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”.

It's hard call because you innocent children and those that really can't work for varying reasons should have hot food, access to housing and education.
But the two people that I know who've never worked in 20 years could work, they could support themselves.
For those making those decisions on amounts it must be so hard, and the issues start when I know these two people ( one my dh ex wife and the other a friend that I'm stepping away from) are doing all they can to never work again but there are people in genuine need of our support.
I don't envy any government official deciding tbh

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.

Yes they’re definitely considering the possibility of becoming disabled down the line and insuring against it 🙄 you can’t be that naive surely? And yes I do blame them. I blame anyone who does something selfish to the detriment of society which they knew if everyone did, the system would collapse

You would have seen my mother and her British children starve after her divorce then? And Told her thanks for paying tax and NI for 50 years now piss off back to your home country to retire, the one she has no contributions for a pension! Nice.

I've just had a look at this.

2023/24 government income in total from all taxes is £827.7 billion.
It would cost £769.6 billion to give everybody in the country a weekly payment of £220 which is the same as the basic state pension. This would leave £60 million over for health, education, military, roads, justice etc. The NHS budget alone is £170 billion per year. Education is another £116 billion.

There are ways the UBI payment could be cut (e.g. reduced payments to children etc) but it would mean substantial tax rises to claw back the UBI payments which would mean that the UBI doesn't give much if any net benefit and there would also probably be work conditionality etc.

Pensions are not by themselves enough to live on comfortably so there has to be pension credit etc which would be another tax rise. This also doesn't account for the additional costs suffered by people living with disabilities who may not be able to work. They would be in a far worse position at a base UBI level. Finally, I think immigration would be a real problem. It would be socially divisive and difficult if immigrants were not able to receive UBI but had to work and pay the increased taxes, and the country could not afford to pay UBI to immigrants unless numbers were very carefully controlled. Again this could exclude some extremely disadvantaged people.

I think a better option at least in the short term is to fund proper infrastructure and housing development so that the housing benefit bill can be disposed of entirely by building social housing to be managed by Councils or social landlords at affordable rents. This housing should be properly insulated and low carbon (solar panels and grey water etc). This would allow people to keep more of their benefits and reduce the vast rents paid by the state to landlords of dreadful quality housing.

I would also increase unemployment benefit to 50% of previous wages for a maximum of 6 months and then reducing gradually to make work a better option for more people.

Thanks for doing the maths and it is like I suspected utterly unrealistic. Is anybody very in favour of UBI able to counter this using real numbers?

UBI really would work.
It would be cheaper to deliver than the current benefits system. No assessments, no investigations, no under or overpayments, nothing. Everyone gets ubi and people get their wages for their actual jobs on top of that. Eg a lawyer gets ubi + £X and a doctor gets ubi+ £Y. People don't just get the fixed ubi regardless the job they do. It's ubi+the wage.

The only thing I'd add to ubi that would need assessment would be a disability premium which would be a better, fairer version of the pip process where it's about assessing actual need and not trying to stop people with disabilities getting the support they need.

People who are against ubi say things like why would anyone work if we all got ubi? Well, most people want to work. They want to be productive. Many people have dream jobs or professions they feel passionate about or that they feel is their calling. They'd still want to do those. Only they'd be able to live just fine while they trained.

Nobody would want to do the crappy jobs is another argument.
Well nobody really wants to do them now do they? Only now they have to do them and they get paid a shit wage and hate it all.
So make the undesirable jobs pay bloody well and be high status. Recognise the invaluable work people doing those essential jobs are doing and respect them for it.

Also how often do you hear people say I can't get a job, I'd be worse off than I am now on UC.
That would be gone. You would always be better off in work because you'd keep all your ubi and be paid on top of that.

People wouldn't be prevented from starting a new job because of the month of no money, they'd still be getting their ubi.

People having more money means people spend more money which is good for the economy.

Very few people actually want to sit around and do absolutely nothing all day every day for their entire lives and those that would want that? Probably doing that right now anyway 🤷

It would need to go with other social changes and stopping government wastage eg taxation overhaul stopping all the sneaky legal, barely legal and breathtakingly illegal tricks currently used by too many to avoid paying the actual tax due.

Massively bloated and wasteful services would need to be stripped down and rebuilt. NHS I'm looking at you.

