Sick & disabled to be targeted in massive welfare changes.

[Murph7355]

What do you do when a recipient spunks the UBI payment up the wall?

[austinsmirk]

I looked at a household's income yesterday- social hsg tnt's.

Entire income is benefits.

£140 a mth on virgin media. Not even sure how that's possible, but anyway that's what they stated.

This is why reform is required, the outgoings on "media" should arguably be nil.

[gooner1]

austinsmirk said:

I looked at a household's income yesterday- social hsg tnt's.

Entire income is benefits.

£140 a mth on virgin media. Not even sure how that's possible, but anyway that's what they stated.

This is why reform is required, the outgoings on "media" should arguably be nil.

£140 a month is a ridiculous amount to be spending on media stuff.
However without some form of media altogether, searching for situations vacant
could be difficult. Assuming that work is being looked for of course.

[TooMany2cvs]

gooner1 said:

£140 a month is a ridiculous amount to be spending on media stuff.
However without some form of media altogether, searching for situations vacant
could be difficult. Assuming that work is being looked for of course.

Broadband is ~£20/mo.
TV is free.
What's the other £120 going on?

[Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah]

This, http://www.virginmedia.com/shop/bundles/vip.html, £125p/m after introduction, then add on Netflix and a few other bits and you'd be about there.

[bazza white]

amusingduck said:

I like the idea of UBI, but I cannot see how it is affordable.

Roughly 75% of the UK population is aged 20+, we'll say that these people are eligible for UBI.

48.75m * £500 * 12 = £292.5 billion per year.

Current welfare spending is £264bn. Of this, £111bn is Pensions (which I assume aren't going away), and £44bn is disability type benefits (ditto).

If you paid these on top of UBI, now the cost is getting close to £450bn/yr. That's 58% of this year's budget, or three times what we're spending on Healthcare.

How can it be affordable?

Id go the other way, ubi switches to state pension at retirement age with a long term view to match state pension and ubi. Pension age could be droppeded again then as there would be no increase in cost.

For me it would be £6k straight into my pension pot rather than extra spending money.

[PF62]

wisbech said:

The issue with UBI in the UK will be housing. 6k in Wisbech (so call it 12k for a couple) will go much further than it will In Cambridge due to housing costs. I think this is acceptable (move, or work to get better standard of living) but it does make setting a universal UBI tough, unless responsibility for housing is removed from local councils/ right to housing is removed on introducing UBI

Many Disability benefits I think need to be on TOP of UBI. I.e UBI is survival level, but extra costs of disabilities mean that survival level is higher

Surely a UB would make matters even worse.

If you give everyone £6k, then for those who were on benefits it just replaces benefits. However for those working and not suffering a reduction in benefits it is an increase in income.

Assuming employers don't take advantage by reducing or freezing pay, for most people that means £6k to be spent. Increased spending will invariably drive up housing costs as people can now pay more.

[SBDJ]

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

He does receive various benefits. DLA, or what ever it's called this week. A car for him, with adaptions, is about £35K.

He hasn’t lost his allowance - he is referring to a WAV which fall under different rules - a longer lease and often a much higher upfront payment.

For people on low incomes support is available for the upfront payment on a WAV - it is means tested and as far as I know has been that way for a long time.

[AstonZagato]

PF62 said:

wisbech said:

The issue with UBI in the UK will be housing. 6k in Wisbech (so call it 12k for a couple) will go much further than it will In Cambridge due to housing costs. I think this is acceptable (move, or work to get better standard of living) but it does make setting a universal UBI tough, unless responsibility for housing is removed from local councils/ right to housing is removed on introducing UBI

Many Disability benefits I think need to be on TOP of UBI. I.e UBI is survival level, but extra costs of disabilities mean that survival level is higher

Surely a UB would make matters even worse.

If you give everyone £6k, then for those who were on benefits it just replaces benefits. However for those working and not suffering a reduction in benefits it is an increase in income.

Assuming employers don't take advantage by reducing or freezing pay, for most people that means £6k to be spent. Increased spending will invariably drive up housing costs as people can now pay more.

Tax rates would go up so not all of that £6k would be available to be spent.

[loafer123]

PF62 said:

wisbech said:

The issue with UBI in the UK will be housing. 6k in Wisbech (so call it 12k for a couple) will go much further than it will In Cambridge due to housing costs. I think this is acceptable (move, or work to get better standard of living) but it does make setting a universal UBI tough, unless responsibility for housing is removed from local councils/ right to housing is removed on introducing UBI

Many Disability benefits I think need to be on TOP of UBI. I.e UBI is survival level, but extra costs of disabilities mean that survival level is higher

Surely a UB would make matters even worse.

