just stop all benefits.

lisyloo

by combining everything the complexity of the system drops

Yeah, so a paraplegic needing 24 hour care gets the same as a sponger?
I would agree the system needs reform but not in that way.

N1AK

lisyloo wrote: »

Yeah, so a paraplegic needing 24 hour care gets the same as a sponger?
I would agree the system needs reform but not in that way.

Because obviously you're the only person so prescient of mind to realise that who knows someone even smarter than even you might come along and suggest some mind bogglingly clever solution... perhaps care could be paid for by the state (I know a shocking thought).

System

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

how is that right
.

It's not meant to be "right", simply a pragmatic easy method of cutting out all this nonsense and waste and diverting the country's energies and resources to creating wealth, jobs and future prosperity.

At present a disproportionate amount of effort and resources goes into trying to allocate state handouts according to a system of ever-increasing complexity.
Just give the basic state pension to everyone and abolish the entire edifice we have at present.

Ellejmorgan

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

It's not meant to be "right", simply a pragmatic easy method of cutting out all this nonsense and waste and diverting the country's energies and resources to creating wealth, jobs and future prosperity.

At present a disproportionate amount of effort and resources goes into trying to allocate state handouts according to a system of ever-increasing complexity.
Just give the basic state pension to everyone and abolish the entire edifice we have at present.

Complete rubbish

As someone said how can a paraplegic needing 24 hour care get the same rate..

It's immoral and illogical

chewmylegoff

N1AK wrote: »

The main thing you are missing is that Pensioners, benefit claimants etc are all already getting something so it isn't an additional £140 for everyone. Additionally for everyone getting this payment it would be an increase in income also increasing their tax and NI contributions.

Is it affordable? No even close but I actually do like the idea of a system based on this premise though it'll never happen by combining everything the complexity of the system drops and it would always pay to earn more money by working (even a little).

i'm not missing that at all.

the total cost of all benefits including pensions (and including their administration) is currently about £200 billion a year.

if instead you stopped paying those benefits and instead paid all adults £140pw, the total cost would be £400 billion a year. thus the incremental cost is £200 billion a year more than the current cost.

and i did point out that you could make the payment taxable income thus reducing the net cost, but that would not reduce the cost significantly as many of the people receiving the payment would be remain outside of the tax system and the majority would only be paying tax at whatever basic rate + NI is now, so 32% or whatever it is.

PaulF81

Pay everyone 70 quid then instead.

busy_mom_2

Housing benefit and council tax benefits? How many million do these add up to?

Some people are happy to sit at home and get there £70 odd quid a week, age 18 living at home and getting £54 per week pocket money is a no brainer for some.

BobQ

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Why not just pay an automatic £140 pw to every single UK resident, regardless of age, disability, working, scrounging, and scrap all state benefits and pensions?

Close down the Dept of Employment, pensions, social security etc, and sell off all job centres etc.

Then those who want to earn more can do so, those who don't, or can't, or want to retire on £140 pw can do so.

Can anyone do the sums and work out whether there would be a net cost or gain?

Obviously the morally bankrupt amongst you find such an idea attractive but personally I do not want to walk streets though a large number of vagrants and their children made homeless by such a policy, including those forced to resort to robbery to make ends meet.

No doubt those contributing to the SSP will be so pleased that the new fascist goverment they had inadvertently voted for was reneging on state pension commitments that they had been assured would provide more than £140.

PaulF81

BobQ wrote: »

Obviously the morally bankrupt amongst you find such an idea attractive but personally I do not want to walk streets though a large number of vagrants and their children made homeless by such a policy, including those forced to resort to robbery to make ends meet.

No doubt those contributing to the SSP will be so pleased that the new fascist goverment they had inadvertently voted for was reneging on state pension commitments that they had been assured would provide more than £140.

It's ok, we can shoot them now and not get jailed. Viva la revolution! :rotfl:

N1AK

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i'm not missing that at all.

the total cost of all benefits including pensions (and including their administration) is currently about £200 billion a year.

The 2013 budget has £255 billion allocated for pensions and welfare. Additionally as I pointed out the majority of people not already getting given money would end up paying income tax on more of their current income.

Now given that pension requirements include public sector pensions etc this still leaves a considerable shortfall and one that couldn't be afforded with severe changes. I've already said that I didn't think we could afford it, which you apparently ignored or decided to repeat for some reason.


Obviously you'll get some closed minded folk, like BobQ apparently, who'll blow up over the concept; however the idea of having a base level payment that goes to everyone that covers the minimum acceptable standard as part of a more complete proposal has benefits.