It is all doable. It is workable.

It just requires things that the human race in general are unwilling to accept.

Massive change

Seeing other people benefit even if you benefit (many people would rather go without a benefit or perk themselves if them getting it would mean everyone gets it including those they consider 'unworthy' )
And
Not being able to consider yourself better than [insert group you look down on here]

So it'll never happen.
Not because it couldn't happen.
But because people are too selfish and shortsighted to let it happen.

Well, most people want to work. They want to be productive. Many people have dream jobs or professions they feel passionate about or that they feel is their calling. They'd still want to do those. Only they'd be able to live just fine while they trained.

What do you do for a living can I ask? Are you a higher earner? Do you live in a middle class area? Have you ever worked on NMW?

people are too selfish and shortsighted to let it happen.

Selfish? For not wanting to give even more free money to those who sit on their arse? Sorry but ha ha ha

Actually the reason I think ubi wouldn't work is that the amount it would need to be set at to ensure someone gets nothing except it without working is unaffordable. Housing is too expensive etc. Also are you suggesting it's from 18 to death?

You would also still have the problem of additional payments. So in your example would someone getting PIP also still get the full rate? Would they still qualify for a fully expensed car? etc.

“So make the undesirable jobs pay bloody well and be high status. Recognise the invaluable work people doing those essential jobs are doing and respect them for it.”

A lovely sentiment but it won’t happen. Why should businesses pay more, when they can get away with paying less? You could argue that they don’t need to pay more, as these basic jobs have become ‘top up’ jobs, so are extras rather than essentials. At present, many people do these jobs to make ends meet., so you could argue that they should be paid more now, not with UBi.

I don't have general views on the level of benefits except that it is clearly too low currently as there are children hungry and without basic necessities, let alone a decent standard of living, and that shouldn't happen in a civilised society.

I do think that lone parents should be paid a "wage" by the state to reflect the fact that they're essentially doing the job of both parents alone, often on top of working as well. Equally, I think NRPs should be subject to an additional tax charge that attaches to their state pension if not paid at the time to reflect the additional time/leisure they gain at the expense of the other parent. Caring needs to be recognised as work.

I think you have to tackle the lack of affordable housing/pre school childcare and this will lead to a natural reduction to in-work benefits as people would be able to afford to pay from their wages without top ups.

In the same vein you have to tackle NHS services and available work before you can restrict benefits to people with disabilities.

If the above issues were tackled there should extra money in the pot to give those requiring long/lifetime benefits a better income/support for their individual circumstances..

I would support people who have not paid into the system for a min of 3 years only receiving cash for 6 months and then vouchers only.

Universal basic income sounds interesting in principal but would become unaffordable and would lead to a reduction in services.

'Playing the system' implies being aware of what the system is. People have family members, friends, and neighbours. They'll see their circumstances and think about how to avoid the same.

I don't think it should be applauded or encouraged, and actually my anecdote is from the other side. A friend had to give up her relatively well paid job, a job she enjoyed, because of her health. She's ok financially because her DH earns fairly well but she'd be fucked without him.

However I blame the system more than blame the minority of people who out of desperation and usually from disadvantaged backgrounds and communities might 'play it' by intentionally getting pregnant young. (Usually it's not intentional).

The system where there's not enough social housing so people need benefits to top up their low paid wages.

The system that wants to punish sick and disabled people for suffering illness or disability.

The system that doesn't push employers to hire unemployed job seekers and train people on the job. They reject 'too inexperienced', 'too old, 'too young', 'time away from the job market', ''overqualified', 'underqualified'.

The system where there's not enough jobs anyway. More jobseekers than there are job vacancies.

Punitive and cruel policies are a false economy. Poverty affects people's health, and their confidence (which affects job interview performance).

What's needed is a humane benefits or UBI system, improved NHS and social care, more social housing, better work and training opportunities, and initiatives aimed at encouraging employers to hire unemployed people (because many don't want to, especially sick and disabled people), and enforcement of CMS.

Initial investment but saves money later on.

