To love the idea of scrapping all benefits and just giving everyone £500 a month

[DyslexicScientist]

Like Finland are going to do.

Would get rid of all the east that goes on with means testing and would cost about the same.

Would be much fairer as the current system does discriminate against certain demographics.

My mum doesn't get any disability benefits, just a basic state pension. She is 68 and has lots of physical difficulties. She used to get a Blue Badge until her council said you had to have a mobility benefit to get it.

Although she spends nearly all of her time in the house, so apart from heating, she spends very little money.

I may be uninformed, but I am not talking about major disability, as someone previously said there is a huge range of disabilities and some that can obviously not be seen. I am talking about borderline cases, who then retire and continue to receive the full benefits. The person in this case is still fully mobile, although it short of breath, but of course needs blue badge, the other non disabled person has just had operation but not entitled to park in blue badge parking for check ups etc. And actually yes the tax system does pay, as it should, but people that have worked all there lives and get a little infirm in there senior years should be at least equal not penalised for not being disabled. Sorry for the rant, both these people are close to me, I know what they are and are not capable of, and I certainly know who has the better standard of life both financially and physically.

Blue Badges are for long term difficulties. If someone is recovering from an operation, that doesn't count.

Hmm, maybe I am uninformed but there is a huge range of disabilities and I would not wish any of them to get less. However the person I am talking about is not in a wheelchair and is mobile, although gets very short of breath, the other non disabled person has recently had operation, yet cannot Park in disabled parking for check ups etc. Both people in 70's, now fairly similar in abilities, yet one gets car blue badge, and gloats over spending to the person who has scrimped and saved, yet gets no help, where's the fairness in that.

In my experience of hospital parking you rarely manage to get a blue badge space even with a blue badge.

Hospital parking is a nightmare.

The current system is unfair to some and costs a fortune in admin (and stress, for people trying to get what they are entitled to).

CI would, I'm sure, be unfair to some as well, but should be cheaper in admin, and way less stressful. The idea behind it is that it opens up options - admittedly not for all, but for many.

Disability/many children/single parents - this is where it does all get tricky - but of course, it already is! It isn't as if we've got the perfect system for all of these groups now, is it??!
Disability - yes, some sort of uplift would be needed
Many children - not sure about this. I'd probably go for super-subsidised universal childcare/early education. Plus CB at the sort of rates it is now.
SPs - this is indeed really hard - but I guess that at the very least, there'd be an easier way of 'enforcing' child maintenance payments, as they'd just be diverted from the CI directly.

With disability a very big uplift would be needed and you would still need to assess. Those costs wouldn't go away.

I love the comment: " stop acting like its been taken from your pocket."

People must realise that even if we cut all benefits today they wouldn't be any more than a couple of quid a week better off, and would pay the price of having a terrible society.

I also love the ability of people to judge disabilities better than GPs, Social workers etc etc. Ah so you know because you SAW them go shopping, ah right I love your expertise.

CI would massively help people like myself who are disabled, but can do some work. It would also encourage saving and private pensions. One of the negatives of our benefit system is that it discourages saving and small private pensions, as you can easily end up worse off if you had just spent the money.
I think there needs to be an amount per child as well. But maybe an amount per child for all existing children, then for new children born an amount per child for the first two children.

Then it is only disabled people and pensioners you need a top up for. For everyone of working age, the CI should be low enough so you can survive, but low enough that it encourages people to work.

People must realise that even if we cut all benefits today they wouldn't be any more than a couple of quid a week better off, and would pay the price of having a terrible society.

really? back of envelope...

there are 30m taxpayers, and DWP budget is 170B. Looks to me that that's 6000 per tax payer. Excluding pensions (90B) leaves that number at roughly 3000 per tax payer. of course, not everyone contributes the same so the 3000 pounds "rebate" wouldn't be evenly distributed.

CI would, I'm sure, be unfair to some as well, but should be cheaper in admin, and way less stressful.

that depends on what you mean "unfair". I think it's certainly unfair what people with disabilities have to go through, but some people require disproportionate state help because they live in an expensive area (through HB). Not convinced that that's fair.

I suspect a CI would bring house prices down. Market rents are ridiculously high in many areas of the country, and that has been boosted by housing benefits.

CI is fairer to anyone who can work. It is only those who cant work who need a big uplift.

Finland is not part of scandinavia -.-

Red...it must be entirely back of the fag packet..

Half of that DWP figure is pensions, and another 10 percent pension credits, another huge chunk is incapacity and disability, that has already been acknowledged that would still be necessary.

So scrap pensions too you reckon?

The "guess whose paying" crowd need to work out what intangible benefits they get from the state too before they start whinging. Nearly everyone is tax deficit at death, and the very richest have benefited the most from society so should contribute more.

Oh red you're expensive area drivel again? Really? Green eyed monster there...

Oh and £3000 / 52 is 57.69 per week, so you'd do what with that? How much more would it benefit you? But you'd see others in penury for it.

I admire your "independent" nature.

Half of that DWP figure is pensions, and another 10 percent pension credits, another huge chunk is incapacity and disability, that has already been acknowledged that would still be necessary.

Hmmm. I entirely included and acknowledged pensions. Apparently you didn't read that part.

No, I never said get rid of the anything. YOU said People must realise that even if we cut all benefits today they wouldn't be any more than a couple of quid a week better off. That statement seemed to imply that all benefits only cost us "a couple of quid a week", which is plainly false.

I am not recommending getting rid of anything (in that post), just pointing out that your accounting is way off.

57.69 per week

more than a couple of quid.

Oh red you're expensive area drivel again?

drivel, exploding budget, it's all the same.

Actually, I am quite a lefty. You appear to like state money going to private landlords. I would instead have it going to education (tertiary students are getting a raw deal now), nhs, or other things.

The accounting is fine, £57 a week is negligible to most people who pay enough tax to see £3,000 rebate.

Most would see a very small rebate of a few quid a week, with far higher coming in the top brackets, who would see the figure as negligible..

Point stands.

£57 a week is negligible to most people who pay enough tax to see £3,000 rebate.

so, now you are everyone's accountant and think you can say that 3000 a year is negligible, from even low tax payers? I think your opinion wouldn't withstand a poll. And how, after the accounting, is it again dropping to "a few quid a week"?

I am not suggesting removing all benefits (in fact, I would like to see many of them go up). I just don't want to lie about the numbers.

But if you were a low taxpayer you wouldn;t be getting £57 a week would you ?

On the average salary you only pay £3100 anyway!

But if you were a low taxpayer you wouldn;t be getting £57 a week would you ?

depends on how the rebate is given. But I wasn't trying to suggest what we should do with "the rebate". just that it's not a "couple of quid per week" each.

But you wouldn't get a rebate of £3000 if you only paid £3100 anyway would you?

So I'm right, to most people it would be a couple of quid a week really. BUT you would pay far higher social costs due to it.

I reckon its value for money as it stands.

So I'm right

if you say so.

I reckon its value for money as it stands.

"it's" is not one thing. Much of the benefits system is value, and parts of it are down right anti-productive. People here have said that they don't like the perverse incentives it gives on not working (understandable. if working makes you worse off, that's a problem), or that it keeps people out of taking temporary work on account of coming on and off benefits. HB pushes up rents, especially in the capital.

So, it's not all value for money. We have to be more careful about it.