Benefits can pay more than living wage
Discussion
Very true. Mate of my Mrs is down on her luck, she started looking for answers at the bottom of a bottle. Obviously only 1 way that could go. Due to her alcoholism and associated mental health issues she is deemed not fit for work. She gets £800/month benefit with no obligation to do anything work related + her rent paid. So net income ~£1300/month which I assume is in line with what a min wage person would take home after a 40 hour week.
Seems mad that by choosing to be an alcoholic she gets more money with no obgligation. Compare to a decent guy who's looking for work gets maybe half what she does in benefits.
Seems mad that by choosing to be an alcoholic she gets more money with no obgligation. Compare to a decent guy who's looking for work gets maybe half what she does in benefits.
63% of those who apply for PIP with alcohol abuse are approved
https://benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independenc...
https://benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independenc...
Unpicking this will be very tough for whichever government takes it on.
A friend of the Mrs is a single mum. One of her kids now 19 the other 15. Has a 3 bed flat with the council paying housing benefit at £1800 PM. She works as a GP receptionist doing 16hrs per week. They’ve asked her several times to work more but if she did, she’d apparently lose the housing benefit.
When people talk about benefits you rarely here about the obscene cost of housing benefit.
Similarly- pension credit. You pay NI contributions in order to qualify for a full state pension. Government realised some time ago that LOTS of people were getting to retirement age having made zero provision.
So they create pension credit. The state pension you don’t pay toward that comes with the handy benefit of FREE council tax. At which point I suspect it’s perhaps worth more than the state pension.
All this stuff needs looking at. You don’t want people starving. Similarly, you can’t allow people to make endless poor choices whilst shielding them from any consequence
A friend of the Mrs is a single mum. One of her kids now 19 the other 15. Has a 3 bed flat with the council paying housing benefit at £1800 PM. She works as a GP receptionist doing 16hrs per week. They’ve asked her several times to work more but if she did, she’d apparently lose the housing benefit.
When people talk about benefits you rarely here about the obscene cost of housing benefit.
Similarly- pension credit. You pay NI contributions in order to qualify for a full state pension. Government realised some time ago that LOTS of people were getting to retirement age having made zero provision.
So they create pension credit. The state pension you don’t pay toward that comes with the handy benefit of FREE council tax. At which point I suspect it’s perhaps worth more than the state pension.
All this stuff needs looking at. You don’t want people starving. Similarly, you can’t allow people to make endless poor choices whilst shielding them from any consequence
highway said:
You don t want people starving. Similarly, you can t allow people to make endless poor choices whilst shielding them from any consequence
Right. So why not do what the Americans do and not give benefits in cash?They issue a card which you can use to pay for essentials but not alcohol/fags etc. So you don't starve but you can't waste your money either. I'd assume the tech to roll out such a system wouldn't be too difficult.
The issue is the stigma. Paying for stuff with a benefits card is probably embarassing, more so if you if try and buy something you're not allowed to and get declined. Americans seem to accept that being out of work should be embarassing - I suspect the UK is too "fair minded" to think the same. Cue articles in The Guardian screaming about how benefit claimants are being punished. But the Mail would probably cheer at an application of common sense.
Crumpet said:
It s got to all be heading in the direction of universal basic income, surely?
The outrage that would occur if anyone tries to do anything meaningful with benefits means nothing will ever get done.
Elon thinks that's the way we're going...The outrage that would occur if anyone tries to do anything meaningful with benefits means nothing will ever get done.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2026/04/...
Why do you think Labour chase this so much, means easy votes, sane as they foster dertsin other groups, to chase votes it is utterly ruthless. Starmer was into this in a huge way, there was a huge policy change after Brexit, Corbyn actually saw the potential here.
Why would you not do your utmost as a government to get people into workand off the benefits cash cowl it makes more sense surely economically, the HS are seemingly in on it, no shock there as they basically fund Labour, if it is blatant as it looks it is utterly ruthless
Is it really that vital you stay in power at the expense of 10s of millions of tax paying workers?
Why would you not do your utmost as a government to get people into workand off the benefits cash cowl it makes more sense surely economically, the HS are seemingly in on it, no shock there as they basically fund Labour, if it is blatant as it looks it is utterly ruthless
Is it really that vital you stay in power at the expense of 10s of millions of tax paying workers?
bergclimber34 said:
Is it really that vital you stay in power at the expense of 10s of millions of tax paying workers?
