Scrap Benefits and pay every adult, working, non working or retired, an unconditional basic income of £15,000 a year? Discuss

Because you implied initially that these women were 'on benefits' now most people will take that as meaning living off benefits not working and having your income topped up.

Working part time and claiming tax credits is not the same as simply being 'on benefits'

I know how the system works so the links are not necessary.

This is not a made up story. Nor am I changing it as I go along. Show me where I said that they were both 100% benefit dependant. Why is it so bloody difficult for you to understand that, due to claiming housing benefit, she no longer needs to pay that out of her earned income? Add to this that she is also now entitled to benefits which she wasn't claiming earlier - I'm no expert on the welfare system but I believe her when she tells me she has more money now than she did when working full time and I can see no reason for her to mislead me.

Similarly, and as convenient as it is for you to ignore, niceguy2 provided you with some direct evidence (with links) that it is possible to have a child, reduce your hours and end up with more money (as well as outlining a similar situation to that which I've been describing) yet you chose to refute all this. Why?

I'm not splitting hairs I'm picking out the holes in your made up story.

Statutory maternity pay paid by your employer is more than what you'd get on benefits.

Maternity allowance paid by the gov can nbe more than you'd get as a single parent on benefit.

I don't care what scenario niceguy linked to. That is not what you are talking about.

You said these two women were on benefits now you've changed it to fit your made up story.

Since when did maternity allowance stop being a benefit?

Split hairs as much as you like but she has more money now than she did before. The model that niceguy2 links to from their post at 16:08 earlier today proves this scenario can happen. End of!

Back to the original point, what do people think about the idea of a universal credit whereby people are put in charge of their own welfare?

So if on maternity leave she wouldve been getting maternity allowance not income support? So not on benefit?

I first met her when she was on maternity leave, since then she has gone back to working a three day week. In both scenarios she was better off after having had a child.

Mrjudgy are you making this up as you go along?!

This is what you said upthread;

One of the girls was shocked at the level of benefit she was entitled to, got herself a nice flat, paid for entirely with HB, and told me in her own words that she was better off on benefit than she was when she was working by quite a margin

You said she was on benefit not working and now you say she works 3 days a week-thats a totally different scenario!

Make your mind up!

Couthy. The answer cannot simply be to further subsidise whatever you feel is a noble cause.

Of course you can. Better to subsidise noble causes than tax-avoiding corporations, racketeering banks, and the military.

Regardless of whether or not it is. Subsidies rarely work and they simply skew the market.

It's like it's 1985 all over again.

Just go to Turn2us and model some scenarios.

Try a lone parent say with 2 kids with no job.

Then try the same again with a part time job.

It's not hard to do and I must admit I was shocked when I first did this. It's not an insignificant amount at all.

Being a lone parent is an incredibly hard job, full of compromises and top of the list is the reality that you must do what you can, not what you should. The state offers a certain level of support which personally I think is very generous. As it happens it's unsustainable so we go right back to the beginning. If we protect lone parents from cuts, who takes the deeper cuts?

Still not buying it. However, I don't really take seriously anything that anybody says conversationally about their financial affairs. I like to see the figures.

Merrymouse Sorry to go on about this but you are wrong on this point. Of the two girls I spoke to, both are perfectly numerate. Of the two children, the eldest of them will be four in a few months so if the Mother is poorer than before, I'd expect her to have noticed by now. She's the self employed one and has gone from working a 5 day week to working 2 days per week and is now better off than before - presumably after tax credits, or whatever she is entitled to, are taken into account.

Similarly the other girl, a shop worker, now works three days a week instead of five and is better off by a bigger margin mainly due to being in reciept of HB which entirely covers her rent - beforehand, she paid this herself.

We can argue this until the cows come home but I know that both of them are better off now than before they had kids.

That would be nice mrjudgy lord knows I'd need it as I'd be very much worse off un the £15k!

Niceguy tbh uit won't look anything in practice as it will never happen!

Easier to focus on the single parents as its not so easy for us to disappear with kids in tow!

Much more should be done to make NRPs who don't pay pay

On that point we both agree. We just differ in how that would look in practice.

merrymouse Are you saying that they are both so financially innumerate as to not know when they have more money in their pockets after buying all of their necessities?

Yes, because

1. Many people are that financially innumerate
2. Many people don't understand how their financial needs will change over time and confuse having ready funds now with being able to meet long term financial commitments
3. One of them has run her own business FFS! Plenty of people with their own businesses are very good at thinking that 2+2=5, at all levels of society.

and

4. What Amberleaf said about the paper round.

AmberLeaf "Much more should be done to make NRPs who don't pay pay"

You could arrange to have money docked from their Universal Allowance and immediately handed over to you for your child under my system. Also, if you are concerned about people being labelled as scroungers, under my system everyone would be paid the same - there would be no scroungers.

niuceguy2 "the principle is sound but would only work based on the assumption that everyone...manages their money sensibly. Let's assume for a moment a parent doesn't. He/she goes out, spends their pot on fags & booze. Then there's nothing left to feed the kids."

This happens under the current welfare system though (parents pissing benefit money up the wall to the detriment of their children - AGAIN, IT'S ONLY A MINORITY WHO DO THIS BEFORE ANYONE HAS ANOTHER BRAINFART) and we have Social Services to pick up the pieces - I don't see that as an argument for dismissing this system.

Amber, nobody is beating single parents with the scrounger stick

Really? I think they are. When you make getting single parents back to work regardless of the difficulties that presents and penalise them financialy if they fail yet errant fathers are allowed to just 'be' then yes you are beating them with the scrounger stick. You are demonising the parent that is being a parent and allowing the true feckless parent to get off scot free.