If you give everyone £6k, then for those who were on benefits it just replaces benefits. However for those working and not suffering a reduction in benefits it is an increase in income.

Assuming employers don't take advantage by reducing or freezing pay, for most people that means £6k to be spent. Increased spending will invariably drive up housing costs as people can now pay more.

I think the theory is that it replaces the personal allowance, so for average income workers it is tax neutral.

I do think that Housing Benefit would need to be kept, so housing costs varying around the country could be coped with. It might encourage the development of more council/government housing, too.

[tankplanker]

I see it working best as replacing benefits and the state pension with the same amount allowed for personal tax allowance. Currently if you do not have a taxable income you personally get no benefit from the personal tax allowance, and if you earn less than the personal tax allowance you are not getting the full benefit. If instead we gave a monthly tax refund for the unused portion of the personal tax allowance (even if that was all of it) then it would automatically scale from zero income to higher incomes.

Obviously the size of the personal tax allowance would need tweaking, as would the amount of salary needed for when the personal allowance would taper off. Currently that starts at £100k, I would suspect that threshold would need reducing to help keep UBI affordable for the state.

People that need additional benefits, such as disability or housing, would have a modifier applied to their personal tax allowance, much like the modifiers that are applied to the allowance today for things like company cars and other benefits.

[austinsmirk]

There's already a variable local housing allowance linked to qualifying amount of Hsg Benefit you can get.

Personally, we all cut our cloth accordingly with regard to where we live and what type of home we thus can live in.

Where it goes wrong is applicants going " right, I demand to live in this extremely expensive city that I have barely any ties with, don't work in, children are not schooled in (or are so young they could change schools) and so on"

But I demand the state find me affordable private rented/social housing, of which I wish to pay nothing towards my accommodation.

I'm not going to start a debate on immigration, but by way of example: I've had years of helping asylum seekers and economic migrants, but pretty much, they can live anywhere in the country. eg they don't need to decide I'm moving to Westminster, so house me ! if no one is chucking bombs at you, lets be honest, most places in the UK are much safer to live in !

I find it staggering people are so inflexible or stupid to think, I'll live in hostels, B&B's, unfit private rented awaiting the (not ever going to happen) provision of social housing in London, instead of thinking, do know what, I bet I can get a lovely home, today in a different city and maybe open other opportunities for myself and my family.

Back on track, I've a tenant complaining that when I spend £35K adapting her home for her disabled child, I won't allow her to buy the house (should she ever decide to work and be able to buy it). she thinks this is most unfair.

[techguyone]

Some good news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42745616

and before all the 'benefits claimants are scrounging scum' lot pipe up, it should be noted even the Courts felt that in this instance the DWP were being "blatantly discriminatory".

[techguyone]

More mind boggling stupidity from work and pensions secretary Esther McVey
She has asked the national audit office to look into the finances and pay policy of the motability charity it follows reports it has £2.4 billion in reserves and pays its boss £1.7 million the charity denies having built up spare money and says it has provided 4.5 million vehicles to disabled people since 1977

ZOMG what shall we do.

Oh it seems she gets her information from The Daily Mail...


Motabilities rebuttal.

http://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/motability-...


Why let the facts get in the way of your opinion eh Esther.

I get the feeling she won't stop though.

[Murph7355]

techguyone said:

More mind boggling stupidity from work and pensions secretary Esther McVey
She has asked the national audit office to look into the finances and pay policy of the motability charity it follows reports it has £2.4 billion in reserves and pays its boss £1.7 million the charity denies having built up spare money and says it has provided 4.5 million vehicles to disabled people since 1977

ZOMG what shall we do.

Oh it seems she gets her information from The Daily Mail...


Motabilities rebuttal.

http://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/motability-...


Why let the facts get in the way of your opinion eh Esther.

I get the feeling she won't stop though.

Ignoring that she was always likely to be a disaster where headlines are concerned, I'm not really sure I see the issue. Get it formally looked at and if there's nothing awry, carry on.

One presumes it shouldn't be a major job checking the books as presumably they'll already be audited and keep very detailed records of what they , receive in, pay out and why.

[Luther Blissett]

JagLover said:

98elise said:

In that case where would the 6k be coming from. For someone to receive a 6k income for no work, someone has to pay 6k in taxes to fund it.

Any scheme that pays someone to do nothing will result in some people choosing to do nothing.

It depends on the level at which the Universal basic income is set. Some of the levels proposed, as in the Swiss referendum are ludicrously high.

We are discussing £6K a year. This is not necessarily the correct amount, but neatly subdivides to £500 a month. Which seems enough to fund a very basic existence in most parts of the country. Yes someone could take this and do nothing, but they could also receive state benefits now if they do nothing.

As to where the money will come from.

