• The post you are reporting:
   
  I would have hoped that most on this forum would have grown-up enough to get past the 'red-top' stereotype of benefit recipients. While there will always be a percentage fiddling the system (just as there will always be a larger percentage fiddling their tax returns) the majority claim benefit because they have to. Shop workers on part-time and low wages have to claim to make up the cost of rent etc. Those unable to work are expected to pay their utility bills, food etc. out of their benefit, with only rent and council tax paid as an extra benefit. Any 'emergency loans' claimed to cover bills, or buying such luxuries as a bed, are deducted from the benefit on a regular basis and thus reduce the amount recieved. Far from being 'tax free', benefits are assessed for income tax and when a claiment is lucky enough to get a job the arrears result in increased income tax until it is repayed.
  As Bern rightly says, it is this prejudiced and incorrect, blanket labeling of those on benefits as 'scroungers' that leads to the vunerable with a self defeating sense of pride to suffering the worst in their attempts to avoid the label. Benefits are not a luxury, they are the civilised way of ensuring that society cares for all through the bad times so that they can all enjoy the good times.
  If you really want to encourage claiments back into the habit of work you should change the nonsense of only being allowed to earn ten pounds a week before it affecting the benefits. It takes so long and so many forms to adjust for even a pound over that people are disinclined to do it. If they were allowed to earn a more realistic amount (say thirty pounds) then more would be inclined to take days work when it was available and thus be in the environment where they are more likely to find full time employment.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason