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 have heard people say they can't understand how it's possible because it taks away any incentive to work and they think people will just happily stay home all day watching telly. Of course previous trials have shown this not to be the case at all.

It's unaffordable!

I remember something called Family Credit, we were on a low income at the time and I can’t remember exactly how it worked but it really benefitted us. If I remember correctly one parent had to be working at least 28 hours a week or something like that to claim it.

Yes I agree with you - I don’t think it would be the case. I’m quite lazy but even I wouldn’t do that.

Really? It was trialled in Namibia, as one example, with the following result:

After the launch, the project was found to have significantly reduced child malnutrition and increased school attendance. It was also found to have increased the community's income significantly above the actual amount from the grants as it allowed citizens to partake in more productive economic activities.[5][6] The project team stated that this increase in economic activity contradicts critics' claims that a basic income would lead to laziness and dependence.

Furthermore:
Another finding of the project was that after the introduction of the pilot, overall crime rates fell by 42%, specifically stock theft, which fell by 43% and other theft by nearly 20%.[7] These conclusions are derived from two empirical studies conducted by the Basic Income Grant Coalition. One study that covers the first 6 months of the project[8] and a second study about the first 12 months of the project.

I'm a single parent of 1 school age child. I am too ill to work currently, but have been turned down for any form of sickness benefit. I get less than minimum wage x 35 hours per week.

In terms of how much it should be? I don't know. I struggle to pay all my bills. Other people I know seem to have money spare.

We have 3 disabled people in our family and the amount we get is adequate for our circumstances. Not willing to disclose how much it is (and I can't be bothered to add it up), but we have 2 adults claiming enhanced rate PIP and 1 dc claiming high rate DLA, plus tops ups based on that.

I'm not sure UBI would make sense for us, because proposals I've read have often said it would be a flat rate even for disabled people, and the amounts suggested would be lower than the amount we get. So it wouldn't be fair to those who get higher amounts due to their disability. I actually think the current system works quite well for disabled people like our family, where the disabilities have been recognised and a higher amount awarded and no work search requirements. It's harsh on those who fall through the cracks and don't get awarded, but in some cases I can see why.

It’s being trialled in Wales but a very limited group (young adult care leavers). Whilst I’m glad for them - genuinely - isn’t the whole point of UBI everyone having the same? Care leavers, doctors, plumbers, cricketers, tax inspectors, teachers…everyone.

One thing I find very strange is with regard to child maintenance and benefits. Child maintenance is outwith the benefits system, so you can have 2 single mothers each with one child, working a few hours a week, exactly the same income and outgoings and getting benefits, one father pays the absolute minimum maintenance yet the other pays a large amount, yet their benefits are the same, so one woman is significantly better off.
This actually happened to my daughter for a few years. Her child was very young and she worked part time, her ex husband was paying her £1k per month child maintenance, yet she was perfectly entitled to claim almost full housing benefit, got paid working tax credits and child tax credits, despite having all that extra money she was entitled to the same benefits as someone who received no maintenance at all, consequently she was swilling in money, it seemed completely wrong to me.

UBI was trialled in India too:
Villages spent more on food and healthcare, children's school performance improved in 68 percent of families, time spent in school nearly tripled, personal savings tripled, and new business startups doubled.

Iran introduced a UBI in 2010:
A first assessment of the experiences in Iran was provided in 2011 by H. Talabani.[35][36] Another assessment published in 2017[37] found no evidence of cash transfers recipients reduced their participation the labor force.

In the USA:
Several Native America nations distribute dividends to their members. For example, members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, based in North Carolina, receive payments of several thousand dollars twice a year.[164] These payments are dividends from the profits of the Harrah's Cherokee casino, and have been distributed since 1996. A study of the payments' effects on the children of the community found significant declines in poverty, behavioral problems, crime, substance abuse and psychiatric problems, and increases in on-time graduation. The effects were primarily found among those who were youngest when the payments began, and among those who were lifted out of poverty rather than those who were already well-off.

A project currently underway in Brazil:
The results indicate that the BI has contributed to sustainable development in Quatinga Velho. The effects were convincing, particularly in the area of assurance of basic needs, improving the quality of life and social skills."[183] "[...]This amount of money sounds very small to people from industrialized countries, but it has a large impact in a rural area of Brazil. The coordinators have verified gains in nutrition, clothing, living conditions, health (especially in children), construction of new housing, and improvements to existing ones. In informal interviews, the coordinators have noticed increased self-esteem and social interaction, reduction of social insecurity, and rising expectations of the future, especially regarding children. They noted that they have not observed increased use of alcohol or illicit drugs; significant changes in labor relations, birth, migration or emigration, or generation of political relations and economic dependency.

