I think the problem is with benefits is that they are set to roughly be the same as the minimum wage. Therefore people who are on them feel that to work for the minimum wage is making them hardly better off at work and therefore feel they "shouldnt" have to. Along with just the cash money people recieve they also get added incentives such as full housing benefit in rented accomodation , Mortgage insurences paid (if youve been unemployed for over a year and held your mortgage before 1992 I think) and free prescriptions, glasses, school dinners, milktokens etc etc it all adds up and to be honest in somecases I think the benefits are too high, or the minimum wage has to be increased.
by Incandenza
I wasn't trying to suggest that levels were too high, quite the reverse. What I was saying was that if benefit levels are set at a high level of comfort, the government becomes open to the accusation that they are essentially encouraging promiscuity because child benefits would be more desirable than working. Consequently, political necessity dictates that those benefits are set at subsistence levels and hardship for the families involved.
sorry somewhat off topic although one of the questions was at the start refering to benefits and I must admit the cost of schooldinners at £15 per child a week and free prescriptions and dental treatment etc does add to the "perks" if you can call it that of being unemployed
I would in an instant go back to work, I find working a much easier job that looking after 4 young children.