If you rely on state support , you should have a great quality of life, not the breadline

I am inclined to agree as long as truly vulnerable people, eg chronic sick/disabled, children and those with very little income are not impacted. I'm a pensioner, not on any benefit (apart from my state pension which we all get), so am OK but am happy for my bit of tax to contribute to the welfare of those who need it. Who knows, I might need it one day.

It has to be very carefully done and the government cannot win, whatever they decide.

They won't though. It'll all end up watered down and be little more use than deckchair re-arranging on the Titanic. They don't have the balls to make any major changes (and probably don't have the competence either). We're just in a downhill spiral and have been for a few decades due to the politicians and senior civil servants being utterly inept. The longer we carry on, the worse it will become and the more extreme the answer when someone finally has the balls to tackle it. Whether it's immigration, the NHS, the care system, disability benefits, unemployment, general lawlessness, pensions, the economy etc - it's all one big downward spiral.

We just can't afford to have this level of benefits paid out as country. It needs to be cut. Just like everything nobody wants to be the one who is impacted. The government need to be strong and push it through.

There is a scheme to spend 140 million on housing for the homeless in the uk. It says they are being moved from another area. Forgot where I saw the article though.

I think your being overly simplistic

Should society take care of our vulnerable members like disabled and their carers if they cannot work - yes. All their basic needs should be met like decent housing, heating and having enough to eat and a bit more

Unemployment should be viewed as temporary if a person is able to work. Unemployment benefits should be a stop gap.

I'm think rent control should be brought to allow affordable renting. Meet one basic need such as affordable housing then work up from there

@Whatafustercluck they've paid into those private pension schemes too. And probably won't bother paying in as much if they're going to be penalised by having the state pension deducted because of it!

I've spent years paying in upwards of £350 a month NI plus another few hundred a month into a private pension. Why bother if it works against me to try to be responsible and make private provision as well as the state provision?

The thing i am taking from this thread is that those in receipt of pensions don't view the state pension as a benefit (even if they're drawing on it but are actually relatively wealthy via private pension schemes). Presumably they never had a problem paying nic for pensions because they knew they would one day benefit from it. But they do have a problem paying taxes for something they believe (hope) they will never need. Imagine the uproar though if, like most other UK benefits, the government decided to means test state pension.... and savings were classed as 'income'.

A pension isn't contributing to society in any way though. You will be better off longer term too as UC stops at state pension age.

I don't believe anyone on benefits has a great quality of life. A single person with no kids, who is out of work, gets £100 to pay for everything.... but hopefully their situation is only temporary as this will be people who are looking for work. Although, people in the LCW group also get the same, and they are not fit for work right now but might be in the future. I know some people who have been in this group for years, and I have no idea how they manage to live on the amount they get.
People on the higher amount of benefits tend to be sick/disabled, or have disabled kids, and I do think benefits for them should be enough for the basics and extra on top.

Neither contributions based ESA or new style job seekers are means tested, so you can have savings and they are not affected. They are for people who have paid NI for the previous 2 years. They are time limited though.

UC though, is means tested, and tapers down when you have £6k to stopping altogether at £16k. If you have over £16k, then you don't need benefits. They are a safety net, and not there to protect money you have stashed away.

The way benefits is viewed needs to change, I do rely on UC top up as a single parent to two disabled children (zero input from their father in time or money) I do work part time because between their needs and hospital stays etc that’s all I can manage. I feel so so judged because I’m on benefits- everyone seems to think because you’re receiving help you “don’t want to work” and are lazy. When for SOME of us it’s genuinely not the case! My children will likely never work and need me to care for them for life, who’s also going to look after them when I die? We shouldn’t be living on the breadline because of these circumstances? And a MP can claim £50 for BREAKFAST? It’s so wrong in this country
yes people DO take the P but not all of us do and the minute benefits are mentioned people get their backs up because they believe the stereotype. In reality I’m a knackered single parent doing everything I can to better our life, and now with UC I can’t even save for nice things because they can have access to bank accounts and reduce my UC because I’ve saved x amount for a once in a lifetime trip for example which my kids do deserve? Why are they less deserving because we get government help? When I DO work?? It’s all wrong

How are you actually going to achieve that?? How are you going to change the tax/accounting laws of other countries over which we have no control. Putting more taxes in the UK would mean firms would just move abroad, the London Stock Exchange would collapse as the firms listed on it (and all the hedge funds, pensions, etc based on it) would just move en-bloc somewhere else where taxes etc were lower. We're not China nor North Korea - rich people and international firms are free to set up and move to whatever country they want to move to and pay the tax rates in that country.

