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

I do think unemployment benefits should work as they do in some other countries, where you get a percentage amount of your former pay for several months before it drops to a smaller percentage, then later to "basic".

I think it's unfair that someone who has always worked and lost their job through no fault of their own, gets the same very low amount, as someone who has never worked. Obviously disability is a different factor.

I also think it would incentivise more people to work. Many will say they either don't want to work, or turn down more hours as it would mess up their benefits. But if you knew that every hour you worked was building your own safety net, it would be a good motivator. I think the money paid out would be saved by more people working.

You don’t get to say this without saying where the funding comes from or where it is cut from. There is only a certain amount of money coming into the country.

I feel like if you live working hard you should not live on the bread line. I know the feeling. But people who work support people who live on the state.

Most people claiming benefits do have a great quality of life, especially when you compare them to the rest of the world's population.

Where’s the incentive to work? I’m sure many people would rather not and who is going to fund that if you can have a great quality of life without working

I agree that if you arenunable to work due to illness or disability, then yes, you should be able to liveca great life.
But if you are claiming due to unemployment, the no, otherwise there is no incentive to work.

I don’t think “the highest quality of life” is reasonable or even realistic.

No, it shouldn’t be “the breadline” but there’s a gulf between those two situations. People should get enough to live and see them through to getting a new job - if we’re talking unemployment type benefits.

Benefits based on disability etc obviously need to be more.

What if you genuinely can't work such as disability or long term illness? This removes the incentivisation element as it would make no difference to people who genuinely can't work.

I see what you're saying op and agree in principle for people who genuinely can't work.

I don't agree for people who can't or won't find work, obviously.

So people who cannot work get a higher quality of life than people who can work, but cannot earn more than minimum wage. I’m not sure there’s much logic to that tbh. If you have a serious enough illness /disability that you cannot work then that’s better than having a milder illness/disability that limits your work?

OK this one pisses me off.

I had to stop working due to ill health. Because I did the 'right thing' and paid in to a workplace pension I was able to get an ill health pension.

UC takes of £1 for every £1 I get in my pension.

You might think that is fair enough, but if I was able to work and earn the same amount they would only take 50%.

Oh fantastic OP, wonderfully philanthropic of you. However, where is this non breadline lifestyle funding coming from? I’m all for helping the vulnerable, but people who work don’t want to live on the breadline either, whilst having any sense of aspiration and hope for the future stripped away. Makes no sense at all, and would actually be really regressive. It’s a no from me.

@op where are you?

This is it. The whole economy is out of whack.

Everyone deserves to have their basic needs met. It is a false economy to leave people sick with serious health conditions in housing that they cannot afford to heat.

"Nurses and doctors aren't paid enough"
"Teachers should be paid more for what they do"
"Dental care should be free"
"the state pension should be more"

Perhaps all that stuff is true, but this is also the same question I ask these people when it is brought up - almost like they've had an idea, but then never thought to look further into the logistics.

Raising everyones taxes is the obvious answer, i don't know enough about government finances and schemes to know if there's even other ways to provide that kind of care.

No. I don’t think it would encourage striving for self suffiency. Only the most vulnerable should be supported by society. Most people could do at least something either to support themselves partially or contribute to their community.

Having said that I appreciate that costs are so high now that essential minimum wage jobs are not able to provide a life. I think that one minimum wage job should be able to provide basic housing, food and bills for a family of four - one SAHP and one working. I do mean basic - second hand things, food cooked at home, take packed lunches on days out etc. It has mucked everything up that wage top ups are needed for a basic lifestyle because wages haven’t gone up. I think benefits should be able to provide the same sort of life - the difference being that the worker can upskill and the second parent can go to work once kids in school. I do appreciate this means a lot of mind shifting not least in employers being more flexible and offering school hours etc.

It would not encourage people to work hard if an amazing life could be had on purely benefits. Charities are available to provide nice experiences for people who are disabled or long term sick and I do think more funds should be allocated to those people and families.

I hate to break it to you but the majority of working people don't have the "highest quality of life".

And secondly, what would the incentive to work be if you could just have the highest quality of life without working, commuting, student debt, childcare fees?

And thirdly, how would it be paid for?

I think a lot of people want an uncomfortable level of support with the intention of incentivising people back into work. The problem with that is some people cannot work so really you are just keeping them uncomfortable for life.

Yes but then we need a completely different approach to benefits. Where my parents live, unemployment benefits are only paid for 6 months. You then can't apply again for a number of years. The benefit amount is decent but there is always end in sight. (I am taking about unemployment without a genuine medical reason, of course). You also then don't get state medical coverage which is less ideal, in my opinion but it is what it is.
I wouldn't be surprised in Nordic Countries have the same approach but I don't know for sure.

and if you can't work?

I think you should be given a high , highest quality of life by the govt if you genuinely for whatever reason need it.

What reasons would you consider come under the umbrella of genuinely needing it? Because I think that's where you'll get the most disagreement between people around what "qualifies".

The issue is when those on benefits have a higher income and better quality of life than those working.

if I’m working 40 hours a week for an average quality of life, and those on benefits are living at, to quote the o/p “the highest” quality of life, then what’s the point of working?

there’s no point going to university and getting into debt when you can sit on benefits for a great quality of life.

someone has to be on that lowest rung. Why should it be those who work?

Assuming this is legit 🤨

I’m interested what is your reasoning / justification for giving people (who are not contributing) a better lifestyle than many people who do work.

because the reality is it’s not “the government” paying this…it’s other workers paying tax that provide these handouts / “benefits”.

And it is being funded by a large class of people who themselves can’t afford to buy decent food and high quality meat, who can’t afford to set the thermostat is 21 degrees, who can’t afford a summer holiday abroad.

why do you think it’s right they financial provide for others (who in many cases are just not willing to work) to have a better standard of living than they themselves can achieve?

why would anyone spend 40-60 hrs a week working?

So you think the people who pay into the system but live on the breadline, should be worse off than those who receive their money?

What incentive does that give people to work?

There is no money for this. The welfare bill is rising astronomically. The country cannot afford to have so many unproductive workers.
There is always a poster who suggests airily that 'rich' people and businesses are taxed more highly. if the UK taxes too heavily rich people move elsewhere and businesses move overseas.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/27/entrepreneurs-prepare-quit-britain-ahead-budget-tax-raid/
THE UK is so much more generous than the USA in terms of maternity benefits, sick leave and unemployment benefits.
With Trump and Republicans in power our bill for Defence is going to rise significantly. There are so many calls on the public purse. Some LA's fear bankruptcy because of the huge and steadily increasing welfare costs. Schools are struggling for money. The NHS is struggling for money.
Labour hopes to improve conditions for working people. Even Labour has had to do an about turn on welfare bills.
Things are going to get much tougher. There is less and less money available for really worthy areas. Education and the NHS being significant needs

Ideally;
People who cannot work / have come to retirement age should indeed have a good quality of life.
That would need defining though and is very subjective.
People out of work need to be supported as a safety net in between jobs
People in full time work should not need to have their wages topped up by benefits
People in f/t work should be able to enjoy housing security, a decent quality of life and equal opportunity prospects for their children.

The whole economy seems out of whack.