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”.

I thought you had to actually work before you can claim unemployment benefit.

This is so wrong. Why should they get benefits immediately

11k / annum, wouldn't be enough for me, I'd go part time and be using the extra cash for my hobbies and holidays.

Sadly I would probably be taxed to much to make a positive inpact. I'm not sure if UBI for everyone is a good idea.

Why would it be £1000

That's more the uc now for that age group

I'm not sure why people assume UBI should be at a level were it would cover everything easily enough.
I thought the idea of UBI was a sufficient amount to ensure absolute basics, and then the ability to work for more at whatever level, without being penalized for it, and for those who truly couldn't work, to claim additional help.
Yes it would lead to some choosing to survive on absolute basics and either not work, or work little, for periods of time, (some backed up by savings, or partners, others not) but the vast majority of people are going to want more, and in most cases, considerably more, than any absolute basic level of living.

That’s what benefits (should) do but only for those who actually need it (allegedly) so on paper it’s a better system. UBI expenditure would be enormous but I can’t see what stunning consequence would mean the scheme would pay for itself..?

I'm not an economist but my understanding is what it saves on many levels means it can be made to pay for itself if managed with a view to an improved society overall, rather than what is the cheapest populist method of splitting society and getting people to fight each other, in order to maintain power by one group or another with a negative effect on society as a whole.

To me a more united society, would be a 'stunning consequence' worth seeking, but I realize it is the last thing many would want.

People having quoted £11000 up thread.i just rounded it up a bit.

Long term disabled people, like myself, (I worked part time for 6 years and sadly my health declined to a point that I couldn’t work at all) yet still every few years I have to reapply for my benefits and be assessed by so called ‘qualified assessors’, who may be a health care worker and will not have the knowledge of many disabilities, who’s aim is to get me off benefits and working. Even with the back up of 2 consultants and my GP who all agree I am not fit to work! The last pip ‘interview’ I had, outright lied about my physical appearance and ability to walk to the point that my GP got very angry on my behalf and offered to come with me to my next one! Long term illnesses like the kind I have should not be questioned if we have at least 2 medical drs to back us up.

If it doesn't cover everything for the most vulnerable member of society, then all the claims that it would negate the need for means testing and therefore be cheaper to run are false. We would still need means testing to determine who needs additional support.

Nobody should by letting, obviously, but being assessed every few years and to bed entirely reasonable if you're expecting the taxpayer to support you.

As somebody that has worked seven days a week for the past month, the idea of a single meeting, once every five years, hardly seems onerous.

You make it sound like she should be grateful. She didn't ask to be too sick to work.

Imo basics only whilst your looking for a job. If you want holidays and nicer things you need to earn it with a job. If you are really unable to work through ill health, disability then you should be given more to allow you those nicer things too as your warning capacity is clearly zero.

Presume that’s ‘earning’ not ‘warning’

I think people should be grateful for taxpayer support, don't you?

So they lose their pride as well as functioning bodies?

No.

For reference when they trialled the UBI in Finland it was 560 euros a month (£484) instead of benefits.
Although most workers would be happy with this arrangement, I doubt many unemployed and disabled people would be happy giving up current benefits for this.

Well if your unemployed but can work then it's an incentive to work so you can have lore than basics.

If you truly cannot work e.g. disability, companies dotn offer the flexibility needed for disabled people then yes it's not enough

I only hope you don’t become disabled in some form and have to suffer the horrifically degrading interview that I had to attend. Unfortunately 70-80% of people will have some form of hidden disability like the ones I have, one of them as I get older is becoming less hidden.

Did they have a system alongside for disabled people? I’m all for the very basic amount for unemployed but disabled people who genuinely can’t work need to be able to have adequate money.

I'm not sure as it was only a small trial so possibly didn't include disabled in it. However the whole point of UBI is everyone gets the same regardless of circumstance, otherwise it isn't UBI.

But surely though, if you wanted to work, you wouldn’t rely on benefits so you’re back to square one. Ie. The person who would rely on ubi for everything, is the same person who currently , although able to work, is happy to live of benefits.

(Not with standing those who want to work but are unable to find a job due to high local
unemployment etc, although that would be the same in both scenarios).

UBI would need to be an adequate amount then to cover all rent, bills and food otherwise disabled people who can’t work won’t be able to afford to live. It would work for all others as would be an incentive to work to get more than the very basics.

I think UBI would be the fairest way . It could be funded by tax and company profits.
I personally work ft in a minimum wage job, care for my dad and AC with AN. 1 works PT and that's thanks to pip. Without it he would be caught in the benefit trap. I would love to drop some hours I'm in my early 60s and get so tired sometimes. But I also think UBI would enable people to enjoy leisure time and a work life balance whilst improving the economy.

How much is adequate? No other benefits (including housing)
£1500 a month? More?
There are £40.5 million adults in the UK
Even £1000 a month would cost 40 billion a month
This is why UBI will never happen.