It's a complex idea and at first seems counterintuitive but it's hard to bet against when you see how it has worked when used. It took me a while to get my head around. When I was first introduced to the idea I had to do some serious studying to grasp it but swiftly became a full convert. The problem lies in the logistics and practicalities of implementing the idea on a statewide basis. It's too big and emotive a project for the average politician to commit to.

IIRC they used to deduct CM from benefits. But then far too many men just decided not to pay it/ to pay less one week and the woman was screwed. So rather than actually make the men pay, they decided to just not include it.

This would be ridiculous

I'd like to see both MPs wages and Benefits (including pensions) calculated off the average UK wage.

The average is around £30k
So a minimum income level in my world should be 50% of that. MPs wages should be at most Triple the average and pensions should be 50% or so too.

That doesn't include housing.
People will need more help for that as housing costs rocket. A blanket amount wouldn't work. Leaving it based on LHA is ok but it needs adjusting.

My thinking is.
Basing it all on Average Wages would give people a better idea of how much of their tax actually goes on what. And it's be in the best interests of the MPs etc to increase everyone's wages.

I could be here all day.

But I will say.

People over estimate how much of the tax they pay goes to benefits and welfare etc.
It really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.
Someone on £30k, for example, pays just £7 a year to unemployment.

...

I have severe mental health issues as well as a physical disability and mental disability. I personally believe you shouldn’t be able to claim long term benefits for mental health but if you do, should be actively be doing things to improve it (which I am by the way). I don’t think you should be able to claim disability benefits for mental health long term or at all actually. It is true that mental health conditions have a big impact on someone’s life, and as someone who has them I can appreciate that, but they can be improved. As someone with numerous disabilities that I will be effected by for the rest of my life, I think it is a joke that large numbers of people are claiming disability benefits for having anxiety no matter how severe for example when it’s very common and will effect most people at some point in their life! If you can work in some capacity you should. I can’t work at all because of my disabilities and whilst I do feel a sense of shame for being disabled even though it isn’t my fault at all I am worried that there won’t be the funds to support people like me at some point if not enough people are paying into the pot if that makes sense.

I think if they forced parents to support their children rather than allowing them to walk away then things would change significantly

I think that there should be universal free childcare and free public transport. Also councils should be the main rental landlords in the country with the rent part of any benefits going directly to them. After these bills are paid, then the benefits doesn't need to be generous as long as it can cover basic expenses.

You can't encourage people into work when there are huge barriers in the way such as not being able to get to said employment or being able to afford the childcare to allow you to work.

I think that people who are disabled with a limited capacity for work should get a fair salary enough money to really live on how some of these people are forced to live, no little luxuries or holidays like most folk, is disgraceful

However much 39 hours at minimum wage is. People who work 40 hours at the minimum wage shouldn't get less than those on benefits.

Benefits should be a safety net for those who cannot work due to temporary unemployment, ill health, disability or old age.

Or a support for those who are working on low wages to bring them out of poverty.

They should not be a lifestyle choice for those who chose not work. If you don't want to work - pay for it yourself

I can’t do anything to improve certain disabilities I have to the point that I could work and no ability to get rid of them. It is different with mild mental health issues, more difficult with severe mental health issues but not impossible. Again I’m not minimising how hard it is as I have multiple severe mental health issues that massively impact my life myself. I think if you can do something to improve or get rid of your mental health condition, you shouldn’t be able to claim benefits forever with no incentive to get better

It would increase the cost massively though as it would go to everyone. For example, the state pension costs over 10% of all government spending and not even all pensioners are eligible. If you wanted a UBI you could live on, it would be so hugely expensive that the taxes to pay for it would mean it wouldn’t be worthwhile working. And thus taxes would rise further and there would be a vicious circle.

Where would the money come from for payment this universal income to everyone? If less people needed to work there would be less tax paid.

This. Benefits are supposed to be a stop gap not to fund lifestyle choices.

Unpaid Carers should get national minimum wage. As far as I’m concerned they are working, 24/7.