A Universal Credit

[Xenia]

As I had suggested, so now treads Iain Duncan Smith - merger of benefits and tax credits so you genuinely gain if you take a job. It also helps him with his sexist view women should be home with babies.
"
Housing benefit, income support, council tax benefit, working tax credit and child tax credit would be replaced by one single benefit. This could then "taper off" at a uniform rate providing a simple and transparent path back into the workforce for those currently caught in the benefits trap."

It's not quite a universal payment to all adults whether in work or not or whatever their income but it would be a welcome simplification and could help ensure people did work.

hehe Riven - I know I'm concerned about finding "out of hours" childcare for my 3 NT children......I wouldn't even like to start thinking about it if I had a child with SN

£200 to feed, clothe and water 3 dc's and me as well as pay for bills, rent etc.

£200 to do the same for 1 single person.

Lone parents should live in commume to be able to survive?

What the hell is Xenia going on about!!

Undomestic, I think the usual suggestion with Basic income policies is that each citizen would receive the income, so each of your dcs would get their own £X.

Of course, the critical question, as Beenbeta points out is - how much is X - and does it stay at that rate.

I do like the idea a lot in some ways, but I still struggle with how the incentives/motivations work in our current society. Clearly, there is a very substantial admin cost saving with a universal benefit. But as far as I can see it, if you genuinely provide a living income, then there is a possibility (likelihood?) of a vicious circle - ie that many people will choose not to do very much productive work. So then the tax rates on those who do more productive work will be relatively high, so less incentive to work, so tax rates have to go up, and round we go.

Serious question, if your DH had such a good job Riven then why doesn't he go back to it and pay somebody to help you out, surely that would be a more cost effective solution ?
I have friend with twins and a daughter with CP and they have a special needs nanny who is bloody brilliant, costs about £15 an hour which isn't massively over the going rate anyway for a nanny, surely if your DH was even earning £20 an hour, hardly mega bucks, you'd be better off ?

Oh and the friends are both nurses, so again not notoriously well paid professions but it seems to work for them.

Taker - yes I think it's interesting that there has been more focus on the level rather than the idea itself. I think the vicious circle you mention already exists. Whether this Solution would be worse or better would be almost impossible to say without some trials, but it would certainly be cheaper.

I know plenty of peopel with SN children who have childcare. But if you don't; earn much you can't afford it. David Cameron I presume had childcare as he and his wife work.

Universal benefits work very well and save us money as a nation so I hope some form of it does get introduced.

If the Green party had this policy first that's fine. We live in coalition times considering desperatemeasures to feed citizens burdened with the debt of the previous Government. We certainly need some radical solutions.

The level which I simply plucked from the air is irrelevant. I very much doube IDS would give it to all adults but hemight to all adults earning under £25k say then it wouldn't be universal.

An alternative is workfare for all for benefits which a lot of peopole would be behind because that gets the unemployed used to getting up for work gives purpose to life etc.

The idea we might encourage people to live with a partner and family members is not such a bad one. Most of the planet operates on that basis. If you can affordn ot to you would often choose not to but if you can't afford to pay to live apart then I don't see why taxpayers should be funding that.

In principle it's a great idea, but it would be difficult to decide what the level of benefit would be.

Xenia I agree that living with family members or a partner is the way much of the rest of the world operates. I can see where you are coming from.

It might even make some families act in a more supportive manner too, i have another friend who works in a local job centre who has had mother and daughter sat in front of her, girl is 16 years old and when J concluded the benefits calculation the mother declared that seemed to her the best thing was for the daughter to be kicked out and go and stay in a hostel.
The girl burst into tears, maybe if the girl would be just well off in the family as out of it she might have been seen as a cash cow but at least be safer in the family home.

I think it's a great idea.

Everyone would be provided with the basics of life. Yes, some folk would just take it and thanks very much. But many would supplement it in a way that is currently not viable because they're (rightly) afraid of buggering about wiht their benefits.

I think that if people could actually see the cash in their pocket from the work they did, we'd find many who couldn't possibly do five mins paid work suddenly could.

That's so sad mamatomany. I came across a similar story but with a different outcome.

When a friend's teenage daughter became pregnant and she decided to keep her baby, they would have received more financial help from the state if they had kicked their pregnant daughter out. They chose to keep her and the baby at home with them but it came at a significant financial cost to them. Their grandson is now a lovely little three year old and their daughter has completed her studies and started her own business - their future may have been less positive if their daughter had to raise her son in a hostel without help on hand. My friends felt penalised for doing the right thing by their daughter and grandson.

I think that is another example of the downside to the current system and why it should change.

You know if the nanny registers with ofsted she can be paid via tax credits don't you ? More friends of ours were about to sack their nanny as the youngest starts school and they thought what would she do in school hours but what they've done is get her to start at 7.30 until 10 to help with the school run and clean, then pick up from 3.15 to 7pm and then pay her 30 hours a week but she'd be doing 7 til 7 in the school holidays for no extra pay.

You need to see the CAB or a benefits advisor Riven, according to entitledto.co.uk on £35k you'd be entitled to another £24k or £450 a week in benefits.

Yes that's childcare of £300 a week included in that estimation, but it seems you'd be entitled to that.

The biggest incentive to getting parents (mainly women) back to work has got to be the widening of the gap between the cost of childcare and the achievable wage.

If one felt that by working one was improving one's standard of living rather than diminishing that of one's children (as some feel due to lack of presence in the home) whilst only marginally improving the family's as a whole then we might see more of a point to going out to work.

As it stands it is frequently possible to be working many hours and yet be a few quid down on what you owe your childcare provider. At best to have a measly few quid in your pocket at the end of each month to 'treat' the children to a trip out somewhere, etc.

Childcare needs to be better subsidised and far far more flexible. The Ofsted approved rule is more limiting than the powers that be possibly realise.

Well thats my point on these threads Riven, either people aren't claiming all they are entitled to or they are mismanaging their finances because without going into massive detail I know that single mums/most people should be absolutely fine.

Fingers crossed for you