800 Euros a month (£581) for everyone capped?

For a start there are loads of people getting much more benefit than that - those that have produced a "litter" of kids and stay home all day to look after them! Isn't our current cap £26,000 pa?

It wouldn't be long before pressure groups campaigned for them to be exempt from the proposed benefits cap from Finland above of £6972 pa.

From a practical viewpoint it won't work here because of regional disparities (north v south) and the attitude of many to push for more.

In theory, it's great - I'd love an extra £581 per month "bunce" every month, but I don't need it personally and would rather see my share (and others like me) put in a fund for emergencies like this latest flood damage in Carlisle.

As Stirling says quite rightly, "Welfare should be for the needy".

If we went back to the guiding principles of "National Insurance" when it was introduced and looked at those rather than the system we have today the welfare system would operate a lot better.

Back in the 1940's no one would dream of young girls getting themselves pregnant to fund a rent free lifestyle living in a flat watching TV all day or hordes of Polish people coming here to work and getting child benefit to send home to Poland for their families? I'm sure they never envisaged the NHS performing needless surgery like boob jobs to make someone feel better about themselves, or gastric bands for morbidly obese workshy wasters, and dishing out millions of pills for diabetes or colesterol management.

It all adds up.

The world's gorn mad I tell ya!

Can you imagine the riots from the people who currently get much more than that in benefits?

Not the worst idea ever, but I can't see them getting it through over here.

Finland's economy has been in the s*** since 2008. The others have been fine. Which one has the Euro?

Optimistic as ever

And Finland has a tiny population compared to ours.

It's all about the ratio of earners to non-earners, the amount of money being earnt and taxed and hence how much income the government has coming in.

It's less about smiley people in government and more about practicality.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I would assume for most people it would effectively be the same as the Tax Threshold on earnings, which effectively works in a similar manner (you don't pay tax on x amount of salary etc).

Yes, it would mean making people redundant, selling buildings etc who provide that service within the government (or some of them); but that's not unusual.

Presumably the set amount is a minimum, not a mandatory fixed payment to all, but an assurance that everyone will receive at least x amount, per year. I suspect some benefits that are fixed to requirements would still be available (such as child payments or disability payments).

Its interesting to see it rejected on the grounds of the needy given that governments have spent the last 30 or so years redefining and restricting what constitutes needy, often to pay for tax cuts to win elections (both Conservative and Labour). Which is effectively sacking people in the civil service.

That said I find the idea a bit 'apprehensive', but I think it has some merits worth looking into and investigating.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Exactly - do people not believe they are the subject of constant social engineering in the UK ???

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014