mikeymikec
Lifer
The full basic UK state pension is £137 per week.
Unemployment benefit if you're over 25 is £74.70 per week.
I think these figures should match (the higher figure). I'd argue this based on the following:
1 - The chances of someone over 25 living rent-free (aside from still living at home, then I'd potentially argue for a lower unemployment benefit) and being of working age is close to zero. The chances of someone of retirement age living rent-free however is far from zero.
2 - The expenses of someone on unemployment benefit are likely to be higher. While there are some debatable elements (such as living in rented accommodation and not having to pay for home repairs vs being a homeowner), there are work dress codes to consider for example, potential family dependents, greater mobility equals greater expense generally. Plus old people get a lot more freebies from the state to help their keep expenses down plus extra benefits in the event of decrepitude.
3 - unemployment benefit is a) a temporary benefit and b) the state hassles people on this benefit IMO sufficiently (I've been on the dole twice in my life) to 'encourage' them back to work.
4 - I think the state should be helping people get back to work. I'd argue that more benefits equals more means for people to get back to work (ignoring absurdities such as someone getting paid more on UB than they typically receive in their normal employment). I'd also argue that if someone is on UB that for example if their car (assuming it's normally used to get them to work) has to be repaired while they're on UB, the state can pick up the bill and have the person steadily work the bill off during their next year(s) of employment.
5 - Old people can get a free bus pass. Why not unemployed people? You want them to get to job interviews, right?
Unemployment benefit if you're over 25 is £74.70 per week.
I think these figures should match (the higher figure). I'd argue this based on the following:
1 - The chances of someone over 25 living rent-free (aside from still living at home, then I'd potentially argue for a lower unemployment benefit) and being of working age is close to zero. The chances of someone of retirement age living rent-free however is far from zero.
2 - The expenses of someone on unemployment benefit are likely to be higher. While there are some debatable elements (such as living in rented accommodation and not having to pay for home repairs vs being a homeowner), there are work dress codes to consider for example, potential family dependents, greater mobility equals greater expense generally. Plus old people get a lot more freebies from the state to help their keep expenses down plus extra benefits in the event of decrepitude.
3 - unemployment benefit is a) a temporary benefit and b) the state hassles people on this benefit IMO sufficiently (I've been on the dole twice in my life) to 'encourage' them back to work.
4 - I think the state should be helping people get back to work. I'd argue that more benefits equals more means for people to get back to work (ignoring absurdities such as someone getting paid more on UB than they typically receive in their normal employment). I'd also argue that if someone is on UB that for example if their car (assuming it's normally used to get them to work) has to be repaired while they're on UB, the state can pick up the bill and have the person steadily work the bill off during their next year(s) of employment.
5 - Old people can get a free bus pass. Why not unemployed people? You want them to get to job interviews, right?
