Scrap Benefits and pay every adult, working, non working or retired, an unconditional basic income of £15,000 a year? Discuss

[CorruptBstard]

Hi

Ok Mumsnet, what do you think of this?

Pay every adult in the uk £15,000 a year, with no conditions attached, so that every adult is free to use their time to do stuff, just for the love of it.

This basic income would cover basic needs for food and shelter, if people wanted to earn more money they could go and work for someone else or start a business of their own

This would abolish poverty in one fell swoop.

Wheres the money coming from to pay for it?

well apart from scrapping all "state benefits", we could also scrap income tax and fund it all by taxing money every time its spent.

ie Government gives me £5. I pass that £5 round a group of 10 friends. By the time the £5 comes back to me, it has been "spent" 10 times. Creating a turnover of £50. If the government taxes that spending at 20%, it raises £10 in tax. Making a profit of £5.

Thoughts?

If you recieved £15,000 a year unconditionally, what would you do just for the love of it?

And yet I when I had 3 DC, was better off working than I was on benefits.

Unless you are counting Tax Credits in with benefits, in which case I wouldn't be better off in work. Even more now...

I don't know their exact circumstances but both informed me that they have more disposable income now than they did before having children.

You just don't have 'disposable income' when living purely off benefits though.

I don't believe anyone has more disposable income after having children but especially those on benefits!

Even with 4 DC, the only reason I wouldn't be better off in work is because of childcare costs. If childcare was more subsidised, then you would find a lot more Lone Parents would flock out to work.

Most people I know that zDON'T work say it is only the childcare costs that cause them to be worse off while working. They could afford to pay a nominal amount when they are earning LESS THAN A LIVING WAGE, but Nursery fees here are £52 a day, and a days care for a school age DC in the holidays is £50. Which is not particularly helpful when you only earn £47 a day...

Yes, Tax Credits pay UP TO £210 a week to help with childcare, but if you have more than 2 DC in childcare, with one in Nursery, that covers less than 60% of the costs, and the more DC you have, the lower the percentage of the costs of childcare is covered by that £210 a week.

These are people who were either SAHM's or working very short hours around their Ex's job while they were IN a relationship, and had their DC's as a joint decision, but have been left to bear the ENTIRE costs of childcare without their Ex's being made to pay towards it.

If the rich fathers that leave are forced to continue to pay private school fees, why is it that lower income fathers are not made to pay half the cost of childcare fees when they leave their relationships?

Making fathers 50% liable for childcare fees when a relationship breaks down would get ALL the single mums I know that are on benefits with 3+ DC's back into employment.

As far as I see it, despite fathers supposedly being 50% responsible for their DC, they are not expected to be 50% responsible for essential costs such as childcare to enable BOTH parents to work.

Any changes in the benefits system IMO should have addressed this, and made it possible to split claims in respect of shared care, for both the RP and the NRP to claim help with the childcare costs if they were separated, if their income was low enough, so that both could become liable for 50% of childcare costs that enable them BOTH to be employed. Why is it deemed to be solely the financial responsibility of the RP, when their income has to take a hit anyway as they are the ones who have to fit their work around the available childcare. Leaving them unable to be as flexible about employment hours and days as the NRP anyway.

And it would certainly focus serial Father's minds when they walked out on their DC if they KNEW they would be liable for 50% of childcare costs if their child's mother/s went back to work. And none of this taking it out of JSA at a stupidly low rate of £5/£10 a week - if there was no protection on the possibility that they could lose ALL their JSA to pay for their child to be cared for while the child's MOTHER went back to work, they'd soon take A job, ANY job...

AmberLeaf "I don't believe anyone has more disposable income after having children but especially those on benefits!"

I know of two people who beg to differ.

isnt part of the problem not that someone gets more money on benefits than working but they dont get enough extra by working to believe its worth it?

MrJudgeyPants

Is it possible that these two women aren't very good at maths and are perhaps underestimating the full cost of having a child and are in for a nasty shock at some point in the future?

Couthy. The answer cannot simply be to further subsidise whatever you feel is a noble cause. Regardless of whether or not it is. Subsidies rarely work and they simply skew the market.

As for making father's liable for 50% of the childcare costs, it's both unrealistic and unfair. Unrealistic because how do you collect the money? The CSA can barely collect maintenance let alone an additional burden. (I assume you mean you'd like to see childcare in addition to maintenance yes? Rather than in lieu of)

Secondly it's unfair to give father's 50% of the childcare especially if they have had no choice in choosing the place nor agreed to the costs.

