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”.

Wages yes, benefits no. Each local authority has a different local housing allowance for benefits based on rent costs in that particular area. In my area the LHA for a 2 bedroom place is £650pm, in some London areas it's £1500pm so someone in that area would get more benefits than me to cover their higher rent. But if we moved to UBI and everyone got say £2000 per month regardless of where they live, I'd be better off because my rent is much cheaper than someone living in London.

Benefits should not exceed the amount one gets paid for 40 hours on NMW.
I would definitely get rid of in work benefits, and introduce a tax code system whereby your status single/ partnership/ DC would determine how much tax you pay.

Having said that, we need to adress the low wage culture in this country first.

For people who suffer job loss due to no fault of their own, I'd give them a grace package of 80% of their wages for the first 3 months, then 50% or £1800.- max for 5 months. That's enough time to find a job.

Aftter that, benefits should be providing the basic of food & clothing vouchers housing (people should be able to move out of council housing once back in FT work) and a small amount of pocket money.
In other words being nannied by the state if you fail to find work.

I like the idea of UBI but would question how it's sustainably financed for everyone. Hence my suggestion is that UBI should be available for long term sickness while in treatment, people who cannot work due to disabilities and pensioners.

Universal basic income - so what is the incentive for people to work rather than just living off the tax payer? Its bad enough at the moment with people working 16 hours and then claiming as many benefits as they can, rather than working. UBI would just exasperate the situation.

That’s how I understand it.

So at present, I’m not entitled to any benefits so go to work at a (just above) minimum wage job to earn a thousand pounds to contribute to the family money pot. If the government are going to give me that money Scott free, why go to work?

Obviously, if we wanted better holidays , car etc I’d work, but if the government are going to give both dp and I money, then I could opt not to work, or dp could opt to do fewer hours/less well paid job (And I work) to get the same money.

She has for many years. Obviously don’t want to go into details but this is accurate. May change with Universal credit but that hasn’t been rolled out yet here.

You clearly don't know much about it because the 16 hours thing stopped a while ago when Universal Credit was introduced.

You're forgetting about the benefit cap. Around me the benefit cap is about equal to LHA for a 3 bedroom house.

beezknees - agree i'm out of touch. so how does it work now, have they increased the minimum or are people expected to work FT?

Still dont understand what the work incentive is with UBI?

@mitogoshi I don't think we should be forcing both parents back to work until youngest is 2, as long as one is working full time (obviously mitigating circumstances like elder care responsibilities aside).

But why should someone without a job be able to have benefits for 2 years with a baby whilst someone who works only has about a year’s maternity leave-most of it unpaid? This is where it’s so unbalanced

I know there's a cap but why does that make a difference to what I'm saying? My point is that currently, someone living in London and working the exact same job as me for the same pay in same circumstances would get more UC than me as they'd have a higher housing allowance, but we'd still have a similar amount of money left after rent. But if UBI replaced all of that and was the same no matter where you lived, I'd have far more disposable income than someone with a much higher rent.

Yes that’s one of the many issues with it. It basically means that money wouldn’t be going where it’s needed. Instead of targeting limited resources we would spread them thinly. Some people would benefit but many people (through no fault of their own) would be left much worse off

I haven't really thought about it, but definitely not more than the NMW no matter what your circumstances - to my mind it was set up as a temporary means of support not a lifestyle.

I think a much fairer system needs to be set up for those concerned - some seem to be in genuine poverty - not eating all day, never have the heating on, DC with holes in their school shoes - and yet we've got a local family with seven children, they have a people carrier, have petrol to put in it to drive DC 5 mins to school (only one in a pushchair) and a massive flat screen tv - they're often hanging around school smoking, not wearing anything flashy. How is that fair?

Sad, isn't it

Bullshit.

This doesn't thappen.

Universal Credit has no 16 hour limit.

If you're going to hate benefits and rage about them, do so from a more knowledgeable place, otherwise it's just ignorant rage

Huge typo in my post. Tescos projected profits for this year will be £2.8 billion not million.

Profit going to the wealthy, subsidised by the poor

So with UC you're now expected to work 30 hours once youngest child turns 3. It started off as 25 but it's increased recently.

The incentive would be more money. Of course some people would not want to work, there always are. But one of the disincentives is that UC reduces the more hours you work and the more you earn. If UBI was introduced and you got to keep it all no matter how much you earn it would definitely be an incentive. My wage is £1650 a month after tax and pension, if UBI was, say, £2000 a month and I could keep it all plus my salary I would absolutely carry on working, that would be a huge amount of money for me!

@WithACatLikeTread and lose £3k a month? No thanks.

Bullshit.

There's a 2 child limit on what they can claim for.

Unless disabilities and sicknesses are involved.

In that case, why are you mad that people.have disabled child?

More.ingorant rage.

My point is that under the current system many people who live in expensive areas don't have the same amount after paying rent as they are capped or LHA rates are far too low. People in cheaper areas have more disposable income under both systems.

And you solve the imbalance by picking on the unemployed instead of wondering why maternity leave is shit...

Stop looking down and wondering why the poor have so much, start looking up and wondering who is stopping you have more.

thanks beeznees. learnt something new today. thats one of the things i really love about mumsnet.

To lay my cards on the table, I get £400 a month UC personally. In December I got a performance based Christmas bonus at work. I work full time, and I work hard. But that Christmas bonus wiped out my UC payment for that month so my hard work was for very little reward. I appreciate that is how it works and I understand why, but it is demotivating at times. UBI would have meant I actually benefited from that bonus and would make me feel much happier about going to work 😂

What about inflation?

Guessing you have disabilities in your house etc so not sure why you say it is too much?

beeznees - i can empathise with your situation

I guess I have in mind relatives on husbands side who live in a very cheap area of the country. Historically if they havent fancied working they go on benefits. I imagine they would rub their hands with glee if UBI was introduced. To enable people to live in more expensive areas, this would have to be set quite high. I could see a lot of people just not bothering to work where they live (and they could probably have a decent standard of living). Bad for taxpayer, but also doesnt sound very healthy for the people/area.