Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

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

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
Jeezitneverends · 10/05/2024 10:20

ChampagneLassie · 10/05/2024 10:18

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

can you sub “free” with “tax payer funded”.

EVERYTHING has a cost

Getonwitit · 10/05/2024 10:34

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.

Of course you are pet.😆

Welovecrumpets · 10/05/2024 10:35

Jeezitneverends · 10/05/2024 10:20

can you sub “free” with “tax payer funded”.

EVERYTHING has a cost

This is the issue.

I’ve name changed a few times but I’m always met with outrage and accusations of being right wing because I poop the party by reminding everyone that all the very expensive things they feel entitled to as a human right have a cost, and that cost has to be paid by someone.

It’s this denialism and lack of reality, coupled with the flip side which is Tory incompetence and lack of vision, which is holding the country back by preventing any kind of viable future planning.

Literally nobody apart from an arsehole would withhold the standard of living called for on here as a right unless if it was actually possible. But it isn’t - no country has managed it, not even the much covered Scandinavian societies.

Nobody seems to accept that we are constrained by global trends, that things cost money (would you work for free?), and that what seems like the moral right thing is not always sustainable.

Instead we just have howling and demanding of things which are so unattainable it’s almost laughable - for maternity leave to be until kids go to school, benefits which enable the claimants to have holidays and nice things but don’t disincentivise working, healthcare which is funded completely via central taxation but which is also excellent, comprehensive and has tiny waiting lists.

And there’s no acceptance of our part to play in this, no individual responsibility. Our population are (frankly) like children, eating junk, vaping, getting obese, refusing to take the most miniature steps to control their own health issues, popping out children they can’t afford while moaning they don’t have a big enough house or that things are unaffordable while making zero contribution to the common pot.

It’s a shame, with a dose of realism and self awareness we could turn it around but nobody wants to face their own role in this. Instead it’s just blame everyone else

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Riverlee · 10/05/2024 11:01

I do think there needs to be a better education on money management as well. Ie. Teach people how to budget and/or allocate their money. Some people are woefully ignorant on this.

Medschoolmum · 10/05/2024 11:03

Riverlee · 10/05/2024 11:01

I do think there needs to be a better education on money management as well. Ie. Teach people how to budget and/or allocate their money. Some people are woefully ignorant on this.

That is true, but the evidence shows that a growing number of people in debt simply don't have enough income to meet their basic needs. No amount of money management is going to fix a deficit budget.

Jeezitneverends · 10/05/2024 11:03

@Welovecrumpets i agree with every word…personal responsibility doesn’t seem to be a thing these days…my job involves dealing with people who are not having a good time in life, but a lot of these cases involve poor choices and no desire to take responsibility for them…I’m in Scotland, the land of “free” prescriptions and “free” university education, but what people fail to realise is that it’s also the land of a horrendous tax burden on those who don’t earn much more than minimum
wage…we get absolutely hammered for tax…I don’t have an issue with paying my way and paying my share but I’m fed up to the back teeth of paying everyone else’s share too

Bjorkdidit · 10/05/2024 11:03

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that housing, utilities and basic groceries should be paid for before spending on fun stuff. It's just a bit boring to have to make those decisions.

Miley1967 · 10/05/2024 11:11

Fully support decent benefits for disabled and those too unwell to work.
I don't agree with the extremely low earnings thresholds on Universal credit, especially for couples who are only expected to earn 18 x nmw per week each. It's really unfair on lone parents.
I'm amazed that people ahve been allowed to work so few hours for such a long time on tax credits. it has created a culture of dependency that will be very hard for any government to get rid of now as it's so embedded.

buffyslayer · 10/05/2024 11:26

DancingNotDrowning · 10/05/2024 00:35

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

we should force companies to pay more.

its scandalous that for example tesco, one of the U.K.’s biggest employers, have forecast profits of at least £2.8m for this coming year, will pay their CEO £10m yet can’t pay the significant number of their staff (250k) on min wage a living wage, instead having the tax payer subsidise them.

I mean I do agree with that but a note that min wage doesn't mean you get benefits of any kind, my earned income is my income

Riverlee · 10/05/2024 11:53

Bjorkdidit · 10/05/2024 11:03

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that housing, utilities and basic groceries should be paid for before spending on fun stuff. It's just a bit boring to have to make those decisions.

