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

@MrsSkylerWhite OP is not making a whole lot of sense.

So many people seem to think their benefit money comes from….well I dunno where from really. The magic money tree? Fortunately the gravy train is hopefully about to stop.

Are you basically saying you want the taxpayer to fund you to the extent/lifestyle you managed before you became disabled? Like a benefits equivalent of a final salary pension?

If so, then no. That's not equitable or practical or affordable or moral.

You've jumped the shark now! How on earth would unemployed and disabled people be able to have a fairly affluent life on benefits if the standard rate of income tax was cut to 7%? There would be no money for benefits, education, the NHS, defence, foreign aid, policing etc.

You have obviously come from a very privileged and wealthy background with little knowledge of how governments work and how other people live. The things you are proposing would sound too juvenile in a 6th form debate.

OP wrote in her opening post: "I have been always lucky enough not to need help from the government." Did you miss this?

Sweden has an interesting unemployment benefit system. You work and you can choose whether to pay into a state run redundancy insurance fund. Most people do. If you are made redundant you get 80% of your previous wage for 2 years. After that nothing. We need more of these sorts of benefits to reward those who are keen to work but are struggling finding any.

Are you seriously suggesting that the state should pay x 5 rent or mortgage ?
This is seriously deluded.

I run my own company and have done for 36 years with all the stress that involves. There have been times that my salary has been x 5 times my mortgage and others when it most definitely has not.

How does a severely disabled person do this pray tell?

And who pays for it?

As a privileged person, you’re not seeing this from the perspective of your average working class person. They and their partner might earn £15k or £20k each, go to work, do all the right things but be really struggling.

Why should someone who doesn’t work take home more than their salary in benefits?

As a better off worker, my DH and I get little state help or childcare assistance - but we pay a shed load of tax. We have to stop at two children because it’s all we can afford. Why should we pay for others who are less responsible to have 4,5 or more children?

The tax take is going down as more people go on benefits and more millionaires leave the country. Our economy is tanking.

Who pays?

The only way to make this happen would be to raise taxes massively and the UK electorate will never vote for a political party that puts significant tax rises for the majority of working people in their manifesto.

Benefits for people with disabilities and health conditions are much more generous than those for people without any health conditions. The basic rate for a single person on UC is very low and doesn't provide any quality of life at all.

Ensuring that wages are higher than most benefits is what most governments do to ensure that there is always an incentive to work rather than claim benefits. Governments want as many tax payers as possible.

something not adding up for me, maybe about your level of need or ability to work. Not an expert, but do see the details for person I provide support.

Sure, my person might “want” different things… but they can only get what they can get.
maybe you also need someone to help you with your finances. Talk to citizens advice for a referral

Trumptonagain · Today 12:08
Reading your other post doesn't your DH help as you're a SAHM?
You say you had a joint income of 130k last year, now you've lost your 24k job but receive a higher amount of PIP so jointly that surely it should still be enough to live on.
You co own 2 properties.
Why haven't you applied for a medical exemption card or at the very least a yearly pre payment one instead of spending £1000 on meds?

So, assuming your husband is still in work, you have an income of £106K and own 2 properties?
What are you actually complaining about?

100% agree.
The problem is not the 'benefits scroungers' (theme started by the Tories, whipped up by the media and about to be given a boost by Labour).

The problem is that most people's standard of living is too low.
My household is currently supported 100% by benefits. I get Carers allowance for my disabled son. It is £81 p/w. I got a letter this moring that it is going up to £83 p/w. He has been in heart failure and I have struggled to afford the heating.
There are other people who are able to work and do, who work hard for long hours and who also struggle to afford the heating/ bus fare/ healthy food etc.

The answer is that we all petition Govt re the things that hold us back. Why does Apple pay no taxes? Why do water Co's reap huge profits whilst charging ever more (& poisoning our rivers into the bargain) etc etc. I am not saying I have all the answers. As a country, we do not have enough money, especially now we need to increase our military. However, what we do have is not shared out well.

