A Life Without Work: 1.5M Britons Haven’T Had A Job Since They Left School

[plummet expert]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311789/1-5m-Britons-havent-job-left-school.html

'Almost 1.5 million people in Britain have never done a days work in their lives, official figures reveal.

The total includes around 800,000 aged between 25 and 64 who have never had a job of any kind.

A further 600,000, aged under 25, are not in education or training of any sort.

Mr Osborne told MPs that the welfare bill had risen 45 per cent in the last decade and now accounted for one-third of Government spending.

Last week, figures from the Office of National Statistics revealed there are almost four million households across the country about one in five where no one is currently working.'

'Claire Davey is nearly 30 and has never had a job as she claims she has to raise her eight children.

She receives £815 a week in state handouts. Her husband Peter, 35, gave up his administrative job as he found he could make more living on benefits.

Yet they say they still need a bigger home. Its really hard, said Mrs Davey earlier this year. We cant afford holidays. The price of living is going up but benefits are going down.

At their four-bedroom home on the Isle of Anglesey the family, have a 42in flatscreen TV, a Wii and three Nintendo DSs as well as a Mercedes people carrier and an 11-seater minibus.

Of their income of more than £42,000 a year Mrs Davey said: I dont think Im selfish. It doesnt bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family.

I know there are a lot of Wail haters on here,but seriously,step back,have a look at the deficit and the national debt and explain to me how any of this is sustainable.

I would love to know.

PS to add,I think it's essential that we have some form of help for people who fall on hard times.It jsut seems to have become so much bigger than that.

It has been 'so much bigger than that' for a very long time, which is why it has got totally out of control. We need to make it clear to people that if you go onto benefits and then simply continue to have children without ever having a job, you would not get more child benefit, bigger homes, or any other benefit except food money and state schooling. You should have to be in work for a minimum 12 months before more child benefit kicks in etc. Rules like this are not in place, so there is no deterrent.

It cannot be right that one family receives £42k after tax (about £60 before) so they can add to their family and never work again at everyone elses expense. It beggars belief that they can afford a Mercedes People carrier! Down the road will others paying tax and working, driving a battered Ford Focus or Escort.

Edited September 14, 2010 by plummet expert

[Si1]

http://www.dailymail...eft-school.html

'Almost 1.5 million people in Britain have never done a day's work in their lives, official figures reveal.

The total includes around 800,000 aged between 25 and 64 who have never had a job of any kind.

A further 600,000, aged under 25, are not in education or training of any sort.

Mr Osborne told MPs that the welfare bill had risen 45 per cent in the last decade and now accounted for one-third of Government spending.

Last week, figures from the Office of National Statistics revealed there are almost four million households across the country – about one in five – where no one is currently working.'

'Claire Davey is nearly 30 and has never had a job as she claims she has to raise her eight children.

She receives £815 a week in state handouts. Her husband Peter, 35, gave up his administrative job as he found he could make more living on benefits.

Yet they say they still need a bigger home. 'It's really hard,' said Mrs Davey earlier this year. 'We can't afford holidays. The price of living is going up but benefits are going down.'

At their four-bedroom home on the Isle of Anglesey the family, have a 42in flatscreen TV, a Wii and three Nintendo DSs – as well as a Mercedes people carrier and an 11-seater minibus.

Of their income of more than £42,000 a year Mrs Davey said: 'I don't think I'm selfish. It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family.'

I know there are a lot of Wail haters on here,but seriously,step back,have a look at the deficit and the national debt and explain to me how any of this is sustainable.

I would love to know.

PS to add,I think it's essential that we have some form of help for people who fall on hard times.It jsut seems to have become so much bigger than that.

Gillian duffy, the welfare state in one: "there's too many people now who aren't vulnerable but they can claim and too many who are vulnerable who can't claim"

which Gordon Brown denied

Edited September 14, 2010 by Si1

[Dorkins]

four-bedroom home on the Isle of Anglesey

42in flatscreen TV

a Wii and three Nintendo DSs

a Mercedes people carrier and an 11-seater minibus.

their income of more than £42,000 a year

Fascinating insight into the slave mentality here. A four bedroom house (in Anglesey)? A few electronic trinkets? Yes, truly this slave is doing so much better than all the other slaves.

Do you really think the rich get together at parties and talk about how many video games consoles they have? "Well Sir Edwington Carruthers-Smythe, I have a Wii in every room of my house and twelve Gamecubes which I use as doorstops!" "Is that right Lord Poncenby? I think you'll find that my entire mansion is built from X-boxes held together by a fine paste made from PS3s!" Even 42" flatscreen TVs are cheap these days (I don't have one btw), you're talking £400 for something that is probably switched on 10+ hours a day 7 days a week.

