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”.

Jesus!

Read the OP!

Laws can be changed you know!

🙄

The system has been totally distorted by the introduction of tax credits in 1999. Over time it meant that employers could depress wages, because workers had their pay topped up by the government. It's also resulted in the proliferation of part time work contracts. The disability benefits system is also another complete minefield.
The edifice of benefits is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible to reform. Perhaps Universal basic income is the way to go.

I could not give a definitive - I have long term health conditions and disabilities. I have always worked more or less and intend to. I am aware as I get older I may need to work part time. I would hope to receive enough to manage my daily living.

I'm sure you're right and I will read up on it as I shouldn't just make assumptions. But my gut feeling is that a system which gives everyone enough to live on without working can't be sustainable given the pressure of pensions and benefits currently.

This won't go well. 🥴 Just waiting for someone to come along and say all people who claim benefits are no-good scroungers and should get the very minimum to survive on.

CTC TO Universal credit with second property 8 replies

mumof5andfat · 16/03/2024 16:46
Hi all,
any advice would be appreciated. I was recently transferred over to UC from CTC after I received a migration notice. As I own a second property, i didn't think i'd get anything but still made the application as i was getting a small amount of CTC. They're now asking me to fill a A64A form out for the property i own jointly with my husband, but not the property we live in. I'm wondering if its even worth doing or shall i just stop the claim altogether if I'm not going to get anything. I thought that there was a 12 month transitional protection or something to that effect. am i right? if no such thing exists, i might as well just stop the whole thing now. The whole reason we got the property is because my husband works but has a degenerative condition which means that he will need to stop work in a few years when it gets impossible for him to continue working. We wanted the property to serve as a backup source of income for us when that eventuality happens.

I REST MY CASE! Fabulous to plan an income in these circumstances but up until now has been getting benefits with a second home.

Yes situations like that should never have been allowed. I’m glad UC doesn’t allow that.

I mean your case is well and truly rested but some feeble excuse will come up in a moment as to why it’s fine to own a second home while claiming benefits 🤯🤯🤯 (and how you are very right wing for thinking it isn’t)

This is the case currently. It hasn't allowed 'sitting on benefits' as a choice for well over a decade. Thank the Daily Mail for making you believe otherwise

How many £x0,000 is that costing per year? How much would it cost the local council to lay a bit of footpath?

No wonder the system is collapsing.

It won’t come from the same pot of cash though. I work for the LA and tbh there’s a lack of joined up thinking tbh. It’s also completely possible council doesn’t own the adjoining land. You would also be amazed at how much a path would cost.

Worldwide maybe. We can't tax people or companies outside the UK so it would be a quick way to ensure that no one moved here.

@onemoremile That old chestnut.

I think it's a terrible idea simply because if you had enough money to live comfortably without working, who on earth would choose to work?

I have a comparatively cushty job and I wouldn't bother. At the very most if I fancied the odd treat above and beyond a comfortable standard of living I'd work a day a month or something.

Perhaps there are some people who have a better work ethic than me. But there would be a lot of people who wouldn't.
Look at all the threads on here about horrible customers and stressful jobs that have people crying in the car park before work. You really think they'd carry on working as teachers, nurses, polices officers, shop assistants, toilet cleaners full time if they didn't have to?

But all the jobs would still need doing....so how would that work?

If a UBI actually saved the economy more than it costs (which some posters on here seem to think it might) then governments would not be raising pension ages. A pension is a form of UBI.

But you only had to look at the WASPI threads to see that firstly, most women wanted to stop work when they got their pension and secondly, most people thought that giving people a pension earlier would cost the government money.

You made the point much more succinctly than I did!

I’ve never read the daily mail. I’ve read BBC news and many threads on here. People can and do work part time, just enough to be able to get benefits and not have to look for more work.

I had no choice when mine were younger, single mum part time until both were in secondary school. Then I upped my hours when my youngest was 13, then full time when she finished and went to college.

So 20+ years of part time and being topped up via benefits?

Of course they do. This notion that everyone is chomping at the bit to work is hilarious.

All of this. If we weren’t paying for sub standard private housing benefits would be A lot less. It’s often not the benefit claimants raking it in or living it up but the landlords.

Erm maybe I missed a bit out, I was divorced when they were 8 and 6 and I was doing 24 hours a week. I could have given up work totally but I didn't, I kept going.

Yes, it’s really not a made up thing . My childhood friend didn’t work at all until the youngest of her 3 kids began school.

Her kids are now all teens and she still only works 12-16 hours a week. She receives
UC. Her partner does casual manual labouring work and is often part time too. although some weeks he does do full time.

When she first began work her benefits advice person told her not to do more than 16 hours. It’s a common thing people do.

I think we need to look at the system and why it’s more profitable in some cases to work part time even if your kids are not needing childcare. I don’t think it’s about blaming individuals.

Edit to add: the father of her oldest child promptly stopped working when she left him over a decade ago so he wouldn’t have to pay maintenance. He’s claimed some kind of disability he won’t disclose to her and has never worked since she left him . He was fit and well enough when he was knocking her about though before she escaped.

There’s far more people at the top evading tax that are more of a concern tbh as it costs us more money, but I still wouldn’t pretend that a lot of people aren’t gaming the system at the other end too.

How could you have given up work? I thought you voluntarily quit work and didn’t job seek you wouldn’t be allowed to claim?

Not read the thread yet...

I am on UC (my sole income, am LCWRA).

I live frugally, and live according to my means. I can afford the occasional treat. I was told, here on MN, that the fact I can treat myself to the occasional Costa means that I am being paid too much. FFS, I have no control over the amounts I get paid.. but that poster made it sound like I should pay my bills, and send any excess back to DWP.

That is the mindset of some of the benefit bashers here ATM.