Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

If you could decide how much people get in benefits

507 replies

OneLemonOrca · 09/05/2024 22:53

There are benefit bashing threads being posted often, with complaints that certain people on benefits can afford a better lifestyle than them when they work, and that it is being made into a life style choice?
So if you could decide, I am just wondering how much you think benefit claimants should receive in certain circumstances or what their money should or shouldn’t be able to pay for, to get a general idea of what mumsnet thinks is “right”.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
uncomfortablydumb53 · 09/05/2024 22:55

Are you in receipt of benefits yourself?

Original poster
OneLemonOrca · 09/05/2024 22:57

uncomfortablydumb53 · 09/05/2024 22:55

Are you in receipt of benefits yourself?

Yes why

OP posts:
Backinthedress · 09/05/2024 22:58

I think there should be a universal basic income, calculated to cover the cost of living. Actually living. Not the minimum wage crap we have now. People can then top this up with salary or wages. This blanket income benefit would reduce the cost of administration massively and save all this quibbling because everybody would get it from the age of 18 (or whatever was decided) and there would be no unfairness.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Benefits
Overthebow · 09/05/2024 22:59

I think benefits should be a safety net only, so you get help if you lose your job, or are genuinely too sick to work. It shouldn’t be an option to be a sahm or work part time and get benefits. If that was what benefits were, I would support them being a decent amount, especially for those who are too disabled to work.

AppleKatie · 09/05/2024 22:59

Enough to live a comfortable life above the poverty line. Enough for safe, clean, dry housing, warmth, adequate clothing, good nutrition and occasional treats.

AppleKatie · 09/05/2024 23:00

Backinthedress · 09/05/2024 22:58

I think there should be a universal basic income, calculated to cover the cost of living. Actually living. Not the minimum wage crap we have now. People can then top this up with salary or wages. This blanket income benefit would reduce the cost of administration massively and save all this quibbling because everybody would get it from the age of 18 (or whatever was decided) and there would be no unfairness.

Oh yes, this. I want this please.

DrJonesIpresume · 09/05/2024 23:00

I don't know enough about it all to have an opinion on the matter. Lots of other people are not quite so reticent when it comes to this topic, so they must have researched the whole thing in considerable depth.

vodkaredbullgirl · 09/05/2024 23:00

According some people on here, you should only get a couple of pounds and sent to the workhouse.

Octomama · 09/05/2024 23:03

The problem is that people can appear to be getting a huge amount in benefits but not actually seeing a large proportion due to housing benefit or childcare costs. It is by no means a generous lifestyle choice when you take these out of the equation.

BettyWont · 09/05/2024 23:04

So if you could decide, I am just wondering how much you think benefit claimants should receive in certain circumstances or what their money should or shouldn’t be able to pay for, to get a general idea of what mumsnet thinks is “right”.

How much do you think benefit claimants should receive in certain circumstances, and what should/shouldn't their money be able to pay for OP?

Rolson77 · 09/05/2024 23:05

Overthebow · 09/05/2024 22:59

I think benefits should be a safety net only, so you get help if you lose your job, or are genuinely too sick to work. It shouldn’t be an option to be a sahm or work part time and get benefits. If that was what benefits were, I would support them being a decent amount, especially for those who are too disabled to work.

What about people who work full time jobs but still can't afford to live?

makeanddo · 09/05/2024 23:06

People who work should get paid a proper salary for a decent lifestyle.

Benefits, unless for disabled people, should be just above poverty line. There should be a clear distinction/advantage between being on benefits and working

Men/parent should have to pay for DC, the state is not a parent. Maintenance should be factored in when receiving benefits.

The state should get on and build housing so the taxpayer isn't paying off landlords mortgages.

YoureStuckOnMeLikeATattoohoohoo · 09/05/2024 23:06

The last couple of weeks on here have opened my eyes to the fact some think we should get vouchers only, or have to litter pick or whatever to 'earn' benefits.

Lots begrudge us parents of disabled children because they see the pound signs and not the 24/7 relentless care.

I never thought I would see the day I was envied for living in council house and claiming benefits.

SharpLily · 09/05/2024 23:07

UBI is the way forward.

Cocopogo · 09/05/2024 23:07

It should be so low that people are forced to work. No one should see it as a long term lifestyle choice.
There should be fruit and veg vouchers, clothing vouchers, utilities etc, rent paid direct rather than money but I guess that’d cost too much to run.
For context I am on benefits, working full time and it is too much money but I don’t drink or smoke etc and no I won’t be giving it back but I do a fair bit for charity.

