked them if they felt uncomfortable living off what is in effect other people's tax's, their reply was - well no. He'd paid huge taxes when they were working, his offspring and friends pay tax's who are people who benefit from him not working and that most want to pay the least amount of tax they can and in effect the system allows him negative tax whilst still paying tax on purchased items etc. He's supporting the community and the economy. All his benefits get spent back into the economy and whilst society tells us it's wrong and I wouldn't like feeling tied to benefits - he says it's smart.
Is it?
People who don't know them are not aware their income is solely benefits so they never suffer from the negative connotations of living off benefits - if you met them you'd think they were just your average bloke who maybe works for themselves or has some independent income.
They shop wisely but not cheaply - always having good quality food, run an average car etc and have enough savings to cope with emergencies when they arise.
They spend their time doing all the things that most of us squeeze into the little time we have when we're not working as well as giving extra support to family, friends and his ex wife. The money they receive isn't as much as most of us would be comfortable trying to live off but their happy as they want for nothing and have time to do what they want when they want to.
I was asking them if they fancied doing some interesting work that I know he's capable of but he said no, it wouldn't be very smart to do that as they'd have to come off benefits which already provide enough to cover everything they need and allows him to give the support to people around him.
When I asked them if they felt uncomfortable living off what is in effect other people's tax's, their reply was - well no. He'd paid huge taxes when they were working, his offspring and friends pay tax's who are people who benefit from him not working and that most want to pay the least amount of tax they can and in effect the system allows him negative tax whilst still paying tax on purchased items etc. He's supporting the community and the economy. All his benefits get spent back into the economy and whilst society tells us it's wrong and I wouldn't like feeling tied to benefits - he says it's smart.
Is it?
I think if the system allows it and you know what you are doing, why not?
I am not of that ilk, and I am also of the ilk that realises I will always get caught if I am trying to, so it has never been something I have done, I have applied for stuff like JSA where necessary in my life but the hoops are ridiculous, and as for housing benefit I only tried it once and ended up paying most of it back so never again despite being asked when applying for JSA.
it is clear there are hundreds of thousands of benefit cheats in this country, and there is not much anyone can really do about it, so if you can do it and you have the backbone to do it with no conscience, why not.
Sorry, but the system is there to be exploited, just as rich men always date younger pretty women, there are those around who dont give a toss about the image as long as the outcome benefits them.
I am not of that ilk, and I am also of the ilk that realises I will always get caught if I am trying to, so it has never been something I have done, I have applied for stuff like JSA where necessary in my life but the hoops are ridiculous, and as for housing benefit I only tried it once and ended up paying most of it back so never again despite being asked when applying for JSA.
it is clear there are hundreds of thousands of benefit cheats in this country, and there is not much anyone can really do about it, so if you can do it and you have the backbone to do it with no conscience, why not.
Sorry, but the system is there to be exploited, just as rich men always date younger pretty women, there are those around who dont give a toss about the image as long as the outcome benefits them.
it's an interesting conundrum... we (rightly!) pillory those who play the system to get more than their fair share and give those who do need help a (potentially) negative rep but if someone uses all sorts of legal (and illegal!) schemes to ensure that they pay as little as possible they are lauded as being sensible. Seems a bit of a double standard.
Original Q - no it's not smart, but he's at least not bragging about it (some people I used to know actively did this
) and, from your description, seems to be not an intolerable f
knugget
Original Q - no it's not smart, but he's at least not bragging about it (some people I used to know actively did this
) and, from your description, seems to be not an intolerable fknuggetHTP99 said:
And yet we have people who actually work in the system who tell us that a life on benefits is generally crap with little money to live on!
I volunteered with the Citizens Advice Bureau for a while, which meant I had to do some training on the benefits system. I was surprised to find that there is generally no individual assessment of what amount of benefits claimants needed. It seemed that the amount of the benefit was generally fixed and the key factor was whether or not you qualified for the benefit. That system seemed to lead to people who often got too little but also cases where people arguable got too much.I suspect for every benefit cheat or layabout living on benefits that are more who just scrape by.
Don't hate the players, hate the game.
If you're entitled to benefits then why wouldn't you claim them? By all means stomp down on invalid and fraudulent claims but if a claim is valid then they should be paid accordingly.
I see it the same as those who know or are are able to pay experts to find the loopholes and gaps in the tax system to legitimately lower their tax bill. We tend to laud one and hang the other when they're two sides of the same coin.
