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”.

Why would you work

I like the idea of UBI in theory but can't get my head around how it would work in practice, how it would be funded etc.

I understand that the idea is to save money on means testing etc, but the rate would have to be set very high to ensure sufficient income for people with multiple children, disabilities that incur additional costs, people living in areas where housing costs are particularly high etc. Or we would need to retain some sort of infrastructure for assessing these additional claims.

And I understand that poverty has a massive impact on things like the NHS etc, so there would potentially be efficiencies there, but what would this look like in practice? Would we be cutting NHS budgets accordingly or using the surplus to pay for all the things that the NHS is currently lacking?

How is the UBI to be paid for, exactly? If out of general taxation, do we know what the impact of UBI is likely to be on the overall tax take and ha anyone actually done the detailed calculations on what it would cost?

There are lots of trials of UBI mentioned on this thread, with some very positive outcomes. Have any of the places that have successfully trialled UBI decided to actually implement it at a national level? If not, why not?

I suppose I look at my own circumstances. I’m entitled to £1500 a month or so UC but I work 40 plus hours a week. So I claim a lot less so I and the kids can have a better lifestyle. It is a slog and challenging but obviously be much better off long term. Pensions and obviously DC will age out of UC .

As an individual, universal basic income may sound great. But as someone who worked in a jobcentre and saw first hand the public and the circumstances that lead to them claiming benefits, many wouldn’t see universal basic income as any sort of incentive to work - they would be less engaged then they already are.

You need to take into account that jobcentres already have low levels of engagement from the public, low attendance rates for appointments, an attitude that work search is optional. I’m not sure what giving those people more money would achieve. At the moment you can set people up with guaranteed job interviews, including mock interviews/coaching to prepare and money they don’t need to repay for interview clothes/travel, plus courses to help them meet skill requirements and even write their CV for them - yet those interviews still have a high failure to attend rate.

If anything, universal basic income would be more of an incentive for people not to work including those already in employment. It leads to a perverse selective culture with jobs - you already get people refusing to work in retail/hospitality/warehouse roles. The income from those roles won’t magically increase. What is the incentive for anyone to work in these roles? To those posters who mentioned increased self-esteem or more income…these already are benefits to working, without universal basic income being implemented and people still disregard it.

Plus everything else in society would rise in turn - you’d be naive to think housing costs, food costs, transport and bills wouldn’t additionally increase. Do you know how much social housing providers charge benefit claimants? It can be something ridiculous like £1000 per month for an overcrowded hostel in the north as it’s coming out of the government’s pocket, not the claimant’s. They take full advantage and put the rent at the maximum the government would pay out. That sort of attitude won’t go away.

I think people overstate the cost of means testing.

As a very crude estimation, the cost of means testing is basically the cost of paying a salary to whatever number of dwp employees it takes to administer those rules. Which yes, is a big number. However the cost of UBI is the cost of paying a salary to every adult in the country, which is a far far bigger number.

There are around 90,000 DWP staff, and roughly 45 million adults I think? So even if UBI meant we didn't need a single DWP employee anymore (unrealistic), you are attempting to pay for 500 people receiving UBI for every 1 person you no longer need to work on means testing. It just doesn't add up.

But one could not be receiving child maintenance due to shared care whilst still be entitled to the same amount of benefit.

I don't think cm should be affiliated with benefits.

Housing benefits don’t pay any more for people to live in posh areas. A claimant would get the same amount of housing benefit whether they live in the poshest street or a crack den in the same borough. In most areas, housing benefit only covers a fraction of the rent. In my area it’s about half.

I wouldn't focus on fixing the benefits system. I'd focus on fixing the housing and childcare markets. If people had access to affordable housing and childcare, the benefits system wouldn't have to fix those problems as well. If generally you could pay rent and childcare and live on 1 full time wage then people would mostly do it.

It should be the equivalent of 38 hours at the minimum wage in my opinion.

@Welovecrumpets Why would tax dwindle?
Ubi would contribute towards taxable income so you’re relying on a unproven theory that the majority of people would seek no extra work as the basis of your argument.
as of January this year 6.4m people were on UC. Of these people only 1.4m fall in the searching for work category. So as a % of people who are currently receiving benefits a large % who are able to work, do.

This.

And also scrap zero hours contracts which are an enormous barrier to employment for parents. When sanctimonious people bang on about single SAHMs “not wanting to work”, they don’t see that it’s often impossible for them to work. They’d be forced to pay for full time childcare even if they’d only been given 8 hours work that week. Most entry level jobs are 0hrs. Employers complain that they can fill the vacancies and wonder why?

How large would they have to be to draw conclusions? Why would they bother with a trial at all if conclusions could not be drawn?

Me too. I would cap profits made by landlords to a certain formula depending on the area the property is in and its size.

Amen.

It would have to be a comparable country (ie France), and involve 3million people or so. The only country who has UBI is Iran, and if you think we can cheerily adopt the same system as Iran and expect the same outcome then 😳

That would cost over a TRILLION pounds per year - over three times as much as current benefits expenditure of £305 billion, of which 55% goes to pensioners.

Suppose someone posted on MN ‘I am very wealthy and I can afford to give my child a £2k a month allowance for the rest of their life. My child is currently 16. When should I start paying them?’

What do you think the answers would say?

I think many many posters would say ‘Not yet. They may lose ambition and not develop a sense of responsibility. Wait until they are settled in a good career and then maybe at age 25-30, or maybe later to help with childcare costs’.

There’ll always be a small % of a population with no inclination to work. At the moment the system we have means that the hard working pay for these people to sit at home while they receive nothing in return. A UBI pitched at the right levels would not necessarily see these people receive any more money, It would, however, give those working a higher income, a larger sense of security and more opportunity to pursue entrepreneurial or creative paths. What it would also do is reduce the sense of social inequality, the majority are no longer contributing to a growing benefit system without seeing any benefits themselves.
UBI isn’t necessarily the solution to the small % who will never work but equally that small % shouldn’t be a reason for it not to be implemented.

I think the biggest change would have to be removing any and all loopholes which mean fathers can get out of paying for the children they create…I know there’s been the CSA etc but that appears to be toothless. Only once this is forcefully done can there be any meaningful change.

The country cannot keep supporting these feckless men (am aware I probably sound like a raving Tory, but I’m really not!)

Off at that tangent! 😂

I would because I want more than just a basic lifestyle, ubi wouldn't cover my dd's hobbies, holidays, running a car. More than basic treats in life. I want to provide so much more than just a basic lifestyle which is all ubi would supply.

Know someone who get benefits to the equivalent of 17 hours a week on minimum wage and has done for well over a decade. She could work but under tax credits it would not have been worth it.

Can I also suggest scrapping contracts where the employer would like you to be “fully flexible” and cover overtime/ sick/ holidays but only guarantee 8-16 hours work a week.

Really? People were calling for it to be enough for holidays etc above. In that case we may as well keep the current system

Ok. Who sets these parameters? 3 million seems like a huge amount for a trial. I'm not sure why our experience would be so different to Iran's. Iran's experience has been pretty much the same as every country that's tried it but I guess unless it is in France and by 3 million people it should be ignored.