It's why lots of international firms set up their European head quarters in Ireland. It's why a lot of trust funds and businesses etc are based in the Isle of Man.

Come back to us when you find a workable way of getting the entire Western World to agree on the same tax rules/rates!

It's exactly why we've had a movement over from direct taxes (income tax, corporation tax) over to indirect taxes (VAT, employers NIC, fuel duty, alcohol duty, air duty, insurance duty, etc), over the past 30 years as they're harder to avoid as they're "local" taxes, i.e. paid on sales in the country the sales are made and paid by employers in the country where their workers are based.

We already have transfer pricing laws/treaties between lots of different countries in an attempt to get huge international firms to pay a fair share of tax on profits in each country where they trade, but it's a long protracted job and it's been ongoing for decades.

You don’t seem to know much about finance. Just think about how much tax financial services bring to the exchequer every year. And just think how quickly that will evaporate should we bring in a financial transaction tax. I’d give it a fortnight. Jeez. Of all of the woefully naive comments I’ve heard on these boards….

Try learning about how we tax and spend in this country. Try looking at the IFS, or even better read their Directors Paul Johnson’s best selling and much lauded book on this ‘Follow the Money. We all want better public services, but it’s you and me and all the other average joes in this country that aren’t paying nearly enough income tax. We want Western European public services while paying US income tax levels and it will never add up.

I have always had a full time job, not min wage but not megabucks, husband same. Our child wore hand me downs, and second hand bundles from eBay. Benefits should only cater for basic needs as a safety net and no more than that. No one should starve, but luxuries ARE a privilege not a given. Period.

Am I missing something?

Why would anyone bother to work if State paid them to have a great quality of life while doing nothing?

If noone bothered to work, who would pay for all these fantastic lifestyles?

You still get state pension if you've never paid a penny in NIC but have accumulated enough "credits" by virtue of wages under the threshold, caring, unemployment, etc. So you really don't have to have "paid in" to get them, hence why it's just a benefit. Likewise you now get the same state pension whether you've paid £50 NIC per year or £5,000 per year. Even government official figures include it as a state benefit.

Why did you edit your response from "Duh"?

Sorry, what does "duh" mean? Why so rude?

Same should be said for people who go out to work and slog their guts.

It’s a generous use of entitlement? OP complaining about shabby degraded lives. Having access to a new car every 3 years is not breadline. Maintenance, insurance all sorted. It’s not a degradation.

My point is, OP has no idea.

How about these stats, which I read this morning?

Adjusted for inflation, in 2010 Britain spent £13 billion managing a group of 120,000 troubled families, or almost £110,000 per household. That same year one single family ... was consuming the total tax contributions – income tax, national insurance, VAT, the lot – of eight average households in housing benefits alone.
...
If you work in London and can’t afford the rent, you move further out. But if you’re workless, you might end up with the state paying for your home: almost 60 per cent of the capital’s social rented households have no adults in work. Their presence in the capital blocks up homes that could otherwise house productive workers
...
This system, however, is running out of room. After accounting for all the services they receive, the top 20 per cent of households are £32,000 out of pocket each year. The next 20 per cent, almost £6,000.

I cannot see where these stats come from, not one specific report, but this situation is not sustainable forever.

Feel free to explain it all to me. Are you from one the countries I mentioned? I lived in the region but I’m sure you understand it all so much better than I do.

They have a motability car (not a Tesla). A view could be they get a generous amount. The car is a very generous benefit

The motability car is not an extra "benefit". It is leased by paying the mobility component of PIP to motability. The car is never owned by the disabled person.

I mentioned earlier, I support a disabled person with some financial admin. I am not paid to do this. This person is not “breadline” - so I think OP doesn’t really live this. In fact - her “emotive” breadline word is ridiculous in this context.

The person I know is not humiliated, or any other the words OP used in her rant to say the “system” is degrading. This person gets what they need, there is enough financial support. They have a motability car (not a Tesla). A view could be they get a generous amount. The car is a very generous benefit.

Will this person’s entitlement be cut back, or grow more slowly? Possibly, they will be ok if the cut is small. Everyone is feels the austerity … let’s just see what actually happens before we lose the plot on MN.