If you're entitled to benefits then why wouldn't you claim them? By all means stomp down on invalid and fraudulent claims but if a claim is valid then they should be paid accordingly.
I see it the same as those who know or are are able to pay experts to find the loopholes and gaps in the tax system to legitimately lower their tax bill. We tend to laud one and hang the other when they're two sides of the same coin.
Badda said:
No it’s lazy and immoral.
I think that's an outdated view, given the extent to which modern technology reduces the need for a human workforce; and it's about to become a whole lot more outdated, with the dramatic recent advances in AI.Whether people work or not is increasingly becoming a genuine lifestyle choice, whereby if you accept current population levels, you also have to accept a significant percentage of non-workers (or deliberate inefficiency), otherwise we'd over-produce.
If you don't like it, the answer is to reduce population rather than increase employment/efficiency (and therefore economic growth), because the latter is unstainable in the long term.
Pistom said:
When I asked them if they felt uncomfortable living off what is in effect other people's tax's, their reply was - well no. He'd paid huge taxes when they were working, his offspring and friends pay tax's who are people who benefit from him not working and that most want to pay the least amount of tax they can and in effect the system allows him negative tax whilst still paying tax on purchased items etc. He's supporting the community and the economy. All his benefits get spent back into the economy and whilst society tells us it's wrong and I wouldn't like feeling tied to benefits - he says it's smart.
From what you have said he isn't producing or doing anything, so what is he contributing to the economy?
Having said that, if he has a decent standard of living is he living off savings from his previous high income or does he have genuine and possibly severe disabilities which stop him from working and allow him to have several types of benefits?
valiant said:
Don't hate the players, hate the game.
If you're entitled to benefits then why wouldn't you claim them? By all means stomp down on invalid and fraudulent claims but if a claim is valid then they should be paid accordingly.
I see it the same as those who know or are are able to pay experts to find the loopholes and gaps in the tax system to legitimately lower their tax bill. We tend to laud one and hang the other when they're two sides of the same coin.
I get your point, but there does feel a difference to me between those putting money in and those taking money out. If there was an honesty box for someone’s veggies in a driveway, I’d feel more annoyance to the person who took a carrot and then all coins out the box, rather than the person who took a carrot and only put in 50p of the recommended £1.If you're entitled to benefits then why wouldn't you claim them? By all means stomp down on invalid and fraudulent claims but if a claim is valid then they should be paid accordingly.
I see it the same as those who know or are are able to pay experts to find the loopholes and gaps in the tax system to legitimately lower their tax bill. We tend to laud one and hang the other when they're two sides of the same coin.
I also find the justification the person gives about enough tax coming from others and blah blah a bit naive. Clearly it doesn’t scale and if they think it’s “ok” because their maths indicates to them it is OK, they’d do well to consider how few % of the population are net contributors after factoring in all the costs there are to run a country, so I find that argument weak and a bit delusional. A stronger argument wouldn’t try to justify it but just be like “I’m eligible, don’t hate the player hate the game”. It’s less savoury but more truthful IMO. I’d also be interested to know how truthful the claimant is being in statements being made to claim such money, if all 100% legit, then I ‘spose fair enough. I suspect in many claimants like this there are areas where lack of fitness to work/health issues are somewhat overstated to ge the cash. Very different to me if the answers are honest and legit.
It is an interesting one to noodle on, however.
My eldest son works for the DWP and sees many applications based on predominantly health issues.
If said claimant has a Doctors letter backing it up then the claim goes through without question, the more complicated ones may go to a specialist but it’s almost so it looks like someone is checking.
He’s had people in real distress on the phone when they don’t meet certain criteria and gets frustrated because he’s knows what it would take to get to that point but he can’t advise.
I personally would find it difficult to sit at home living on benefits.
If said claimant has a Doctors letter backing it up then the claim goes through without question, the more complicated ones may go to a specialist but it’s almost so it looks like someone is checking.
He’s had people in real distress on the phone when they don’t meet certain criteria and gets frustrated because he’s knows what it would take to get to that point but he can’t advise.
I personally would find it difficult to sit at home living on benefits.
If you can work you should work imho. Benefits should be just enough to live on and nothing more as it isn't there to support people for life^.
^unless disabled etc so unable to work
Anyhoo my view is that "benefit scroungers" are actually few and far between so not something to leave me frothing at the mouth.
TX.
