If you rely on state support , you should have a great quality of life, not the breadline

[confidenceboost]

Aibu? Can we have a healthy chat on this one:

I will set my position out so nobody can say I've drip fed. I would say I have quite socialist mindset to be honest although I have grown up very privileged due to my parents hard work
I am from the uk but moved around as a child coming back to England age 18 for uni

I have been always lucky enough not to need help from the government. I think some people probably do claim help and don't need it but mostly I would say the cases are very genuine

Here's where I don't know if I am different

I think you should be given a high , highest quality of life by the govt if you genuinely for whatever reason need it.
Why should you live on the breadline?
Why should you turn down your heating?
Why should you not get treatment or help that would improve your life ?

Is it degrading to give state benefit as a breadline type lifestyle? I say yes

I think I am not being unreasonable saying that benefits and state support should be increased as it is unfair to resign people to a poor quality of life due to them needing help?

Thank you

How do you propose it's paid for?

Cool. How are we paying for it? Working people taxed to an extent that they then have a poor quality of life?

Shouldn't people who work hard also get these things?? Because there is many many people out there doing just this and literally living week to week.

No you should just get the basics if you don't work otherwise there's no incentive to work

🤔

State benefits are ridiculous. They need to be drastically cut back in certain circumstances

Did you forget to put the poll in your OP?

I agree in principle, however I work 45 hours a week and live that sort of 'breadline' lifestyle too.

Why should you live on the breadline?
Why should you turn down your heating?
Why should you not get treatment or help that would improve your life ?

All those things apply to me too. I can't afford the dental treatment I need, I had to go into debt to get a tooth removed that was causing pain and infection and I've got other issues brewing but I need to pay that off first.

I think people forget that it's not just people on benefits that live on the breadline. I've no issue with people who need benefits getting them and having a decent standard of living, but everyone should have that too.

State benefits should be enough to pay basic needs. So a single person should get enough for rent, bills, clothing etc and provisions for single people with no children fall very short.

But on the whole, no there is no need to provide an extravagant lifestyle on benefits.

I would be inclined to agree. I say that as someone who has lost my whole livelihood due to a disability which has left me completely unable to work, thus affecting my children's lives too. I also personally know several people who are absolutely able to work yet choose to live on benefits and, in my view, defraud the system. That's where the problem lies. The system needs to be able to differentiate. Those who are able to work, should have an incentive to do so and therefore have a better quality of life.

Most working people on decent incomes either can't afford or can't access what you are proposing.

It's unaffordable and impractical. The Nordic countries are probably closest but they have small populations, generally oil wealth (Norway) or geothermal (Iceland), and high taxation levels plus a completely different mindset re personal responsibility and sense of community.

Ideally;
People who cannot work / have come to retirement age should indeed have a good quality of life.
That would need defining though and is very subjective.
People out of work need to be supported as a safety net in between jobs
People in full time work should not need to have their wages topped up by benefits
People in f/t work should be able to enjoy housing security, a decent quality of life and equal opportunity prospects for their children.

The whole economy seems out of whack.

There is no money for this. The welfare bill is rising astronomically. The country cannot afford to have so many unproductive workers.
There is always a poster who suggests airily that 'rich' people and businesses are taxed more highly. if the UK taxes too heavily rich people move elsewhere and businesses move overseas.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/27/entrepreneurs-prepare-quit-britain-ahead-budget-tax-raid/
THE UK is so much more generous than the USA in terms of maternity benefits, sick leave and unemployment benefits.
With Trump and Republicans in power our bill for Defence is going to rise significantly. There are so many calls on the public purse. Some LA's fear bankruptcy because of the huge and steadily increasing welfare costs. Schools are struggling for money. The NHS is struggling for money.
Labour hopes to improve conditions for working people. Even Labour has had to do an about turn on welfare bills.
Things are going to get much tougher. There is less and less money available for really worthy areas. Education and the NHS being significant needs

So you think the people who pay into the system but live on the breadline, should be worse off than those who receive their money?

What incentive does that give people to work?

Assuming this is legit 🤨

I’m interested what is your reasoning / justification for giving people (who are not contributing) a better lifestyle than many people who do work.

because the reality is it’s not “the government” paying this…it’s other workers paying tax that provide these handouts / “benefits”.

And it is being funded by a large class of people who themselves can’t afford to buy decent food and high quality meat, who can’t afford to set the thermostat is 21 degrees, who can’t afford a summer holiday abroad.

why do you think it’s right they financial provide for others (who in many cases are just not willing to work) to have a better standard of living than they themselves can achieve?

why would anyone spend 40-60 hrs a week working?

The issue is when those on benefits have a higher income and better quality of life than those working.

if I’m working 40 hours a week for an average quality of life, and those on benefits are living at, to quote the o/p “the highest” quality of life, then what’s the point of working?

there’s no point going to university and getting into debt when you can sit on benefits for a great quality of life.

someone has to be on that lowest rung. Why should it be those who work?

I think you should be given a high , highest quality of life by the govt if you genuinely for whatever reason need it.

What reasons would you consider come under the umbrella of genuinely needing it? Because I think that's where you'll get the most disagreement between people around what "qualifies".

and if you can't work?

Yes but then we need a completely different approach to benefits. Where my parents live, unemployment benefits are only paid for 6 months. You then can't apply again for a number of years. The benefit amount is decent but there is always end in sight. (I am taking about unemployment without a genuine medical reason, of course). You also then don't get state medical coverage which is less ideal, in my opinion but it is what it is.
I wouldn't be surprised in Nordic Countries have the same approach but I don't know for sure.

I think a lot of people want an uncomfortable level of support with the intention of incentivising people back into work. The problem with that is some people cannot work so really you are just keeping them uncomfortable for life.

I hate to break it to you but the majority of working people don't have the "highest quality of life".

And secondly, what would the incentive to work be if you could just have the highest quality of life without working, commuting, student debt, childcare fees?

And thirdly, how would it be paid for?

No. I don’t think it would encourage striving for self suffiency. Only the most vulnerable should be supported by society. Most people could do at least something either to support themselves partially or contribute to their community.

Having said that I appreciate that costs are so high now that essential minimum wage jobs are not able to provide a life. I think that one minimum wage job should be able to provide basic housing, food and bills for a family of four - one SAHP and one working. I do mean basic - second hand things, food cooked at home, take packed lunches on days out etc. It has mucked everything up that wage top ups are needed for a basic lifestyle because wages haven’t gone up. I think benefits should be able to provide the same sort of life - the difference being that the worker can upskill and the second parent can go to work once kids in school. I do appreciate this means a lot of mind shifting not least in employers being more flexible and offering school hours etc.

It would not encourage people to work hard if an amazing life could be had on purely benefits. Charities are available to provide nice experiences for people who are disabled or long term sick and I do think more funds should be allocated to those people and families.

"Nurses and doctors aren't paid enough"
"Teachers should be paid more for what they do"
"Dental care should be free"
"the state pension should be more"

Perhaps all that stuff is true, but this is also the same question I ask these people when it is brought up - almost like they've had an idea, but then never thought to look further into the logistics.

Raising everyones taxes is the obvious answer, i don't know enough about government finances and schemes to know if there's even other ways to provide that kind of care.

This is it. The whole economy is out of whack.

Everyone deserves to have their basic needs met. It is a false economy to leave people sick with serious health conditions in housing that they cannot afford to heat.

@op where are you?