Unfortunately, many people don’t seem to grasp this.

Remember watching one bailiff programme whereby the person was being evicted(so made homeless?) due to non-payment of rent. She owed the landlord over ten thousand pounds. At least in the old system, landlords got paid upfront and this situation didn’t occur. Think she admitted she’d spent the money elsewhere (not a can’t-afford-rent situation).

So it was a lose-lose situation. She no longer had a home, and he was several thousand pounds out of pocket.

makeanddo · 10/05/2024 12:01

The fact is companies don't want to pay properly so benefits were/are required to give people a decent wage. Except it's all a mess with so many now receiving benefits it's normal. People even talk about the state pension being a benefit - it isn't I've paid in to quality thanks.

A massive shake up is needed but it won't be done because there would be riots from all those 'losing' their benefits and industry wouldn't put it up with it due to profit and investment.

What I find frightening is how the movement is towards more and more. People getting fully paid new cars because they are autistic and won't go on a bus, free breakfast and free now lunch and probably coming soon supper. Extra payouts for those in benefits during Covid whilst self employed working people got nothing. Councils ferrying children in taxis miles and miles because the nearest school doesn't meet the child's needs, why can't the parent do this?

It just seems the question is - I have a problem what are the government/council/taxpayer going to give me/do to solve it.

No personal responsibility.

A classic is a post this morning from someone who has just had a baby and the partner has kicked her out - first post - they are forcing me to private rent, why can't I have social housing?!!!

GingerPirate · 10/05/2024 12:03

🍿

FrangipaniBlue · 10/05/2024 12:14

DancingNotDrowning · 10/05/2024 00:35

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

we should force companies to pay more.

its scandalous that for example tesco, one of the U.K.’s biggest employers, have forecast profits of at least £2.8m for this coming year, will pay their CEO £10m yet can’t pay the significant number of their staff (250k) on min wage a living wage, instead having the tax payer subsidise them.

This!

Nobody should be "better off" (financially) on benefits than if they were in work.

We need better pay for all and better childcare for working parents.

Benefits should be a safety net for those who genuinely need it (unable to work due to sickness, disability, caring responsibilities eg disabled children).

It should not be an option as a lifestyle choice, which for some people it definitely is!

Blondeshavemorefun · 10/05/2024 12:29

@Moier sorry to hear about your accident and ex 💐

QueenOfTheEntireFuckingUniverse · 10/05/2024 12:32

Councils ferrying children in taxis miles and miles because the nearest school doesn't meet the child's needs, why can't the parent do this?
How do you suggest a parent who can't drive and/or has other children to get to school does this?

MissMaryBennett · 10/05/2024 12:39

I think for a 'universal basic income' to be practical. you need to have some or all of the following things (which in practice means it is not universal):

A relatively closed population that is not going to significantly increase as a result of the introduction of the UBI (Alaska/rural India/Iran etc).

Cost of living in dollar terms that are low by Western standards (Iran was paying a UBI of $450 per year).

An income stream that is not dependent on the people within the UBI net working (Oil in the case of Iran and Alaska, in the case of a number of other places that would come from the rest of the country, with the justification that the area receiving the UBI is already a significant net recipient of benefit money)

An infrastructure that is not dependent on people within the UBI net doing low paid jobs. In Finland, for example, the UBI trial was for 2000 people for 2 years. That isn't long enough or big enough to work out how specific behaviour would play out long term.

I do think it could work in specific situations in parts of the UK. But not for the entire country.

Welovecrumpets · 10/05/2024 12:41

QueenOfTheEntireFuckingUniverse · 10/05/2024 12:32

Councils ferrying children in taxis miles and miles because the nearest school doesn't meet the child's needs, why can't the parent do this?
How do you suggest a parent who can't drive and/or has other children to get to school does this?

What would they do if the school was driving distance away even if it wasn’t SEN like it is for many parents? The state can’t solve every tiny issue. Once secondary age (the age children generally take themselves to school anyway and I appreciate disabled children won’t be able to do this) if the parent is working there should be some kind of scheme. But otherwise they’re still the parents responsibility.