^unless disabled etc so unable to work
Anyhoo my view is that "benefit scroungers" are actually few and far between so not something to leave me frothing at the mouth.
TX.
HTP99 said:
And yet we have people who actually work in the system who tell us that a life on benefits is generally crap with little money to live on!
I've just run a calculation assuming two people born on 1st Jan 1980 with two boys born on 1st Jan 2023. Neither parent has income or had a job in the last two years, less than £5k in savings, and rents privately for £500 a month rent, with nobody having disabilities or childcare costs.What you can claim under the Universal Credit system
Total benefits: £ 441.60 per week
That is £22,963 per year or equivalent to a £30k per year salary. Not bad for someone who simply chooses not to work. I'm starting to feel like a bit of a mug.
I think some of the points being made are really good but to clarify a few things.
They're not renting, they live in a higher than average valued house which they paid off whilst still working. The system doesn't limit the value of the house they live in nor does it force them to sell to a lower value house to force them to live off the difference.
Someone said it's lazy, immoral and a st existence and it's exactly these kind of comments which my long time buddy would think is not smart and the thinking of an envious knuckle dragger.
He's definitely not lazy, I'm not sure if it's any more st an exitance than those who work themselves stupid to have more money to buy stuff they don't need whilst neglecting their family personal needs. He is regularly assessed for qualification for what he receives and I'm not aware he exaggerates or lies. I can't know that so if he is then yes that's immoral but otherwise, I think neglecting your family to hold down a job just to be able to say you are working is more immoral.
It's clear that he is in a hammock not a safety net, others who aren't as skilled at managing their money would see it as a net which is one reason he sees it as smart.
He's far from an intolerable fk nugget. Everyone I know has a high opinion of him as he's always got time for them.
I believe they are capable of working however the system says they're not so they're not a benefit cheat - they're just living a life many would be happy with on the benefits the tax payer provides.
They're not renting, they live in a higher than average valued house which they paid off whilst still working. The system doesn't limit the value of the house they live in nor does it force them to sell to a lower value house to force them to live off the difference.
Someone said it's lazy, immoral and a s
t existence and it's exactly these kind of comments which my long time buddy would think is not smart and the thinking of an envious knuckle dragger. He's definitely not lazy, I'm not sure if it's any more s
t an exitance than those who work themselves stupid to have more money to buy stuff they don't need whilst neglecting their family personal needs. He is regularly assessed for qualification for what he receives and I'm not aware he exaggerates or lies. I can't know that so if he is then yes that's immoral but otherwise, I think neglecting your family to hold down a job just to be able to say you are working is more immoral.It's clear that he is in a hammock not a safety net, others who aren't as skilled at managing their money would see it as a net which is one reason he sees it as smart.
He's far from an intolerable f
k nugget. Everyone I know has a high opinion of him as he's always got time for them.I believe they are capable of working however the system says they're not so they're not a benefit cheat - they're just living a life many would be happy with on the benefits the tax payer provides.
Do you know what they're receiving benefits for?
I'm expect a lot of people will view someone claiming they can't work because of crippling back pain who's out up a ladder doing roofing on the sly five days a week cash in hand or playing golf three days a week a little different than they do someone who may have a genuine illness that means they can't work consistently and regularly.
I'm expect a lot of people will view someone claiming they can't work because of crippling back pain who's out up a ladder doing roofing on the sly five days a week cash in hand or playing golf three days a week a little different than they do someone who may have a genuine illness that means they can't work consistently and regularly.
Lived next to neighbours who knew all the tricks, kid every so often, every 1/4 we’d have a spoofed mental health crisis (to tick boxes)
Out side of that, it was parties all summer, hair dressing and puppy breeding on the side.
September was time to goto Orlando with the school aged kids
May was Spain or similar, again kids out of school
The constant annoyance caused by them made 3 neighbours and us up and leave at great expense
Kids are going to turn out well rounded im am sure and the cycle definitely won’t continue
We reckon they cost the tax payer well over 100k a year in upkeep and remember they don’t contribute anything
Out side of that, it was parties all summer, hair dressing and puppy breeding on the side.
September was time to goto Orlando with the school aged kids
May was Spain or similar, again kids out of school
The constant annoyance caused by them made 3 neighbours and us up and leave at great expense
Kids are going to turn out well rounded im am sure and the cycle definitely won’t continue
We reckon they cost the tax payer well over 100k a year in upkeep and remember they don’t contribute anything
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff