If you could decide how much people get in benefits

[OneLemonOrca]

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”.

Yep my husband got a backpay. It wiped the UC out unfortunately!

I think everyone should be entitled to three years benefits, equivalent to whatever the average salary is at the time they choose to take those benefits.

So, each person has three years of access to benefits, but only three years. There would be no checks or criteria for when this money was taken. The claimant could take it while they were working, studying or unemployed.

This means that you have a finite, but reasonable access to benefits. The time limit would be your incentive to get a job, study, get qualified, start a business, whatever.

If you used up all your benefits, you get nothing else. But you would have had three years to sort yourself out, so it would be your own fault.

Those on longterm sickness would continue to be assessed as they are now.

Universal basic income wouldn't work in UK. Some parents would spend it all on drink and drugs (ex dp) while their children went hungry.

@hereyoume - so what happens if someone takes their 3 years of benefits when they are in their 20's and then they cant get a job later in life? You make them homeless and let them beg on the street? I'm all for people looking after themselves but this does seem a bit harsh even to me. Sorry i cant see this working in a civilized society

Actually maternity leave isn’t shit, you make choices to have children, knowing that there is always a cost to be borne, but you still need to support yourself and your family

They took maintenance out of the equation because too many men just stopped paying it or fiddled their self employment to keep it at the bare minimum. Nobody can rely on maintenance. I've fought for a decade to get reasonable maintenance for my disabled child. I could never have relied on it and even now when I am actually in receipt of it, I am still scraping by.

That's probably a good idea in a way. One of the problems with the UK benefit system is that there is no meaningful help for people who earn more.

So if one half of a couple loses their job, they're expected to manage on a single wage or have savings or very expensive insurance to cover the loss of income and often won't be able to meet their outgoings.

In some other countries, someone who loses their job might receive 80% of their typical earnings, for a six month period.

I can’t think of any way this country could finance a universal basic income. The main issue with our system is the number of working age adults who are net recipients. I just don’t see how that is sustainable. It means that too many people are at the mercy of the whims of the state and what happens when the state can no longer afford to prop up those people? I also get annoyed that people don’t take responsibility for their life decisions because someone else will pay for them. I do think the cost of housing is also a huge problem but there doesn’t seem to be much will to change that.

@Luio but that is partly the fault of low wages and greedy companies. For my role, for my level of education, I would be earning way more in Australia, Dubai, America. But here I'm on 30K.

UBI is unaffordable. I do not know why it’s proponents don’t grasp this basic fact

Currently the costs of benefits is £265.5bn on paying pensions and benefits, just over half of which (£134.8bn) goes on benefits to pensioners.

To give UBI of £11,400 which is half of minimum wage would cost £667.5 billion.

It’s nonsense

I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea but just wondering how it would work in practice? If everyone r got a basic amount to cover housing.
For example? I can foresee that some LL would just up their prices so you would be required to pay over that amount to afford the rent. Many unscrupulous people would still take from the poorest in society.

Yes.

They should manage their access to the money.

If they spend it all, they get nothing. Being homeless would a consequence of not managing their money responsibly.

I actually believe that you should have to have been born in this country to be able to receive any type of housing or benefit.

Yes.

They should manage their access to the money.

If they spend it all, they get nothing. Being homeless would a consequence of not managing their money responsibly.

That's not legal.

This won’t work for people with complex needs (certain disabilities, complex diseases etc) which come with a greater financial burden. But I understand why the concept is appealing (at least in theory).

And it also absolves certain employers and others opposing the concept of an actual living wage seeing as many people will simply consider their wage a “supplementary” income…

And those that have been working and paying taxes in this country for the last 30 years? Those that have lived in this country since the age of five?

@WitchyBits

so Pele can purchase their own land and build an environmentally friendly small house/

That made me laugh. Great typo🤣🤣

My DP was born abroad to British parents who brought him back when he was a toddler; would he count?

@Sdpbody jog on racist

I don’t think it’s racist as such because it would apply to other white countries as well, but it’s just unenforceable and wrong. I would much sooner somebody born abroad who has paid taxes here for 20 years and falls on hard times receives benefits than Wayne who is British’n’proud and hasn’t done a days work in his life because he’s depressed and selling weed on the side

So an immigrant that has paid £££ into the system in tax and suddenly becomes disabled or unemployed through no fault of their own should not be eligible for any support, but someone who was born in this country and has contributed next to nothing should? Please explain your rationale for this.

I can't understand anyone having an issue with parents of disabled children getting benefits, that's awful, of course they should get a decent amount of benefits.

However I do think that people who choose not to work should get vouchers/bills paid directly where possible, then an amount of benefits to cover other things. If people are genuinely in need then this shouldn't be an issue.

@Sdpbody so a pregnant lady from Mongolia gives birth here and her child is automatically a full British citizen with right of abode, education, health and passport? I think that was pre 1984 UK. What about a pregnant British lady who gives birth while overseas? Is the baby allowed back home with its Mum? Is it allowed to go to school here and receive health/welfare support?

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through.

I think vouchers are a crap and unworkable idea. We really don’t need a second currency.

i don’t know on benefits but I’d rather see more provided by the state - free breakfast and lunch for all school pupils, very low cost childcare, much more social housing which should phase out the ridiculous cost of housing which drives lots of our problems. Better security for private renters. More social care provision. More NHS provision. More investment in public transport. Basically I’d like higher taxes and more Nordic style services. Which would support everyone