Probably. Assume you want to win an election you have 2 target groups
1/ People who have voted for other parties. Maybe you can persuade them to vote for you
2/ People who don't vote for anyone. Usually the lower demographics
If I was the Labour party I'd be targetting group 2. Get them out to vote. How? Give them more money. Sure you might f
k the country but by the time that happens you're a millionaire from your memoirs and the lecture circuit. bergclimber34 said:
Why do you think Labour chase this so much, means easy votes, sane as they foster dertsin other groups, to chase votes it is utterly ruthless. Starmer was into this in a huge way, there was a huge policy change after Brexit, Corbyn actually saw the potential here.
Why would you not do your utmost as a government to get people into workand off the benefits cash cowl it makes more sense surely economically, the HS are seemingly in on it, no shock there as they basically fund Labour, if it is blatant as it looks it is utterly ruthless
Is it really that vital you stay in power at the expense of 10s of millions of tax paying workers?
In simple terms, yes benefits need to go down but also wages need to go up. Why would you not do your utmost as a government to get people into workand off the benefits cash cowl it makes more sense surely economically, the HS are seemingly in on it, no shock there as they basically fund Labour, if it is blatant as it looks it is utterly ruthless
Is it really that vital you stay in power at the expense of 10s of millions of tax paying workers?
Many of the people arguing against the size of the benefits bill are also arguing about NMW and saying that should go down too. The sums don't work.
Wage stagnation is a huge factor in how we've got to where we are. Part of why the benefits bill is so chunky is because people at the bottom end of the pay scale can't pay their bills even working full time. That's a shambolic situation to have gotten ourselves into as a nation - and no amount of "austerity" will fix it. People still need to eat. They still need a roof over their heads, and to keep the lights and heat on in their homes. And they need to be able to afford those essentials - without handouts.
Cutting benefits alone doesn't fix the issue. There needs to be a carrot as well as a stick. If people can make more money in work (and cover their bills) than they will sitting on their hands, most will do that.
jonsp said:
Very true. Mate of my Mrs is down on her luck, she started looking for answers at the bottom of a bottle. Obviously only 1 way that could go. Due to her alcoholism and associated mental health issues she is deemed not fit for work. She gets £800/month benefit with no obligation to do anything work related + her rent paid. So net income ~£1300/month which I assume is in line with what a min wage person would take home after a 40 hour week.
Seems mad that by choosing to be an alcoholic she gets more money with no obgligation. Compare to a decent guy who's looking for work gets maybe half what she does in benefits.
People don’t ‘choose’ to be alcoholics (or any other addiction for that matter).Seems mad that by choosing to be an alcoholic she gets more money with no obgligation. Compare to a decent guy who's looking for work gets maybe half what she does in benefits.
Crumpet said:
It s got to all be heading in the direction of universal basic income, surely?
The outrage that would occur if anyone tries to do anything meaningful with benefits means nothing will ever get done.
As ever the question is how do you fund it? The outrage that would occur if anyone tries to do anything meaningful with benefits means nothing will ever get done.
Quick back of a fag packet maths, giving all adults minimum wage as UBI would be 900bn.The UK's entire budget is just over 1tn with about 25% of that on benefits/pensions.
That's a lot of extra tax income to find, with a lot of people no longer being productive because they get a free income.
-Lummox- said:
Crumpet said:
It s got to all be heading in the direction of universal basic income, surely?
The outrage that would occur if anyone tries to do anything meaningful with benefits means nothing will ever get done.
Elon thinks that's the way we're going...The outrage that would occur if anyone tries to do anything meaningful with benefits means nothing will ever get done.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2026/04/...
t show. jonsp said:
ight. So why not do what the Americans do and not give benefits in cash?
They issue a card which you can use to pay for essentials but not alcohol/fags etc. So you don't starve but you can't waste your money either. I'd assume the tech to roll out such a system wouldn't be too difficult.
The issue is the stigma. Paying for stuff with a benefits card is probably embarassing, more so if you if try and buy something you're not allowed to and get declined. Americans seem to accept that being out of work should be embarassing - I suspect the UK is too "fair minded" to think the same. Cue articles in The Guardian screaming about how benefit claimants are being punished. But the Mail would probably cheer at an application of common sense.
