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.

Flat rate taxes and benefits are incredibly regressive.

As for "saving a fortune on admin," well.... job losses, anyone....?

Most people shouldn't rely on any type of welfare surely?

Just think about that for a second.

Child benefit
Pensions
Tax credits.

The overwhelming majority of people will claim at least one if not more of these across their lifetime.

If you aren't planning on claiming your state pension, you're more than welcome to forward the money to me.

DyslexicScientist

Being disabled doesnt automatically mean you can't work

well clearly not! sorry that made me giggle very inappropriately

I might change my dads username to "wheelchairboundretiree"

What about people who can't work?
it isn't my fault i have a disability.
I work for years. I don't like not being able to work.
I also don't like being in severe pain, being unable to get out of bed and having something that could kill me at anytime

Pluck - I dunno why you're conflating this with flat rate tax. As for the regressive nature - it's no different for all/any benefits.

Yes, job losses in thr public sector - it is nuts we employ so many people administering benefits, often making decisions that place people at risk - why not a baseline for everyone? No more arguments about benefit sanctions, no stupid requirement for people to apply for n jobs a week when they clearly aren't going to get one.

Ubi is very challenging to most people's beliefs about money, work and the right way to allocate goods and services

Income tax is complicated already. Trying to adjust through tax just moves the complexity and means testing to another part of the system. A part of the system that is currently cracking under the pressure.

www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/10/hmrc-failing-to-answer-millions-of-tax-inquiries

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/12/hmrc-staff-braced-for-thousands-of-job-cuts-if-tax-offices-close

I think it would be a bad idea. If our household was given an extra £1000 a month (500 for me 500 for DH) I would pack up work. I am a 1 to 1 TA for a child with severe autism, it is a tough job for crap money. There aren't a lot of people prepared to do it as it is, and a reduction in the workforce would mean it was very difficult for mainstream schools to practice inclusion. That would be detrimental to all children.

Its a great idea if there was an available job for every person, and if everyone was capable of doing work of some kind.
Sadly, neither of these things are the case or ever will be.

It's an interesting idea, but £500 a month surely wouldn't cover the basic costs of living for most people, stuff like rent + council tax + utilities + food. How does the UK compare to Finland when it comes to these costs? Are they a lot cheaper than us?

And is the idea for this to replace all other welfare benefits, or would people get DLA / housing benefits / pensions etc on top?

Kali110 no-one (except the current government and their fans) wants people who can't work to starve. In principle this could be a good move - sweep away the pages and pages of forms, reports and assesments - I wouldn't favour it if it made anyone who can't work worse off.

There doesn't need to be a job available to every person.
There are lots of couples that both work because they have to, if they had an extra £1000 a month you would find there would be quite a few people giving up work thus making the job available to someone else.

As I said above you would also see more job shares as people would be able to work less and still afford to live.

The £500 is a bit of a red herring as that wouldn't be workable here. But, the idea of a citizen's income isn't new and is quite an interesting one. There have been experiments over the years and I'm intrigued to see how it pans out in Finland.

I thought the experiments they'd done on this (Canada from memory) hadn't worked?

I don't like this idea. I don't need that money. If I had it I would spend it or probably save it but I can work and care for my family.

I would rather the money be given to someone who can't work because of disability - theirs or a dependent.

I think the benefits system is too complicated and unwieldy but just giving everyone a set amount of money every month seems far too simplistic a solution. It doesn't take into account all the variabilities.

I think it's a fab idea tbh.
it would hopefully help the wohp/ sahp debate about what is considered as worthwhile.
I'm not sure it would be enough to cover rent though, something would need to happen on top of this like building social housing.

The financial system is fucked
We need a better way of doing things
An economic system which fits the needs of people
Not one which allows the few to extract a profit from the many

State pension isn't a benefit, if you have a state pension then you have contributed NI payments over the years to provide for it (or your husband has, depending upon how old you are).

Like a previous poster I'd also be interested in finding out the living costs in Finland, the cost of housing for example & whether there is free state childcare.

Its an interesting idea though.

One practical problem I can see is that receipt of benefits often acts as a gateway into other forms of assistance e.g. free prescriptions. If benefits are replaced by a citizen wage how do you make sure that people can still access that additional assistance? At some point you get back to a form of means testing.

Its not just BTL landlords who would suffer if HB was cut and replaced by £500 pm. Have you any idea what social landlords charge in London? One bed accomodation is around £100 pw in the outer boroughs

here is a summary of the Canadian experiment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME

it had lots of knock on effects such as higher graduation rates and lower domestic violence incidences. Participants who worked had their mincome supplement reduced by 50 cents for every dollar they earned by working

I think it would be a good idea.

Re cost of living- the idea, I think, is that the cost of living would come down in this scenario. I don't necessarily buy that with food and utilities, but it probably would with rent. Housing benefit isn't the only reason rents have risen, not by any stretch of the imagination, but equally it's also true that people who don't have X amount to pay in rent per month for a house won't be paying it. You'd find prices would have to come down eventually. But that's as much a function of our ridiculous housing market as anything else. So this isn't benefits bashing, it's politician bashing. The fucked up situation is emphatically NOT the fault of the people on HB. Call me a rabid Trot, but something's gone very fucking wrong when the state is picking up the tab to house people in ex-SH properties that now cost five times in real terms what they did when they were council houses 30 years ago. There are some people who've done very well out of that, at the state's expense, and there's no need for that to continue to happen. So this would need to be accompanied by an expansion in SH as well, which won't happen.

There are actually a number of permutations of citizens income. Doesn't have to be a totally flat rate for everyone. There are proposals that include a higher amount for disabled people, and an amount for children too- say £250 a month on top of your £500 per adult. In most of the country, £1250 a month isn't enough for a family of two adults and one child right now. It might well be if they had access to a SH property at £325 a month, which is what my friend pays for her 2 bed currently. I also like the idea of having some facility for people to have a basic amount to keep body and soul together then be left alone. We currently have a society where we don't actually need the labour of all our capable adults, and yet we piss away oodles of money we don't have berating and bullying hundreds of thousands of people when we'd be just as well if the majority of them sat on their arses all day anyway. Fuck that.

However, I'm not a supporter of CI on balance because I think although it might solve a number of problems eventually, it would cause too much suffering on the way. But will be watching with interest.

I also meant to point out above that £500 a month is actually a lot more than plenty of vulnerable, low income people get from the state now anyway. I have a relative who is a carer for another disabled family member. CA is more like half that a month. They don't get anything else because they have a working spouse. My relative, and lots of other carers, would be considerably better off with CI.

But in the long term would it work?

Today, couple A earns 30K. With an extra 12K a year they can afford to go part time. Their overall income remains 30K

Couple B earns 30K. They get the extra 12K but decide to both keep working. Overall income becomes 42K

What does that mean? They can spend more on housing for example...and can price couple A out of the market.

After a few years, wouldn't the 500 just become the new baseline?

I have always thought this is a marvellous idea - sorry you are getting a rough time op.

I think many of the working poor would benefit, students, stay at home parents, young adults generally. The vulnerable would need additional support, but it is not unthinkable or unworkable at all.

I love the idea of everyone getting a citizens wage, enough to live on and provide a roof over someone's head, and then people can work for extras, like a nicer house, more luxuries, nicer houses etc.

£500 a month would not be enough for me DH is disabled and can't work, I have a low paid job, we wouldn't be able to survive.

Would you be able to survive on £1000 a month if you could live in a SH one bed for the two of you at, say, £300 a month U2? If not, how much extra do you think would be needed for a disabled person?