Share this post:

Two comments circulating on social media lately caught my attention.

“I think people forget that the welfare state was set up to help people going through hard times, not to fund a lifestyle choice. We are now at a point where people staying at home can get more money than someone on basic wage – how was that ever allowed to happen?”

And:

“Outrageous that someone on benefits can receive £25,000 a year – more than what two million people earn on the minimum wage after tax. This isn’t just economically unsustainable, it’s morally wrong. We should be rewarding work, not dependency.”

At first glance, these comments seem to strike a chord.

Shouldn’t work always pay more than benefits?

Isn’t it unfair that someone not working might receive more than a minimum-wage worker?

But when you take a moment to dig into the reality, these arguments unravel.

Some benefit claimants get £25k — but that’s not the full story

It’s true that, in certain cases, benefit income can add up to more than £25,000 a year.

This usually involves Universal Credit, disability support like Personal Independence Payment (PIP), and Housing Benefit.

But this only applies to a small number of claimants, typically those who are:

• Seriously ill or disabled

• Caring for children or other dependents

• Living in areas with high rents

• Unable to work due to health conditions or lack of support

These are not people choosing a “lifestyle.”

They are people the welfare system is designed to support — because their costs are higher and their ability to earn is limited.

Work doesn’t pay enough — that’s the real scandal

Let’s compare the figures.

From April 2025, the UK’s National Living Wage (NLW) for over-21s is £12.21 an hour. That means someone working full time (40 hours a week) earns £25,396 per year before tax.

After tax and national insurance? Their take-home pay is roughly £21,800–£23,000.

That’s less than what some disabled claimants — receiving additional support for their housing, health, and care needs — are entitled to.

Not because the welfare system is over-generous, but because work doesn’t provide enough.

Remember: even full-time workers often rely on benefits like Universal Credit to survive. It’s not a case of workers vs claimants — many are both.

So what’s really going on here?

Blaming benefit claimants is a convenient distraction from the real problems:

• Wages are too low. Even with the 2025 increase, the National Living Wage still falls short of the Real Living Wage: £12.60/hour across the UK, and £13.85/hour in London.

• Living costs are too high. Rent, energy bills, childcare, and food costs have soared — and support hasn’t kept up.

• The safety net is doing its job. When people are unable to work, or earn too little, benefits are meant to help them live with dignity.

Calling that “dependency” is an insult to people facing serious hardship — and to the idea that we live in a fair society.

Let’s talk about what really needs fixing

We’re told that cutting benefits will “incentivise” people to work.

But work already isn’t paying enough.

Instead of punishing claimants, we should be:

• Raising wages so people don’t need to rely on benefits to survive

• Investing in childcare, transport, and social care to support people into work

• Fixing housing, so sky-high rents don’t swallow up earnings and benefits alike

• Making work secure, with proper contracts, sick pay, and career progression

The problem isn’t that some people on benefits receive more than some workers.

The problem is that too many workers are earning less than they need to live on — and that’s not the fault of the welfare system.

It’s a failure of the economy.

To fix it, we must stop scapegoating people on benefits – and start fixing the reasons why benefits are needed in the first place.

‘Work should always pay,’ they say. Why doesn’t it, then?

here’s the uncomfortable truth for the politicians who keep saying “work should always pay”: It doesn’t. And that’s their fault.

They set the minimum wage.

They shape the tax system.

They choose whether to regulate rents, fund childcare, support public transport, and enforce fair employment practices.

So when a full-time job still can’t cover the basics — and the benefit system has to step in — it’s not a failure of the that system.

It’s a failure of economic policy.

Yet rather than take responsibility, they turn around and point the finger at people struggling to get by.

“Too many people are dependent on the state,”

they say — while ignoring the fact that millions of working people are also dependent on state support just to survive.

That’s not a moral failing by the public.

That’s a political failure by the government.

If we’re serious about making work pay, it’s time to stop attacking those who need help — and start asking why help is needed in the first place.

That means higher wages.

Lower costs.

A real living wage.

Secure work.

Affordable homes.

In short: not punishment, but reform.

If work is supposed to pay, then make it pay.

If people are relying on benefits, ask why the economy is leaving them behind — instead of blaming them for trying to stay afloat.

The real scandal isn’t that some people can survive on benefits.

It’s that millions of people can’t survive on work.