Electronic entertainment is the opium of the masses. It is sensory stimulation for people who can't afford reality.

Do they need two big vans? No. Is £42k net a crazy amount of money for a family of 10? Yes and no, I wonder how much of that "income" is actually housing benefit for some lucky landlord. Excluding rent, I would have thought you could keep a family adequately on £50 per person per week, so £26k. How much of that £16k difference is going to some rent-seeker?

Meanwhile the real rich are extracting rents and dividends across the land from other people's hard work. They own multiple properties, fly first class and pay people to make them fancy consumer goods (you know, things you can't buy in Argos?), drive them around, and cook and clean for them. The amount of land, raw materials, and labour they consume is orders of magnitude higher than the average UK family. This top 1%-0.1% of the population is capturing more and more of the national income every year and does its best to avoid paying UK tax. Unlike the feudal lords of yesteryear you don't know they're there, and that's exactly how they want to keep it.

But yes, let's beat up on people on the dole. They're the real criminals. I bet some of them even listen to music on their iPods while lying on a single bed in the box room. Scum.

(P.S. I have never taken a penny from the state as thankfully I have never needed to.)

[tomwatkins]

The main reason I feel that the Rebublicans will get things under control in the US is because the "Welfare State" is far less cumbersome in the US. Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security (Federal Pensions) can be controlled and reduced much easier (politically) than "robbing" children of basic necessities. Despite being a powerful political class, OAP's in the US will do the right thing and fall on the sword if need be. Food stamps are the order of the day here and it really beats me why this is not introduced in the UK. Somebody in the UK needs to grasp the nettle, introduce foodstamps, and have a cut-off date for receiving child allowance after the first child, maybe phase it out altogether. As a former employer in the UK can somebody please tell me what is right about a small employer (or a large employer for that matter) PAYING A THIRD PERSON TO HAVE A BABY? It's absurd, always has been, always will be. The old chestnut that it's not the childs fault doesn't wash anymore. Som body has to take responsibility and that someone isn't the state (that is everybody else.).

The welfare cradle to grave mentality has finished-it has to. Ultimately it will be good for everybody, including the children who won't be born in the benefits culture.

[gimble]

I know there are a lot of Wail haters on here,but seriously,step back,have a look at the deficit and the national debt and explain to me how any of this is sustainable.

I would love to know.

It says the welfare bill has gone up 50% in the last 10 years. But is that real terms increase, nominal or as a proportion of GDP (real GDP has grown about 30% in the last 10 years)? That's an important point for the affordability of it all. Also, how many families are there out there that are really like the one highlighted? A few thousand? If so it is sustainable, though not desirable. Lots of people on benefits do much less well than those guys. 1.5M sounds a lot but it is about 2.5% of the population. It's a burden but not a massive one. There have always been and there always will be wasters in the world. When I was growing up in the 80s there was a massive (7 kids) family nearby living on handouts - their kids were at my school, they stank and they were all pretty eccentric (though not unloved by their crazy parents I think). Those sorts of people have always been around, the 'Shameless' families. I have spent much time in the USA, they have a much tougher welfare system but there are still plenty of people who completely drop out of the working world over there too. The attitude of the mum in that article is bloody annoying but to be honest it's not something that's worth getting all self righteously indignant about (the emotional equivalent of ecstasy for Daily Mail readers) cos, like I say, there always were bums and there always will be bums.

Edited September 14, 2010 by gimble

[hilltop]

'Difficult cases make bad law', or don't make policy on the basis of extreme examples. Which the Mail seems to find suspiciously easily.

The real issue here is the sheer scale of not just unemployment but long term non-engagement with working society.

There is a failure in attitude, by the individuals and by employers and educators. We are too ready to throw people on the scrapheap for low achievement.

AND THEN WE IMPORT LABOUR FROM ABROAD TO MAKE UP THE SHORTFALL.

Cutting benefits to the dispossessed is not the answer. If it happened to me I would turn to crime without any scruple.

And many will.

[Dorkins]

By the way, that £136bn Department for Work and Pensions bill he's talking about? £63bn of that is the state pension, £8bn is pension credit, £2.7bn is the winter fuel allowance and £0.5bn is the over-75s TV license. At least £74bn (55%) of the UK's welfare bill is to retired people, and no doubt some of them are claiming other benefits too (e.g. council tax benefit). I'm not saying we shouldn't support retired people who need it, but the Daily Wail is clearly trying to plant the idea that "one third of my taxes are going to dole scroungers!!!!" in people's minds when that is not the case.

[gimble]

Fascinating insight into the slave mentality here. A four bedroom house (in Anglesey)? A few electronic trinkets? Yes, truly this slave is doing so much better than all the other slaves.

Do you really think the rich get together at parties and talk about how many video games consoles they have? "Well Sir Edwington Carruthers-Smythe, I have a Wii in every room of my house and twelve Gamecubes which I use as doorstops!" "Is that right Lord Poncenby? I think you'll find that my entire mansion is built from X-boxes held together by a fine paste made from PS3s!" Even 42" flatscreen TVs are cheap these days (I don't have one btw), you're talking £400 for something that is probably switched on 10+ hours a day 7 days a week.

Electronic entertainment is the opium of the masses. It is sensory stimulation for people who can't afford reality.

Do they need two big vans? No. Is £42k net a crazy amount of money for a family of 10? Yes and no, I wonder how much of that "income" is actually housing benefit for some lucky landlord. Excluding rent, I would have thought you could keep a family adequately on £50 per person per week, so £26k. How much of that £16k difference is going to some rent-seeker?

Meanwhile the real rich are extracting rents and dividends across the land from other people's hard work. They own multiple properties, fly first class and pay people to make them fancy consumer goods (you know, things you can't buy in Argos?), drive them around, and cook and clean for them. The amount of land, raw materials, and labour they consume is orders of magnitude higher than the average UK family. This top 1%-0.1% of the population is capturing more and more of the national income every year and does its best to avoid paying UK tax. Unlike the feudal lords of yesteryear you don't know they're there, and that's exactly how they want to keep it.

But yes, let's beat up on people on the dole. They're the real criminals. I bet some of them even listen to music on their iPods while lying on a single bed in the box room. Scum.

(P.S. I have never taken a penny from the state as thankfully I have never needed to.)

Haha! I'm with you on this to an extent. In the UK the welfare bill matches the total takings from income tax almost exactly at the moment - but nearly half of welfare is OAPs pensions (fair enough I think). Let's say half of what's left is welfare for the genuinely needy (I'd say it's more than that probably). So lets say 1/4 of welfare is going on proper scroungers like in the article. About 30% of my pay goes to income tax. So that means that about 7.5% of my income might be paying for scroungers to do jack all. Now, 20% of my gross income goes on paying rent to a retired lady who lives in a massive house in Surrey with horses and a landrover. I doubt she paid much for this house which is now worth > 800k (shared house in West London innit?). Who's screwing me for more money, the scroungers or the rich landlady?

(please note this is meant somewhat in jest but actually I think maybe I have the beginnings of some point or other here)

edit - maths

Edited September 14, 2010 by gimble

[Si1]

Cutting benefits to the dispossessed is not the answer. If it happened to me I would turn to crime without any scruple.

I spoke to a chap, an adult and 6th form college lecturer in electrician skills

he said he had benefits recipients in compulsory education at his college - because the benefits are means tested it is not worth getting formal work, but crime, not being recorded within the tax system, is the only additional work income they can tyake that doesn't reduce their benefits. So they do a few nights a month robbign sheds etc to top up their benefits.

they said they would happily take a job but it is not worth losing their benefits. And the added risk is that if they go full time and then lose it - it is a whole month before benefits resume, during whihc time they pay the month's bills on a credit card and end up in debt. Work is actively discouraged by the existing system, except crime.

Ironically, Ian Duncan Smith's tapered minimum wage looks like it will cost the same as existing benefits system (at least initially), but permit people to work honestly and therefore contribute to the tax-coffers ultimately.

[northwestsmith2]

The only important part is this

Her husband Peter, 35, gave up his administrative job as he found he could make more living on benefits

With overpriced housing it often makes sense to go on benefits for any family let alone a large one like this.

[Dorkins]

20% of my gross income goes on paying rent to a retired lady who lives in a massive house in Surrey with horses and a landrover. I doubt she paid much for this house which is now worth > 800k (shared house in West London innit?). Who's screwing me for more money, the scroungers or the rich landlady?

Sounds a lot like my rich landlady, she lives in a big house in southwest London and extracts £18k a year from our shared southeast London flat which she inherited. She makes a decent graduate starting wage for doing absolutely ****** all.

Meanwhile the poor people who live on the grim-looking council estate around the corner from me seem to spend a lot of time visiting the fried chicken takeaway shop. They do like that chicken.

What do I resent more, the 8% of my pay that goes to buy chicken for poor people or the 25% that goes to a lucky and rich old bag?

[fluffy666]

I spoke to a chap, an adult and 6th form college lecturer in electrician skills

he said he had benefits recipients in compulsory education at his college - because the benefits are means tested it is not worth getting formal work, but crime, not being recorded within the tax system, is the only additional work income they can tyake that doesn't reduce their benefits. So they do a few nights a month robbign sheds etc to top up their benefits.

they said they would happily take a job but it is not worth losing their benefits. And the added risk is that if they go full time and then lose it - it is a whole month before benefits resume, during whihc time they pay the month's bills on a credit card and end up in debt. Work is actively discouraged by the existing system, except crime.