And just where does this money magic itself from? I mean in your case you'd be entitled to 25% of your ex's net income for four kids and in addition you want 50% of childcare for all 4 kids as well? Just where would he get this money from? Now I don't know, maybe your ex is some secret millionaire who could afford all that. Most people could not.

Oh and just to add to MrJudgey's experiences. I have a close friend who split up from her husband a couple of years back. Both lovely, just unsuited to each other.

When they were together he worked full time, she worked part time. Between them they struggled for every penny. Now they've split up, she's far better off on tax credits. I know this for a fact because I helped her work out her budget. By FAR better off. All whilst working part time. In fact, she'd be entitled to housing benefit too if she wanted to but she's decided that she'd rather stay in the marital home and took over the mortgage. How did she afford that? Well she found a mortgage company willing to take tax credits into account.

I'm sure now many people will now accuse me of lying again and making it all up. But I'm not. And the reality is that we all know people who are better off on benefits.

And just where does this money magic itself from? I mean in your case you'd be entitled to 25% of your ex's net income for four kids and in addition you want 50% of childcare for all 4 kids as well? Just where would he get this money from Now I don't know, maybe your ex is some secret millionaire who could afford all that. Most people could not

Hah! But yet she is expected to find it? Or adjust/limit her working hours accordingly?

That's the point of why its unfair, its solely down to the mother to sort/fund childcare while the father doesn't have that to worry about so is able to work any hours without having to worry about who's gonna pick up the kids.

I know of two people who beg to differ

Well unless their job prior to having a child was a paper round then I'm sorry but I don't believe it.

Life on benefits doesn't give you a disposable income.

Amber. Yes, that is one of the big downsides for being a resident parent. Are you seriously suggesting it's fair (let alone realistic) that a dad who has regular contact is somehow compelled to pay maintenance & additional childcare to the ex whilst she also gets all the benefits whilst he gets none?

If you want to explore that route then I'd suggest a 50-50 split on everything is fairer. That means tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit, the lot.

The NRP is not just some walking wallet.

merrymouse Are you saying that they are both so financially innumerate as to not know when they have more money in their pockets after buying all of their necessities? One of them has run her own business FFS!

In their specific circumstances they are both better off than they were before their children were born. Niceguy2 confirms this sort of thing can happen. I?m not making this up!

Unfortunately, this thread has gone off on a tangent ? the original point I made, that pre-empted the tangent, was that individuals should be put in charge of their own welfare through a universally granted pot which is given to every adult in the country regardless of circumstance. This pot would be made up from redistributing the current welfare bill (with extra provision for the disabled and pensioners). Over time, (i.e. when people have had adequate time to adjust their affairs to suit the system ? at least 30 years or so) the state pension could be gradually withdrawn.

This system would give us a privately administered pot which can be borrowed against in times of difficulty and saved up in times of plenty. As, over time, there is no incentive to maximise your claim, nor is there a benefit ?penalty? should you return to work, I believe this simple and cheap to administer system would radically alter all our lives by extending credit to the poorest (given suitable checks and balances), solve the pensions crisis, enable more people to go to university and reduce worklessness.

What does everyone else think of this idea in principle?

Are you seriously suggesting it's fair (let alone realistic) that a dad who has regular contact is somehow compelled to pay maintenance & additional childcare to the ex whilst she also gets all the benefits whilst he gets none?

The ex(mother) wouldn't need all those extra benefits if she was in a position to earn in the same way as the father is.

If he contributed towards the childcare instead of it being left to the mum or her tax credits eligability then she could earn more and need less support anyway.

So he has 'regular' contact? Whoopdidoo does he want a medal for that? And of course you know that most NRPs don't in fact pay maintenance at all (was it you that I discussed that with recently?) Only 38% I think do and that includes the £5 a week jsa ones.

So actually yes I do think its fair that childcare should be a 50/50 thing and yes NRPs should be compelled to pay, but just like child maintence it won't happen and most RPs will be left to do it all themselves or the welfare state has to do it.

Deal with useless errant fathers and stop beating single parents with the scrounger stick.

Amber, nobody is beating single parents with the scrounger stick.

In principle you are correct, childcare should be 50-50. But then if we're talking principles then every child should be able to split their time 50-50 between parents and every cost/benefit should also be shared equally.