From a technical perspective its easy to do, think of the cards issued to children under parental supervision. Certain merchant categories can be code blocked. Spend monitoring is easy as most, if not all, fuel cards can 'see' if the driver has bought something other than fuel.They issue a card which you can use to pay for essentials but not alcohol/fags etc. So you don't starve but you can't waste your money either. I'd assume the tech to roll out such a system wouldn't be too difficult.
The issue is the stigma. Paying for stuff with a benefits card is probably embarassing, more so if you if try and buy something you're not allowed to and get declined. Americans seem to accept that being out of work should be embarassing - I suspect the UK is too "fair minded" to think the same. Cue articles in The Guardian screaming about how benefit claimants are being punished. But the Mail would probably cheer at an application of common sense.
This was looked at some years ago when I was working at Mastercard but it never went anywhere but I'm unsure why it was ditched. Probably something to do with peoples rights similar to abolishing paying housing benefit direct to landlords/lenders.
There’s a really simple solution, every pound of benefit claimed is translated into minimum paid work that you must complete. Work is tailored to your capability and skills are trained to enable.
Everyone in society can contribute and it has never been easier, the state just needs to knock over the barriers.
Everyone in society can contribute and it has never been easier, the state just needs to knock over the barriers.
Its not just the pure money you get that counts.
Free school dinners, free milk, free or nearly free entry into alot of places. Free school holiday activities etc etc.
The benefits are tax free so make so you have to compare post tax wages but the fact that you also have to spend more of your wages on actually living too. Add onto that food banks and thats the food side sorted.
Free school dinners, free milk, free or nearly free entry into alot of places. Free school holiday activities etc etc.
The benefits are tax free so make so you have to compare post tax wages but the fact that you also have to spend more of your wages on actually living too. Add onto that food banks and thats the food side sorted.
-Lummox- said:
Crumpet said:
It s got to all be heading in the direction of universal basic income, surely?
The outrage that would occur if anyone tries to do anything meaningful with benefits means nothing will ever get done.
Elon thinks that's the way we're going...The outrage that would occur if anyone tries to do anything meaningful with benefits means nothing will ever get done.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2026/04/...
Also, Elon has so much money that he's hoarding to the detriment of everyone else why hasn't he given any of it away so far? He's saying this to try and make people think he's not a money grabbing
who would sell his own kids if it meant he'd be at the top of the rich leaderboard. It's all deflection to placate the plebs who are starting to see that AI etc is only going to benefit a few while the rest of us are going to be serfs to our feudal overlords.John145 said:
There s a really simple solution, every pound of benefit claimed is translated into minimum paid work that you must complete. Work is tailored to your capability and skills are trained to enable.
Everyone in society can contribute and it has never been easier, the state just needs to knock over the barriers.
Isn't that just the government giving benefits claimants a job? Seems a great way to get millions f people working in jobs they aren't qualified for, have no skill at and are pretty unmotivated to do. Everyone in society can contribute and it has never been easier, the state just needs to knock over the barriers.
John145 said:
There s a really simple solution, every pound of benefit claimed is translated into minimum paid work that you must complete. Work is tailored to your capability and skills are trained to enable.
Everyone in society can contribute and it has never been easier, the state just needs to knock over the barriers.
Totally agree..... plenty of work could be done, even if it was picking up litter, painting out graffiti, tidying up the environment. More able people could fill pot holes, help out with any tasks the council need doing etc etc.Everyone in society can contribute and it has never been easier, the state just needs to knock over the barriers.
Illegal immigrants could also be made to pay their way, work gangs going out and improving our environment. If you don't want to do it, then you go home immediately or you have your freedom removed if you refuse to leave.
If your incapacitated, or can't leave the house then you can do some home based work instead.
boyse7en said:
John145 said:
There s a really simple solution, every pound of benefit claimed is translated into minimum paid work that you must complete. Work is tailored to your capability and skills are trained to enable.
Everyone in society can contribute and it has never been easier, the state just needs to knock over the barriers.
Isn't that just the government giving benefits claimants a job? Seems a great way to get millions f people working in jobs they aren't qualified for, have no skill at and are pretty unmotivated to do. Everyone in society can contribute and it has never been easier, the state just needs to knock over the barriers.
t basically....... if your not disabled, physically unable to work then you can earn your benefits.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff