Universal credit: Should the temporary increase be kept for longer?

[Archie_tect]

But I have never said I could. I have said endlessly that a proper review needs to take place.

The problem, like all of this, is that nothing proposed by a Tory government will ever meet what you want, and as no-one is willing to put a figure to what they think it should be you can all keep endlessly slagging the government for not doing enough.

Come on, one of you, what should be the level of a Universal Basic Income in £'s?

You are right that a Tory Gov't is unlikely ever to rock the boat to rigorously review the benefit system for the benefit of those who need it. So this is all hypothetical until such time as we have social care led by a socialist-minded reformer in Government. Sunak has the ability but not the strength of will to push it through. I'd like to be wrong.

With 30 years' experience you'll have seen every attempt come and go and probably seen the same ideas repeated so you will know what works and what doesn't... a thorough assessment and more information and more pragmatic awareness of the needs of vulnerable people are needed. People can't wade in to fix things if they genuinely don't know what the issues are. They ask this who have been working in the thick of it to get answers. Answers you have got... at your finger-tips... so you know better than any of us what level of universal basic income is necessary.

We are not social economists or benefit assessors Craig, we need help and guidance to discuss the whole issue of reform before we can effectively set a universal level. But a UBI would replace the benefit system so all the infrastructure could be reassigned to do more social care support people to live more effective lives finding ways for people to contribute without the stress of means testing.

If you don't have this information to hand then that's OK too, we can ask people with the experience and knowledge to enable us all to work it out another way

 

[BoldonLad]

IMO there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a work capability assessment method.

The problems can only come about in the purpose and methodology used. The assessors work within the parameters and guidelines they are given by the organisation they work for.

A system that is designed to reduce number of claimants and make it as difficult as possible to pass is likely to be different to one that is agreed by health practitioners, and is suitable for various types of work, as one that gives a realistic judgement on the abilities of the applicant.

It is clear that people will have different views on the WCA we have. My view based on discussions with people I know, who have experience of the system is that the way the system works currently is more like the former. Other people may have different views.

As with any system there is the possibility of fraud or "gaming" the system but the answer is a better system, not necessarily a harder one, which is as likely to penalise many genuine cases as well as the cheats. Plus an acceptance that there will be some successful attempts at fraud, as in any system that gives money to people, including tax evasion at all levels.

I have read about UBI, and have a view that it should be considered as an option for the future, but do not know enough about it to have a strong opinion yet.

+1

 

[BoldonLad]

.......

We are not social economists or benefit assessors Craig, we need help and guidance to discuss the whole issue of reform before we can effectively set a universal level. But a UBI would replace the benefit system so all the infrastructure could be reassigned to do more social care support people to live more effective lives finding ways for people to contribute without the stress of means testing.

If you don't have this information to hand then that's OK too, we can ask people with the experience and knowledge to enable us all to work it out another way

What ALL of it, UC, PIP, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Family Allowance, SSP.... etc etc ?

Not disagreeing, just trying to determine if everyone thinks of UBI in the same way

 

[Archie_tect]

Yes, that's the point.

A non-means-tested basic income which provides everyone with the same underpinned income.

It requires a different mind-set- where people then contribute according to their own skill-set, or choose to do nothing, or re-train. All work then creates a service or a surplus which is taxable to fund both the UBI and the local and national services we all use.

People will; no doubt point to trials and say no, it doesn't work but it needs a fundamental shift not a half-hearted local trial which gives up at the first sign of dissent from opposing parties.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Article here which outlines places where a Basic Income has been trialled. Not a Universal Basic Income in most examples; mostly given out at random, allocated to those in poverty, or given to particular communities.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo.../2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map

The article is a bit biased in my opinion as they seem very pro BI and don't cover much of the downsides, but it does raise some interesting questions as to whether it could work on a bigger scale.

My understanding is that for a Universal Basic Income to be affordable in a country like the UK, other benefits would have to be reduced or done away with altogether. That would be great for me as it's free money, but if you claim a range of benefits then you could end up worse off. A single parent with a disabled child for example, who needs a lot of support. I could see it working in economies in the developing world where the welfare state is non existent and the money given would quickly find its way back into the economy.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Article here which outlines places where a Basic Income has been trialled. Not a Universal Basic Income in most examples; mostly given out at random, allocated to those in poverty, or given to particular communities.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo.../2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map

The article is a bit biased in my opinion as they seem very pro BI and don't cover much of the downsides, but it does raise some interesting questions as to whether it could work on a bigger scale.

My understanding is that for a Universal Basic Income to be affordable in a country like the UK, other benefits would have to be reduced or done away with altogether. That would be great for me as it's free money, but if you claim a range of benefits then you could end up worse off. A single parent with a disabled child for example, who needs a lot of support. I could see it working in economies in the developing world where the welfare state is non existent and the money given would quickly find its way back into the economy.

What about closing tax loopholes to pay for it?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Slight digression, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no?

Are you for fucking real? Wanker.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Are you for fucking real? Wanker.

I think you'll find that's what's called a loaded question 😁

 

[Craig the cyclist]

so you know better than any of us what level of universal basic income is necessary.

Not at all. Although I would be massively more controversial!

I would completely overhaul absolutely everything, and I mean everything.

Paying the rent directly to landlords, no questions. I would set the minimum benefits rates below the minimum wage so work always paid more, but if someone was working I would top them up to their equivalent full time wage if they worked more than 20 hours a week.
People with disability, this won't be popular, but I would with the huge changes in home working have more of them working remotely! UC was supposed to bring benefits in together, and I think as a concept is actually a good idea, but as with any benefit reform everyone jumps on it and doesn't really give it a chance to bed down.

Alongside all of that though, I would invest in the care, education and development of those claiming benefits to support them to get employed and improve their lot, but claiming benefits should not be more lucrative than working unless a person is totally unable to work. Assessing that is not easy though, and will always be seen as harsh by people who feel they have been hard done by when the result comes in.

I have seen people with mental illnesses be treated harshly by the benefits system for 3 decades now, so please, no-one kid themselves that the Conservatives do this, a dozen or more of those years were under a Labour government, and the system then was just as 'unfair' if you were on the wrong side of the decision.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I think you'll find that's what's called a loaded question 😁

Hook, line and sinker

 

[Deleted member 49]

I would completely overhaul absolutely everything, and I mean everything.

So would I....Universal basic income.

Paying the rent directly to landlords, no questions.

You mean line the pockets of slumlords.

I would set the minimum benefits rates below the minimum wage so work always paid more, but if someone was working I would top them up to their equivalent full time wage if they worked more than 20 hours a week.

How about paying a decent living wage...say 15 quid a hour then there wouldn't be as much in work poverty.

I have seen people with mental illnesses be treated harshly by the benefits system for 3 decades now, so please, no-one kid themselves that the Conservatives do this, a dozen or more of those years were under a Labour government, and the system then was just as 'unfair' if you were on the wrong side of the decision.

I don't doubt you on this....which begs the question "why the feck did you vote for more of it then"

 

[FishFright]

Why is that many on the right believe you can beat the poverty out of the poor ?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Hook, line and sinker

Oh, so now it's a joke?

You accuse me of hitting my wife and make a joke of it? Why is violence towards women funny? Because I seem to remember on other threads you are dead against it, or maybe the veneer is just very thin and now the real you is coming out?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I don't doubt you on this....which begs the question "why the feck did you vote for more of it then"

Ok, which party do I vote for that won't do this? Because it sure as hell won't be one that is currently in existence!

 

[Craig the cyclist]

So would I....Universal basic income.

Which would be how much?

You mean line the pockets of slumlords.

You really do have a low opinion of absolutely everyone don't you?

How about paying a decent living wage...say 15 quid a hour then there wouldn't be as much in work poverty.

But if you only work 15 hours a week, you would be a lot worse off wouldn't you? And what do we give to people who aren't working?