50/50 shared care/parenting will only ever happen in the minority of cases. This is not simply due to 'courts favouring mums/women' its because not that many men/dads actually want it.

Much more should be done to make NRPs who don't pay pay

Amber, nobody is beating single parents with the scrounger stick.

In principle you are correct, childcare should be 50-50. But then if we're talking principles then every child should be able to split their time 50-50 between parents and every cost/benefit should also be shared equally.

As I said to you in a previous post, family breakups are complex issues and ideas which you think are 'fair' are all to often unfair to too many people. The world isn't black & white and that's why the law all to often fails. We're trying to apply the law which is colour blind in a world which has many shades of grey.

@Judgey. Again the principle is sound but would only work based on the assumption that everyone has equal luck and manages their money sensibly. Let's assume for a moment a parent doesn't. He/she goes out, spends their pot on fags & booze. Then there's nothing left to feed the kids. Do we just let them starve?

Are you seriously suggesting it's fair (let alone realistic) that a dad who has regular contact is somehow compelled to pay maintenance & additional childcare to the ex whilst she also gets all the benefits whilst he gets none?

The ex(mother) wouldn't need all those extra benefits if she was in a position to earn in the same way as the father is.

If he contributed towards the childcare instead of it being left to the mum or her tax credits eligability then she could earn more and need less support anyway.

So he has 'regular' contact? Whoopdidoo does he want a medal for that? And of course you know that most NRPs don't in fact pay maintenance at all (was it you that I discussed that with recently?) Only 38% I think do and that includes the £5 a week jsa ones.

So actually yes I do think its fair that childcare should be a 50/50 thing and yes NRPs should be compelled to pay, but just like child maintence it won't happen and most RPs will be left to do it all themselves or the welfare state has to do it.

Deal with useless errant fathers and stop beating single parents with the scrounger stick.

merrymouse Are you saying that they are both so financially innumerate as to not know when they have more money in their pockets after buying all of their necessities? One of them has run her own business FFS!

In their specific circumstances they are both better off than they were before their children were born. Niceguy2 confirms this sort of thing can happen. I?m not making this up!

Unfortunately, this thread has gone off on a tangent ? the original point I made, that pre-empted the tangent, was that individuals should be put in charge of their own welfare through a universally granted pot which is given to every adult in the country regardless of circumstance. This pot would be made up from redistributing the current welfare bill (with extra provision for the disabled and pensioners). Over time, (i.e. when people have had adequate time to adjust their affairs to suit the system ? at least 30 years or so) the state pension could be gradually withdrawn.

This system would give us a privately administered pot which can be borrowed against in times of difficulty and saved up in times of plenty. As, over time, there is no incentive to maximise your claim, nor is there a benefit ?penalty? should you return to work, I believe this simple and cheap to administer system would radically alter all our lives by extending credit to the poorest (given suitable checks and balances), solve the pensions crisis, enable more people to go to university and reduce worklessness.

What does everyone else think of this idea in principle?

Amber. Yes, that is one of the big downsides for being a resident parent. Are you seriously suggesting it's fair (let alone realistic) that a dad who has regular contact is somehow compelled to pay maintenance & additional childcare to the ex whilst she also gets all the benefits whilst he gets none?

If you want to explore that route then I'd suggest a 50-50 split on everything is fairer. That means tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit, the lot.

The NRP is not just some walking wallet.

I know of two people who beg to differ

Well unless their job prior to having a child was a paper round then I'm sorry but I don't believe it.

Life on benefits doesn't give you a disposable income.

And just where does this money magic itself from? I mean in your case you'd be entitled to 25% of your ex's net income for four kids and in addition you want 50% of childcare for all 4 kids as well? Just where would he get this money from Now I don't know, maybe your ex is some secret millionaire who could afford all that. Most people could not

Hah! But yet she is expected to find it? Or adjust/limit her working hours accordingly?

That's the point of why its unfair, its solely down to the mother to sort/fund childcare while the father doesn't have that to worry about so is able to work any hours without having to worry about who's gonna pick up the kids.

Oh and just to add to MrJudgey's experiences. I have a close friend who split up from her husband a couple of years back. Both lovely, just unsuited to each other.

When they were together he worked full time, she worked part time. Between them they struggled for every penny. Now they've split up, she's far better off on tax credits. I know this for a fact because I helped her work out her budget. By FAR better off. All whilst working part time. In fact, she'd be entitled to housing benefit too if she wanted to but she's decided that she'd rather stay in the marital home and took over the mortgage. How did she afford that? Well she found a mortgage company willing to take tax credits into account.

I'm sure now many people will now accuse me of lying again and making it all up. But I'm not. And the reality is that we all know people who are better off on benefits.

Couthy. The answer cannot simply be to further subsidise whatever you feel is a noble cause. Regardless of whether or not it is. Subsidies rarely work and they simply skew the market.

As for making father's liable for 50% of the childcare costs, it's both unrealistic and unfair. Unrealistic because how do you collect the money? The CSA can barely collect maintenance let alone an additional burden. (I assume you mean you'd like to see childcare in addition to maintenance yes? Rather than in lieu of)

Secondly it's unfair to give father's 50% of the childcare especially if they have had no choice in choosing the place nor agreed to the costs.

And just where does this money magic itself from? I mean in your case you'd be entitled to 25% of your ex's net income for four kids and in addition you want 50% of childcare for all 4 kids as well? Just where would he get this money from? Now I don't know, maybe your ex is some secret millionaire who could afford all that. Most people could not.

MrJudgeyPants

Is it possible that these two women aren't very good at maths and are perhaps underestimating the full cost of having a child and are in for a nasty shock at some point in the future?