Ironically, Ian Duncan Smith's tapered minimum wage looks like it will cost the same as existing benefits system (at least initially), but permit people to work honestly and therefore contribute to the tax-coffers ultimately.

This is the problem - once on benefits, especially housing benefit, you can get a position where you cannot do casual/seasonal work without the danger of benefits disruption. And then once you have been off work for a year or two or three, it starts to become extremely difficult to ever get back. You end up with the 'diseases of idleness' - depression, obesity, diabetes.

[DeepLurker]

Didn't this large-family-on-benefits-with-a-merc pop up a few months ago? Is the Daily Wail recycling its horror stories now?

[fluffy666]

Didn't this large-family-on-benefits-with-a-merc pop up a few months ago? Is the Daily Wail recycling its horror stories now?

The cynic in me (actually, me) suspects that the current standing order for the right wing press is to find the maximum number possible of these '73 kids by different dads on welfare and loving it' stories. Thus to stoke up resentment at a supposed army of welfare loungers living in luxury, and get public opinion behind welfare cuts.

How many of these families exist is not recorded. You could simply abolish extra benefits for 4th and subsequent children (new claims, anyway) to stop this, but not many people would be affected. Bringing up 5 kids isn't going to be easy for anyone..

[JustYield]

"Mr Osborne told MPs that the welfare bill had risen 45 per cent in the last decade"

Those were the boom years. Oh shit.

[aa3]

The biggest beneficiary is usually the lucky landlord who rents out a house at a high price to these poor people.. the bill covered by the generous tax payers.

[Ruffneck]

Didn't this large-family-on-benefits-with-a-merc pop up a few months ago? Is the Daily Wail recycling its horror stories now?

yeah i remember the image

[fluffy666]

"Mr Osborne told MPs that the welfare bill had risen 45 per cent in the last decade"

Those were the boom years. Oh shit.

Interestingly, once you strip out inflation, pretty much the entire real-terms increase was due to pensions..

But pensioners tend to vote Tory...

[R K]

42" TV - Japanese/Chinese exporter

Mercedes people carrier - German exporter

Wii/Nintendo - Japanese/Chinese exporter

House on Anglesey - UK developer/UK banksters/UK landowners/UK? Landlord

There's the problem right there.

It's pretty obvious where the 'money''s going and it ain't the feckless woman in the article is it, irritating though it may be on an individual basis.

As Goldsmith said it's the poor in the West subsidising the billionaires in Asia (and here).

[JustYield]

Interestingly, once you strip out inflation, pretty much the entire real-terms increase was due to pensions..

Osborne was deliberately misleading the House then? That's pretty poor, I assumed it was real terms otherwise how can you compare the two numbers?

[fluffy666]

Osborne was deliberately misleading the House then? That's pretty poor, I assumed it was real terms otherwise how can you compare the two numbers?

Depends on how you define 'mislead'.

Pensions are included in the Welfare budget when people want to come up with big numbers about what the cost is.

However, when welfare is then discussed, the pensions element is conveniently 'forgotten'.

Pensions (constant 2005 pounds)

Welfare (constant 2005 pounds)

Edit to add - from the same site, some perspective on how our debt is not what it's cracked up to be:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_brief.php

Edited September 14, 2010 by fluffy666

[winkie]

...so you can go from a life without work to the rest of your life on a pension....what if we all did that?

[interestrateripoff]

The only important part is this

With overpriced housing it often makes sense to go on benefits for any family let alone a large one like this.

I've regularly felt it would be better financially if me and the wife split up and lived off benefits.

The system has generated some very perverse incentives where it traps people for life in benefits unless they get a highly paid job which probably they don't have the skills for or win X-Factor.

[interestrateripoff]

...so you can go from a life without work to the rest of your life on a pension....what if we all did that?

We could watch TV all day, although what we'd be watching and where the power would come from I have no idea.

[crash2006]

By the way, that £136bn Department for Work and Pensions bill he's talking about? £63bn of that is the state pension, £8bn is pension credit, £2.7bn is the winter fuel allowance and £0.5bn is the over-75s TV license. At least £74bn (55%) of the UK's welfare bill is to retired people, and no doubt some of them are claiming other benefits too (e.g. council tax benefit). I'm not saying we shouldn't support retired people who need it, but the Daily Wail is clearly trying to plant the idea that "one third of my taxes are going to dole scroungers!!!!" in people's minds when that is not the case.

people dont see that, or dont seem to understand, only a small percentage make up the unemployed, 2% of welfare spending goes to the unemployed.