TheBottomsOfMyTrousersAreRolled · 09/05/2024 23:08

Backinthedress · 09/05/2024 22:58

I think there should be a universal basic income, calculated to cover the cost of living. Actually living. Not the minimum wage crap we have now. People can then top this up with salary or wages. This blanket income benefit would reduce the cost of administration massively and save all this quibbling because everybody would get it from the age of 18 (or whatever was decided) and there would be no unfairness.

I agree with this. Wasnt somewhere in wales trialing a ubi?

failing that, id cap benefits at minimum wage.

Blondeshavemorefun · 09/05/2024 23:08

Octomama · 09/05/2024 23:03

The problem is that people can appear to be getting a huge amount in benefits but not actually seeing a large proportion due to housing benefit or childcare costs. It is by no means a generous lifestyle choice when you take these out of the equation.

They may not see it as such

But means they aren't paying it theirselves out of their wages if they work

LaurieFairyCake · 09/05/2024 23:09

Universal basic income

Moier · 09/05/2024 23:09

Back in the 80s/ 90s when it wasn't UC and was incomme support.. you were given the bare minimum. You could only earn £10 a week on top.. l was earning £15 and they took the extra £5 off me.. l also couldn't keep my child maintenance.. anything paid was taken off my income support.. you were given just enough to live on
. Worked out for me then each of my two daughters . Any housing benefit was paid straight to the landlord.
I worked on school dinners so l got a free lunch.
I remember going without evening meal just to feed my 2 kids. They got used to beans on toast and egg and chips.
I once had to cut up towels to make nappies because I'd run out of them and money.
We all slept in my bed to keep warm when the metre ran out.
It was awful.
Benefits today are much much better.
You can earn more along side UC.
You can keep all child maintenance.

I am now servery disabled after attempted murder on my life and thrown underca moving bus ( ex got jailed) took 16 years for compensation.
I am entitled to full PIP at £730 per month..
Even though l got just over 2 million.. l could still claim it because it's not means tested.. but l don't.. l gave it up when l got my compensation.

L4815162342 · 09/05/2024 23:11

Backinthedress · 09/05/2024 22:58

I think there should be a universal basic income, calculated to cover the cost of living. Actually living. Not the minimum wage crap we have now. People can then top this up with salary or wages. This blanket income benefit would reduce the cost of administration massively and save all this quibbling because everybody would get it from the age of 18 (or whatever was decided) and there would be no unfairness.

This

Delawear · 09/05/2024 23:12

L4815162342 · 09/05/2024 23:11

This

Show quote history

Agreed

JANetChick · 09/05/2024 23:16

I’m another fan of UBI and scrapping benefits. A set amount that everyone aged 18+ simply signs up for via their Personal Tax Account with the gov.

I’d be interested to hear the views of anyone who thinks it’s a bad idea actually.

KnittedCardi · 09/05/2024 23:16

Backinthedress · 09/05/2024 22:58

I think there should be a universal basic income, calculated to cover the cost of living. Actually living. Not the minimum wage crap we have now. People can then top this up with salary or wages. This blanket income benefit would reduce the cost of administration massively and save all this quibbling because everybody would get it from the age of 18 (or whatever was decided) and there would be no unfairness.

Cost of living is different in different parts of the country though, and if everyone gets their costs covered what's the point of going to work?

Original poster
OneLemonOrca · 09/05/2024 23:16

Who actually decided to roll out universal credit and chose the amounts and is there a reason why a universal basic income isn’t a thing?

OP posts:
JustAnotherDayInNorfolk · 09/05/2024 23:21

I think what would make things more palatable was once your benefit income hit the same level that a salaried worker would receive, it should be taxed in the same way.
For those individuals that see benefits as a lifestyle choice the reality of not being able to spend all you receive maybe the wakeup call to change things.
I understand it is not as simple as deducting at source like PAYE, although it should be as all is linked to your NI number, but it is not right that benefits can in some cases provide a superior lifestyle than an individual on NMW.
You do wonder whether a % should be a direct payment and a larger proportion to be paid as a voucher?
Benefit payments should be a temporary measure unless you fit a certain criteria due to ill health. Caring for dependants is a tricky one just because there are so many variables, and you can't enforce a blanket criteria.
It's not an easy problem to solve.