As I said to you in a previous post, family breakups are complex issues and ideas which you think are 'fair' are all to often unfair to too many people. The world isn't black & white and that's why the law all to often fails. We're trying to apply the law which is colour blind in a world which has many shades of grey.

@Judgey. Again the principle is sound but would only work based on the assumption that everyone has equal luck and manages their money sensibly. Let's assume for a moment a parent doesn't. He/she goes out, spends their pot on fags & booze. Then there's nothing left to feed the kids. Do we just let them starve?

Amber, nobody is beating single parents with the scrounger stick

Really? I think they are. When you make getting single parents back to work regardless of the difficulties that presents and penalise them financialy if they fail yet errant fathers are allowed to just 'be' then yes you are beating them with the scrounger stick. You are demonising the parent that is being a parent and allowing the true feckless parent to get off scot free.

50/50 shared care/parenting will only ever happen in the minority of cases. This is not simply due to 'courts favouring mums/women' its because not that many men/dads actually want it.

Much more should be done to make NRPs who don't pay pay

AmberLeaf "Much more should be done to make NRPs who don't pay pay"

You could arrange to have money docked from their Universal Allowance and immediately handed over to you for your child under my system. Also, if you are concerned about people being labelled as scroungers, under my system everyone would be paid the same - there would be no scroungers.

niuceguy2 "the principle is sound but would only work based on the assumption that everyone...manages their money sensibly. Let's assume for a moment a parent doesn't. He/she goes out, spends their pot on fags & booze. Then there's nothing left to feed the kids."

This happens under the current welfare system though (parents pissing benefit money up the wall to the detriment of their children - AGAIN, IT'S ONLY A MINORITY WHO DO THIS BEFORE ANYONE HAS ANOTHER BRAINFART) and we have Social Services to pick up the pieces - I don't see that as an argument for dismissing this system.

merrymouse Are you saying that they are both so financially innumerate as to not know when they have more money in their pockets after buying all of their necessities?

Yes, because

1. Many people are that financially innumerate
2. Many people don't understand how their financial needs will change over time and confuse having ready funds now with being able to meet long term financial commitments
3. One of them has run her own business FFS! Plenty of people with their own businesses are very good at thinking that 2+2=5, at all levels of society.

and

4. What Amberleaf said about the paper round.

Much more should be done to make NRPs who don't pay pay

On that point we both agree. We just differ in how that would look in practice.

That would be nice mrjudgy lord knows I'd need it as I'd be very much worse off un the £15k!

Niceguy tbh uit won't look anything in practice as it will never happen!

Easier to focus on the single parents as its not so easy for us to disappear with kids in tow!

Merrymouse Sorry to go on about this but you are wrong on this point. Of the two girls I spoke to, both are perfectly numerate. Of the two children, the eldest of them will be four in a few months so if the Mother is poorer than before, I'd expect her to have noticed by now. She's the self employed one and has gone from working a 5 day week to working 2 days per week and is now better off than before - presumably after tax credits, or whatever she is entitled to, are taken into account.

Similarly the other girl, a shop worker, now works three days a week instead of five and is better off by a bigger margin mainly due to being in reciept of HB which entirely covers her rent - beforehand, she paid this herself.

We can argue this until the cows come home but I know that both of them are better off now than before they had kids.

Still not buying it. However, I don't really take seriously anything that anybody says conversationally about their financial affairs. I like to see the figures.

Just go to Turn2us and model some scenarios.

Try a lone parent say with 2 kids with no job.

Then try the same again with a part time job.

It's not hard to do and I must admit I was shocked when I first did this. It's not an insignificant amount at all.

Being a lone parent is an incredibly hard job, full of compromises and top of the list is the reality that you must do what you can, not what you should. The state offers a certain level of support which personally I think is very generous. As it happens it's unsustainable so we go right back to the beginning. If we protect lone parents from cuts, who takes the deeper cuts?

Couthy. The answer cannot simply be to further subsidise whatever you feel is a noble cause.

Of course you can. Better to subsidise noble causes than tax-avoiding corporations, racketeering banks, and the military.

Regardless of whether or not it is. Subsidies rarely work and they simply skew the market.

It's like it's 1985 all over again.

Mrjudgy are you making this up as you go along?!

This is what you said upthread;

One of the girls was shocked at the level of benefit she was entitled to, got herself a nice flat, paid for entirely with HB, and told me in her own words that she was better off on benefit than she was when she was working by quite a margin

You said she was on benefit not working and now you say she works 3 days a week-thats a totally different scenario!

Make your mind up!