ThisOldThang · 10/05/2024 12:41

QueenOfTheEntireFuckingUniverse · 10/05/2024 12:32

Councils ferrying children in taxis miles and miles because the nearest school doesn't meet the child's needs, why can't the parent do this?
How do you suggest a parent who can't drive and/or has other children to get to school does this?

Set off earlier?

Welovecrumpets · 10/05/2024 12:43

It just seems the question is - I have a problem what are the government/council/taxpayer going to give me/do to solve it.

The level of state involvement people expect on here is absolutely mind blowing. You would think the public are all toddlers, incapable of any independent thought or personal accountability. It’s wild!

Peppermintytea · 10/05/2024 12:52

It's difficult to know what the right thing is to do because I don't want any innocent kids going hungry or disabled people being further punished for their inability to work.

But that's not the type of benefit claimant I come across most in my small town. Here, healthy young lads get to 18 and then they start signing on too. This has got to stop being an option.

QueenOfTheEntireFuckingUniverse · 10/05/2024 12:58

Welovecrumpets · 10/05/2024 12:41

What would they do if the school was driving distance away even if it wasn’t SEN like it is for many parents? The state can’t solve every tiny issue. Once secondary age (the age children generally take themselves to school anyway and I appreciate disabled children won’t be able to do this) if the parent is working there should be some kind of scheme. But otherwise they’re still the parents responsibility.

I don't know anyone who doesn't drive who has chosen to live somewhere that doesnt have a school within walking distance. I do however, know more than one family where the only suitable school for their child with SEN is an hours drive away. (More on public transport if its even accessible that way)

Welovecrumpets · 10/05/2024 12:58

Peppermintytea · 10/05/2024 12:52

It's difficult to know what the right thing is to do because I don't want any innocent kids going hungry or disabled people being further punished for their inability to work.

But that's not the type of benefit claimant I come across most in my small town. Here, healthy young lads get to 18 and then they start signing on too. This has got to stop being an option.

That’s why I’m a fan of taxpayer funded breakfast, lunch and dinner clubs (by dinner I mean a small meal at 4pm). Ensures no child goes hungry on a school day and they’re not being fed a bag of haribo and a tango ice blast for their dinner. But equally it isn’t just handing over cash to be misspent.

ThisOldThang · 10/05/2024 12:58

@Peppermintytea according to people on Mumsnet, your lived experience is wrong or simply a lie.

There's a bizarre groupthink on this site that everybody claiming benefits is a passive victim of the system and are never the workshy taking the piss.

QueenOfTheEntireFuckingUniverse · 10/05/2024 13:01

ThisOldThang · 10/05/2024 12:41

Set off earlier?

Oh ok. I'll suggest to my friend that she gets both her DC up and out by 7am to travel by bus for 2 hours to DC1s SEN provision and have him there by 9am.

Then travel 2 hours back with DC2 and also have her at school by 9am.
Oh wait...

And then reverse it to pick them up again, meaning leaving home at 1pm.

Of course she should also have a full time job, because heaven forbid she doesn't pay her way.

Greenbathroom · 10/05/2024 13:04

You are probably better off on benefits and renting than working full time in a job that pays £18 an hour and having a mortgage.

How would someone be better off, when landlords willing to accept benefits are like hens teeth? Another thread yesterday quoted LHA rates versus rent prices. Almost everywhere LHA is less than the rent.

Essentially they learn to work the system. We have had three young girls work for 3-6 months, get pregnant and all 3 have ended up in brand new social housing.

Even if a minority of people do this, can you blame them? The government is going after sick and disabled people on benefits. Maybe some young people, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, see this and think choice is get pregnant young and get housing and support, or have the 'work ethic' but god help you if you become sick or disabled later down the line.

Also it would only work in a few parts of the country (no coincidence usually areas with few work opportunities and jobs that are available are mostly low paid, so people need benefits anyway).

There's a severe shortage of social housing in most places. Even if they eventually get social housing they'll be in (often really unpleasant) temporary accommodation for a long time first.

And makng work compulsory for all able school leavers could potentially lead to a better motivated workforce.

There should be more opportunities for young people (older people too), but how will you force employers to take them on? Especially when many don't want to train people on the job and there's fewer job vacancies than job seekers (not even including people on sickness benefits). I assume the increased state pension age is one of the reasons for the job vacancy shortfall.

Swipe left for the next trending thread