I predict this will turn into a benefits-bashing thread.
If anyone would like our 'free' Blue Badge (my council charges for anyway), they are welcome to the lifelong disability that 'earns' it.

On the whole no.

im all for people on benefits (disability benefits are another matter) having enough to cover their rent, council tax, food, utility bills and maybe enough for little day to day expenses we all incur like being able to replace a washing machine etc BUT so should those who are working and single working people without dependents are shafted time and again.

Ive been on benefits myself and it’s not the picnic people think it is but neither is working full time in a minimum wage job trying to survive and getting no help. It’s unfair

Im struggling to work full time due to increasing health problems and I know that I’m not going to survive due to the unfair changes to benefits and PIP. I’m seriously considering getting all my ducks in a row just so I’m not a burden to my family and society

I think the whole system needs reworking from birth upwards from a health perspective.

The vast majority of individuals who are healthy in body and mind want to do some kind of work. If we set about creating a populace that was mentally and physically healthy from birth, the vast majority would become productive citizens who could support the rest, and who didn't need expensive medical interventions throughout their lives.

Including concepts such as 15m cities, regulations on working time to allow time for exercise, ban on UPFs and healthy food available at a decent price.

It's not going to happen, but then neither is OP's solution, which is targeting the effect, not the cause.

So now you've been classed as disabled and claiming PIP visit your GP and ask for the meds to be given via their practice.

So my mortgage is 1200 which means I should be able to receive 6k of state support. Tax free.
I currently earn 48,5k which amounts to about 36k after tax, pension and student loan. Please explain to me why would I not give up my job and get 100% payrise from the state instead?

exactly

I totally agree. I do not understand 'in work benefits' surely this is tax payers topping up wages that companies should be paying?

@confidenceboost Oh dear OP, I assumed you were new to MN when you started a thread about welfare support saying "Can we have a healthy chat"?Threads about benefits always reveal the same thing - people will always punch down rather than up - and that's exactly what the wealthy 1% want us to do. Because when we 99% are pointing our fingers at each other, we aren't pointing our fingers at the 1% (who must really chuckle at our stupidity). I mean, how is it that 40% of people in receipt of Universal Credit are also working? Why aren't UK companies required to pay their workers a liveable wage? Why are all tax-payers subsidising some workers wages because they're so low? How is it that the average UK CEO earns 120 times more than the average worker, when in 2000 it was "just" 60 times? Why are we allowing the rich to get richer when so many people can't even afford to turn on their heating? It's astonishing when you think about it, but we all just put up with it. (We need a revolution, but the British just aren't like that.)
I'm sorry your health has taken a serious downturn and your experience reminds me of some people I've met on a number of occasions. I volunteered for Citizens Advice for 10 years and people, like yourself, would seek advice on their benefit entitlements following their change of circumstance only to be astounded at how little they would get (the "but how can I live on that?!" refrain was frequent). Sadly, they'd all fallen for the Daily Fail lie that benefit "scroungers" are living high on the hog - and it wasn't much fun disavowing them of this belief.

I have to agree.

OP, it doesn't sound like you are a good advocate of people who genuinely struggle living on benefits. Instead, you come across as someone used to a very nice lifestyle and struggling to accept that you gave to lower your standards somehow, although remaining above the average.

The luxury given to people who earn well is insurance. If you want to ensure you keep a good standard of living in case of health issues, you take out insurance when you can afford it. Those who can do so are very fortunate.

The only people who can't work are people suffering from some disabilities that genuinely mean work is totally impossible temporarily or ongoingly, or those with children who need 24 hours care.

Not those with disabilities that make working harder, but not impossible, or who have children with disabilities who are in school or care for 6 hours a day. Of course it makes the management of day to day harder, and you are more limited in terms of the jobs you can do, but that doesn't mean it is impossible and not worth trying.

Of course not. But then number of people that can't ever work at all are a tiny fraction of those on benefits so are kind of incidental to the argument of what is, or isn't affordable.

And as more people quit work and take up this all expenses paid lifetime holiday, the taxation on the ones that can be bothered to work will continue to rise.
Well end up with 100% of the population sat on their backsides.