This is in three main areas. The elimination of existing tax allowances is one (such as the personal allowance) for a higher rate tax payer that will cost them up to £4,600.

The second main area is the elimination of many existing benefits and the administration of them.

The shortfall would likely to have to be made up through tax rises elsewhere.

The cost would be £6K times adult population of 40 million, or £240bn. If it were to be restricted to, say, exclude the elderly who would keep the current system, then that would be lower. It would be higher if a similar flat rate allowance were paid to children.

Total spending on benefits and tax credits is around £220bn, but this includes a number of benefits that would likely be retained under such a system such as the state pension (which is after all based upon years of contribution) and various disability benefits. The state pension is £92 billion of that.

There would be clear winners and losers under such a system. The main gainers would be those on low and middle incomes who do not receive much, if anything in the form of state benefits and tax credits.

The losers would be those receiving higher benefits than a flat rate allowance and those who would pay more in tax than the flat rate allowance in order to pay for it.

The incentives in the system would change massively. A two adult household would be far better in the new system as you would get two universal incomes. Under the current system a lone parent household is favoured as the benefits are higher. Also of course instead of facing benefit withdrawal rates of 63% for additional income there would be instead only be tax and then national insurance to think of.

Edited by JagLover on Friday 12th January 11:58

The myth of "taxpayers money".... the root of all evil. As it's so deeply ingrained I forsee the UK public continuing to vote for idiotic, counterproductive policies for the forseeable future. Median wages down 10% real over a decade, but it's okay because a few scroungers got a kick up the arse. Brilliant.

[loafer123]

techguyone said:

More mind boggling stupidity from work and pensions secretary Esther McVey
She has asked the national audit office to look into the finances and pay policy of the motability charity it follows reports it has £2.4 billion in reserves and pays its boss £1.7 million the charity denies having built up spare money and says it has provided 4.5 million vehicles to disabled people since 1977

ZOMG what shall we do.

Oh it seems she gets her information from The Daily Mail...


Motabilities rebuttal.

http://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/motability-...


Why let the facts get in the way of your opinion eh Esther.

I get the feeling she won't stop though.

If you speak PR, you’ll realise that they do have reserves of £2.4bn and he is paid £1.7m pa.

Which bit is incorrect, do you think?

[Welshbeef]

Luther Blissett said:

The myth of "taxpayers money".... the root of all evil. As it's so deeply ingrained I forsee the UK public continuing to vote for idiotic, counterproductive policies for the forseeable future. Median wages down 10% real over a decade, but it's okay because a few scroungers got a kick up the arse. Brilliant.

I’d go as far to say we were earning too much previous to the crash - salaries have been rebased.

Also a great option business came up with keeping people in work v huge unemployment by zero salary increases or pay cuts or 4 day weeks to do that as a unit to keep employment as high as possible.
Not ideal clearly but my god look at our unemployed rates HALF of France our nearest GDP competitor and the geography clearly shows there should be no difference but there is. Hey let the low wage people suffer we tried to prevent that as much as we could and are twice as better than France - more to do sure and that will always be the case.

[techguyone]

loafer123 said:

techguyone said:

More mind boggling stupidity from work and pensions secretary Esther McVey
She has asked the national audit office to look into the finances and pay policy of the motability charity it follows reports it has £2.4 billion in reserves and pays its boss £1.7 million the charity denies having built up spare money and says it has provided 4.5 million vehicles to disabled people since 1977

ZOMG what shall we do.

Oh it seems she gets her information from The Daily Mail...


Motabilities rebuttal.

http://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/motability-...


Why let the facts get in the way of your opinion eh Esther.

I get the feeling she won't stop though.

If you speak PR, you’ll realise that they do have reserves of £2.4bn and he is paid £1.7m pa.

Which bit is incorrect, do you think?

I tend to look beyond PR as that tends to bite you in the ass later and make you look rather stupid, as do sensation dribbling headlines.

In truth, the 1.7 mill seems a tad excessive... but motability the organisation & the charity seem to be performing well (don't throw the 2.4 billion operating budget at me please) so why not pay a good price for a performing leader.

[amusingduck]

techguyone said:

I tend to look beyond PR as that tends to bite you in the ass later and make you look rather stupid, as do sensation dribbling headlines.

In truth, the 1.7 mill seems a tad excessive... but motability the organisation & the charity seem to be performing well (don't throw the 2.4 billion operating budget at me please) so why not pay a good price for a performing leader.

It's not their operating budget though, is it.

They have been under spending their budget by £200m/yr, and now find themselves with £2.4bn in reserves.

AOL said:

In addition, it was claimed that Motability has £2.4 billion of taxpayer money stockpiled from their annual budgets. According to the investigation, roughly £2 billion per year is provided by the government, of which, an average of £200 million a year goes unspent.