Let’s do the free 3x a day school dinners to solve the hunger issue. And a food package the children can take home over the weekend if they want (nothing that needs cooking). That solves the hunger issue while minimising wastage. Sorry but many parents in receipt of benefits DO prioritise alcohol, dogs, nails, and rubbish before feeding their kids. I lived on a fairly rough housing estate about 10 years ago and saw this all the time. It’s uncomfortable but it’s the truth.

Lone parents should be supported via child maintenance from the NRP, not the taxpayer yet again. It should be a criminal offence not to pay child maintenance, or to attempt to hide your earnings or resign to avoid payment. If the man is on benefits as well then tough, contraception is free and both parties should’ve thought about that before conceiving.

The state is there to help people help themselves, not to be their parent.

@IncompleteSenten
UBI really would work.
It would be cheaper to deliver than the current benefits system. No assessments, no investigations, no under or overpayments, nothing.

How could it be cheaper? Assessments and investigations might cost a lot of money, but paying everyone in the country enough money to live on would clearly cost hundreds of times more.

When I was younger I had very low paid job. I loved it. I had nice colleagues and it was a sociable environment. I later went into higher paid but less interesting career. If the job I used to do paid better (or there was more social housing) I'd have happily taken it up longer term. Sometimes the lowest paid jobs are crap, but sometimes it's the pay or conditions rather than the job.

I used to know someone who didn't need to work. Highly qualified with experience in a well paid niche area but he never enjoyed it and wanted a change. He inherited a house (in an expensive area) and a lot of money. Financially never needed to work again but wanted to. His passion was in an industry that tends to be low paid. Despite apparently an industry 'crying out for workers' he was rejected everywhere he applied for being 'overqualified'.

Both unusual cases. And the first scenario doesn’t make your point at all, you ultimately left the job for more money..!

I said cheaper to deliver than the current system then i talked of assessments etc. That particular part of what I am saying is that it is cheaper administratively to deliver a universal benefit than to deliver a means tested one.

I think when people talk about ubi they talk as though that single thing would change and absolutely everything else would stay the same but that's not how it would work. Not how it could work. That's why I carried on saying about the changes that would need to happen and mentioned a couple then finished up by saying it would never happen because of human nature.

You can't drop ubi into the mix without unpicking everything and making huge changes.

I maintain it is possible. The world is perf ctly capable of coming together and making all the changes needed to ensure everyone has the things they need.
It's not that it can't be done.
It's that it won't be done.

People can't sprout wings and fly.

People won't come together collectively to build a better and fairer society

But those jobs still need workers, and they have to claim benefits because the pay is so low. Surely it's cheaper to have more social housing so people don't need to claim benefits as well as working.

I don't think the second scenario is uncommon. Lots of (usually older) people struggle to get hired because of 'overqualified'. I also think with the increased state pension age this might become more of a problem.

I agree with your posts @IncompleteSenten

Manage their time…

@IncompleteSenten I said cheaper to deliver than the current system then I talked of assessments etc. That particular part of what I am saying is that it is cheaper administratively to deliver a universal benefit than to deliver a means tested one.

Yes ok but that's a little misleading when the admin costs are a tiny fraction of the overall cost. The delivery might be cheaper, but the overall cost is hundreds of billions if not trillions more. And those trillions are largely given to people like me who don't especially need the help instead of focussing towards those who do.

But that's not all I said. It's one part of what I said.

Anyway, it's a moot point because as I said both times, people won't make the changes it would need to create a fairer and more equal society. It's just not human nature.

Talking of work, I need to get back to work now! I just quickly want to clarify my previous post. It probably is relatively uncommon to be in a position like my friend. Enough money to never need to work, but jobseekers especially older ones being rejected for being 'overqualified' definitely isn't unusual.

It’s not about human nature it’s about the sheer amount of work it would take to make it happen, and the detriment to everyone in the meantime. Any kind of constitutional or major change Brexit is a massive gamble that costs billions, takes years and years to implement, and usually falls short of what was expected in some way. And getting all the countries of the world to co-operate would be even worse - imagine the admin nightmare if it was implemented globally 🤯🤯🤯

So while it’s possible in the way it’s possible I will spontaneously combust at some point, in practical terms it’s basically impossible.

The best we can realistically hope for is to implement schemes which will target those in need in a way that reduced waste. For example free school meals 3 times daily, curbing rents to a formula taking into account the property size and area, and so on.