Do you agree with these benefits?

[Sophieleigh26]

Do you think the amount people get in benefits (before deductions like earnings) is the right amount, or it should be more / less?

MONTHLY AMOUNT
Single & under 25 £265.31
Single & over 25 £334.91
Couple both under 25 £416.45
Couple over 25 £525.72

£244.58 extra allowance for children (up to 2 children)

A single parent not working (24) with one child (1) would receive £509.89 a month, before deductions (loans, debt etc)

obviously these are just summaries and there are different rules if you have children born before 2017, for example, or disabilities, childcare costs.

YABU - It seems ok / right
YANBU - It should be more / less

Way too low.

It is meant to, but I can't imagine how people manage, even temporarily, unless they have a buffer of savings, but then would you be allowed to claim? I'm really not sure.

There's a punitive feel to it, as I believe has been said already.

Is this not just meant to tide them over until they get a job though

Or top up income from working?

Also aren't you missing lots of stuff? Like the value of free school meals which are worth at least £50 per month per child, uniform grants, housing benefit elements, childcare elements etc?

It really depends whether you are viewing JSA as something short term, a stop gap claimed to keep you going between paid jobs, or as something providing enough for people to live on indefinitely, covering all costs.

*I can't imagine how people manage, even temporarily, unless they have a buffer of savings, but then would you be allowed to claim? I'm really not sure.

I think you have to have a pretty significant savings buffer (£16k?) Before you can't claim.

But isn't that going to lead to social cleansing? No poor in London for example. Who will do the low paid jobs there then. The Director doing a pit of polishing with a duster hanging out of the arse of his pin stripe?

But teacher friend had worked hard to be in the professional position she was in. I really don't know the right answer to this, apart from teachers should be paid more.

I'd imagine the TA worked just as hard, but lacked the formal teaching qualification. Though I understand your point.

Teaching pay does vary a lot, depending... Teaching friends of mine are quite well off.

How on earth do people live on that 😭

Honestly my heart goes out to anyone in a situation where they have to claim benefits.

Er, maybe get an actual job?

Why should under 25s get less? Rent is rent regardless of age.

Isn't it because there's an assumption many people this age can/do live with parents/other family and may not in fact HAVE to pay rent?

Very ignorant. Most UC claimants have jobs. In fact we have three between us and still need UC.

But that's why they're claiming benefits - because they haven't got a job and they're looking for one. If they can't prove they're actively looking for work they don't get benefits.

So yeah, incorporate housing benefit into UC and provide a flat rate not dependent on location. Let market forces do the rest. People will naturally move to cheaper areas, improving their own lives and the lives of all taxpayers - the whole country benefits from such a push for efficiency.

This doesn't work.
It would create "poor zones" where the lowest skilled etc move en masse to the cheapest areas which are cheap because they have fewer economic opportunities. A vicious cycle of worklessness and lack of jobs/oversupply of low skilled labour is created in these areas with no one paying enough council tax, leading to poor local governments cutting services including adult education & training, leading to even lower likelihood of economic improvement in these areas.

I think you have to have a pretty significant savings buffer (£16k?) Before you can't claim

Your benefits is affected if you have just £6k too.

But you’ve just reinforced my point. You have a job rather than becoming a drug dealer to supplement your benefits. And therefore you’re not surviving on just the amounts quoted in the OP.

Yeah but you get a larger work allowance and that does make a difference. Wish work allowance was higher generally.

It doesn't sound like much to live on.

With rent, council tax and school meals paid you end up with much more then just that.

They do, they are called healthy start vouchers now.

People on benefits have mortgages too you know.

There is no help for those save for a loan you can get that pays only the interest and you're not even eligible for that for 9 months.

They are criminally low and cause abject poverty. How is a newly redundant single person supposed to live when UC doesn't cover half their mortgage let alone bills?

Safety net my arse. Its eugenics.

This is precisely the twisted ideology that is plaguing the once great United Kingdom.

It absolutely does work.

Poor people live in poor places. That is how it should be, it's not some injustice.

Instead we have this perverted system in which some poor people are paying for other poor people to live in rich places. It's a tragic injustice that is harming us all significantly.

I agree with you OP they are too low

You have a job rather than becoming a drug dealer to supplement your benefits. And therefore you’re not surviving on just the amounts quoted in the OP.

Bit of a leap to assume that people claiming benefits must be supplementing their pittance by becoming drug dealers. Some might but most won't

It must be very difficult to manage on those amounts but I feel even more sympathy for the people working in low paid jobs and still have to claim benefits. How is that right that working for a living doesn’t pay?!

Like a pp I also believe in a universal basic income.

Also what about free prescriptions and dental care where applicable.
If taken into account then it's not a bad amount.

You would get help if you earned less, even if you were working the same amount of hours. It could happen to you or someone you love and then you'd be happy there's a net to catch you.