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”.

Do you realise that mps are already on triple the average?

I've never met a single person on benefits who's living the high life. That's mostly propaganda in the press.

I think benefits should be enough to allow the people claiming them to be comfortable (a living wage) but there also needs to be an incentive to work if you can. So you need to be better off for working.

I think the benefit system should not pay private landlords extortionate rents. Basically everyone has been lining the landlords pockets for years in this way.

Fathers should be made to pay much more. I think benefits have destroyed the traditional family. I know so many “single” women who live apart from their partners in order to claim benefits but actually have partners.

37.5k gross is approx £2500 a month net.

I know several on benefits who receive more than that. Granted some have children, claim dla, carers and live in rented accommodation therefore a significant portion of their rent is included in that figure which is paid from benefits. They also have a significant disposable income after bills are paid. One also had new carpets and washing machine from grants. I'm not saying life on benefits is easy, nor is having a disability or disabled child (I know this first hand).

I'm just saying the system as a whole has many flaws that need addressing for the benefit of everyone - those who claim and those who don't.

You used to be able to study up to 21 hours a week & still get your benefits, it was a good way to improve your chances of getting a better paid job. Why couldn't something like that be brought back again?

I wish the Tories applied the same zeal in targeting tax evasion by multi nationals as they do on benefit claimants.

How would a universal basic income be funded? And no I’m not against it.
My thinking is that no one would choose to work so no taxes paid so how would other things be funded also?

Carers Allowance should be massively increased.
If you have to give up your job to care 24/7 for someone, you should be paid a damn sight more than £81.90 per week.

It would be better to control housing costs.

All those saying that work should pay enough for people to live and benefits should also cover basic living expenses, look how it currently works out.

A family in central London would need to earn a massive amount to be able to pay for housing without top ups so the answer would be, seeing as this is a theoretical discussion that can't be put into practice, to reduce the cost of housing so it is affordable to all.

Otherwise you'd have to make minimum wage in London about £50-100k pa and pay people according to their circumstances because of the amount someone who is supporting a SAHP and 2 DC so needs a family sized house would be a lot more than one half of a child free couple who could live in a one bedroom flat.

But if housing was much cheaper, say £500 pm, then people could afford to just pay for it.

This. If everyone has an income without needing to work much, how are essential services paid for and who would provide the labour required given that no-one has any incentive to work?

In Finland, where they tried implementing UBI, interestingly, there was a modest increase in people in the workforce. They are still studying the causes that have driven this, but they believe having a guaranteed income may put people in a better frame of mind to seek and stay in employment.

I wouldn't pay benefits to anyone except the disabled . I certainly wouldn't let people go straight from school onto benefits . This is setting them up for a lifetime of dependency.
This of course would have to go alongside a proper living wage so that people working could not just survive but thrive . In my fantasy world of course because I can't see it ever happening.

The 1800s wants you back.

Working in social care, I echo other posters that I have never seen anyone living the high life on benefits. The uncertainty has a definite impact on mental health. I've been on UC, you have no idea how much you will be paid from month to month, it can be radically different each month.
If benefits were decreased you would see a huge increase in child protection referrals. Women with kids would be more likely to get into or stay in unsafe relationships just to survive. Substance use would increase. Antisocial behaviour would increase. We know this.
So many people have complex trauma which effects the whole of their lives. By increasing poverty, you will simply pass that onto the next generation who then may not be able to work.

I'm highly sceptical of UBI.

The idea that it should replace other benefits, means that it needs to be set at the level that is currently given to the highest benefits recipient now, otherwise they will no longer be able to survive.

And if it doesn't replace all means tested benefits, then any claims that it would save money because we no longer need the administration of means testing are false.

On top of all that, if UBI were introduced, you could pretty much guarantee every landlord and business owner would put their rent and prices up ASAP to soak up all the spare money sloshing around.

Maybe I'm wrong and there's something im missing but I still prefer to believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

I used to work at a jobcentre and it was a mixed bag.

Generally, youth claimants were engaged in looking for work and getting back on their feet. You’d meet some who were not, but generally they didn’t want to be long term unemployed so were willing to try different opportunities and apply for a range of jobs.

25+ claimants were a different story. At that point you engage with the long term unemployed more. They generally didn’t care as much about returning to work. That comes with a host of different challenges & complex needs.

I remember a couple with several children (being paid for most of them too, over the 3 child limit) who received £3000+ a month. They had been claiming UC for years and both were long term unemployed. The mother was pregnant and upset UC wouldn’t fund the next child, the father was raging with staff upon hearing this too (shouting, banging on desks/screens). Both were furious at having to attend jobcentre appointments- he outright said he would get less money working than claiming UC so there’s no point in him working. Frankly he had a point as they had one of the highest statements I’ve seen - there was absolutely no incentive for them to work.

That sort of situation made me feel the benefit system wasn’t balanced, as they were clearly making decisions like having further children with less consideration than someone who was self-sufficient from employment would.

I think this but also caps on what can be charged in private rent so that only a small portion of benefits is going to private landlords.

And if someone can’t get a job, or loses their job and has no savings, they should just starve? Would free childcare be part of the no benefits system or would single parents who can’t work full time and their kids just starve too?

This would plunge hundreds of thousands more people (working people) into poverty.

The incentive to work would be more money!

I'd work even if there was UBI, the more money in my pocket the better.

I don’t know but recently a relative moaned because their child benefit had been cut because he was now earning a certain amount. I didn’t know they had been claiming it - his wife didn’t work for 10 years, basically because she didn’t want to (she was open about that). Now she’s gone back to work a couple of days a week. So the benefit would have helped them support a family while she chose not to work - is that right? I’m not sure.

Most people probably would choose to work. We’d still be in a capitalist society so if you were aspirational, wanted to own a home, have a nice car, foreign holidays etc then in most cases you’d have to work. Where it’s been tested they haven’t found people stop working, probably what would drop though would be people willing to work for low pay, in poor conditions or on zero hour contracts (unless it suited them) so employers would have to step up.

Ultimately there are reasons why people aren't working. If you ask them, most people who don't work would love to work, it has a huge impact on your self esteem not working, in terms of what the media says and how you feel. It is also what society is based around.
There needs to be a lot more of a holistic approach to getting people into work. If you haven't had the best start in life, you could need far more reassurance and work around managing conflict, advocating for yourself, getting reasonable adjustments, looking into childcare etc.
No one does this work currently. So if Maddie, who hasn't been working since she was 16, gets a job at 34 after having kids, the system just expects her to know how to find childcare, that she will have to pay for that childcare upfront, what's ok to wear, what she'll do if her bus doesn't turn up, what information to share on her first day etc. It sounds patronising but so many people out there don't have that knowledge base because they have very limited experience of working!
So obviously it rarely works out.

UBI ideally. Otherwise the question is too vague OP. Benefits for what? Surely it depends on circumstance and need.

My university educated hard working 27 year old can’t afford that in London where we live.
Not arguing with your premise really. it’s just hard to agree that benefits must always rise to a point where it feels pointless to other people to work. A single person would probably need over £40k to achieve those basics in parts of the UK. So people on benefits can have children when they want and ask for housing in their borough and working people don’t have the same luxury.