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

when I was a single parent I had more than enough money to live on,until the benefit cap came in of course,I haven’t received benefits for years now though.

I asked a direct question which you won’t engage with / have a healthy conversation about?

to recap: why do you think people who don’t work have more than many of those that do?

if unemployed people have better lifestyles than employed people what is the incentive to work?

I’d love to see the economics on this.
if you give someone on a lower income money they spend it, higher income saves it. Which is why trickle down economics doesn’t work well.
When that money is spent it creates jobs in service and manufacturing. So boosts the economy that way, with more employed more taxes coming in.

it does need to be paid for initially

I've read most of this thread because I thought it was in interesting take but what on earth does this all mean OP? I why bring Lush into it?

I think before the benefits system can be properly reformed, we need to reform structures around it.

2 years paid further education, be this university or a proper apprenticeship where you‘re then ready to go into a job or become self-employed. It would make education more accessible for poorer members of society, who so often just go straight into a minimum wage job without a progression structure on leaving school. On a three year degree course, I‘d charge for the first year and have the final 2 paid.Money would come primarily from employers, who then take on the graduates for a minimum of five years after, with a pot available for small business owners to subsidise their involvement in the system. Learners can claim their 2 years at any age - if they’re not ready when leaving school, they can do minimum wage until they are.

I‘d also implement proper, comprehensive careers advice at school, with a roadmap made for every pupil before choosing subjects and again before leaving.

I‘d also ensure the UK had more manufacturing companies. They ‚create value‘ in a financial sense much more than anything in the service industry and with a higher manufacturing percentage, the economy becomes better able to financially support the service industry both through the sales tax and the income tax generated from the manufacturers.

A manufacturing job can also better accommodate school hours through a shift system and no customer contact.

And no zero-hours contracts outside of an extremely limited range of industries/ a restricted percentage of a company’s staff.

I‘d increase NHS contributions to raise their funding so that illnesses can be treated before they become chronic and rehabilitating.

I‘d also like to somehow incentivise flexible working and job shares. As a student over 20 years ago, I suggested to a large supermarket where I worked in the holidays that I buddy up with a young parent. She gets to stay home during school holidays and I get to work during the holidays. It was too alien and complicated a concept for them to implement.

We‘d need to do something about property rental, too, maybe a maximum rent amount per area

However, once we’ve made employment more accessible to all through security, flexibility, financially healthy companies, good education and good company progression structures, we would have a good basis to sort out the benefits system. And probably less need of it.

I don't disagree and if anyone can find a socialist system that works then I'm all for it. But we live in a greedy world motivated by profit which in turn creates a huge wage gap between rich and poor and a growing disincentive to work. And so the cycle continues....The focus needs to be on ensuring that those on minimum wage have a good standard of living and that there is further incentive in salary to progress and work hard. Sadly there will always be a minority that are happy to do nothing and take benefits and it's very sad when people who genuinely need that cushion are judged on their behalf.

It goes without saying that in a properly run left wing society of any stripe, those who do contribute (work, if you like) are guaranteed at least the same standard of living as those who do not.

The difference is that if you are able to contribute, it is society's job to provide you a way in which to contribute. If you refuse that, rather than are unable to do it, then you get nothing.

You need to revisit what a socialist is, because you aren't one.

Please detail how you would fund this?

If the answer is “tax the rich” then please define what constitutes “the rich” and how much more you’d intend to tax them…

I get what you mean op. My sibling is severely mentally and physically disabled. They can’t talk, hear, see, walk or communicate in any way. Completely unable to work obviously. They get highest rate of all benefits available to them. In the past month, their rent and care at home charges have increased over £400 per month. But with no benefit increase. They were just scraping by before hand, now I have to buy all their food as they simple cannot afford it. Their (partially) funded respite has also been stopped 2 years ago. I do wonder what people do who don’t have families to help them.

I agree wholeheartedly. However many do if they claim all their entitlements and many don't. I'm a pensioner and am not entitled to extras but if I was, I would have no hesitation in claiming.

We pay tax to enable the welfare state which exists for those who do not have enough income. I am glad my bit of tax helps others. I had a lovely cousin who died last year and she was chronically sick. However she was able to live a very good life because of the welfare state, was not on the breadline, could pay her bills and eat well, was independent. That is how it should be.

Any of us could need a helping hand, I am glad the safety net is there.

This country is full of piss takers who already take advantage of the system where they can.

Whilst people should not be on the breadline for any reason, those that take but don't need are why people who need are always left behind.

There are benefits for different reasons.

I think that if people are disabled and completley unable to work, the aim should be for better than breadline as they can't upskilks, trai, or do overtime, or even do some of the cost cutting measures available to others.

OP you said people should start a different thread for discussion of living wage but it's all connected. Of course there are people who genuinely can't work and I do agree that they should be able to live comfortably but when we have millions of people not working due to "anxiety" and not being pro-active in solving their issues and millions of people working 50/60 hour weeks with no ability to save, have holidays and using food banks, we simply can't do as you propose.

I am on benefits and don't live on the breadline. I'm a carer for my 2 high needs autistic children and working isn't an option.

It should be a decent standard of living.

If you want a “great” standard of living work for it and make sensible lifestyle decisions.

Stop slagging off people who pay for you to live your lifestyle.

Absolutely not.

If you’re giving a great quality of life on benefits, where’s the incentive to work?

Workers should never be worse off than those who do not.

I work sundays. Friday is my day off.

i work. Full time. I can’t afford to run a car. If I take time off for appointment I lose money. My kids clothes tend to come off eBay. I haven’t bought myself clothes in years.

I use my heating minimally to save money.

i am housed but costs have gone up astronomically in the last year with mortgage rates, so it eats into a massive chunk of my salary.

no one is arguing benefits shouldn’t be more than just survivable. But they shouldn’t be better than someone working full time. Caveat: that’s for someone who can work.

your disability is a drip feed. That’s a different kettle of fish. If you can’t work that’s not the same as someone who can, but doesn’t bother because benefits pay better than someone working like me.

Clearly you didn’t read it before you posted!

I mean then work PT or something? Like it'll be better than 0 work at all.

Would you like me to forward you a copy of my medical records? My husband cares for our children, whilst working full time. I'm currently in bed waiting for his lunch break so he can help me get washed and dressed. Being able to type a paragraph today doesn't mean I'm able to hold down a job. Do you know of a position where I can work when I may have an hour I'm capable of typing but I can't give you any indication when it may be? If so, please send me the details.

Perhaps I should add that I'm a qualified nurse and worked for 15 years previously. I'm not convinced you'd want me issuing medications to one of your relatives just because I'm capable of typing. But thank you for your input nonetheless.

But people are responding with their views.

On another thread you’re asking where you can book a holiday for £5k. Is this the type of support that you want taxpayers to pay?