Benefits shake-up: warning for non-working claimants

zagfles

flashnazia wrote: »

While you're having a look, f its in there, let me know if it say anything about restrictions on tax credits for those with savings. Thanks

(I've a feeling those with savings won't be able to claim, once tax credits are merged with all the other benefits.)

Yup - it's mentioned at the end, the capital rules will be similar to IS.

But it also says no-one will be worse of as a direct result of moving to the new system, I quote:

"If the amount of Universal Credit a person is entitled to is less than the amount they were getting under the old system, an additional amount will be paid to ensure that they will be no worse off in cash terms".

Wonder how they'll handle this? Transitional relief for a few years? Or maybe they'll introduce capital rules to tax credits beforehand?

But more generally it looks to be a vast improvement over the complex mess of benefits at the moment, and should improve work incentives even for low paid low hours work. The real-time PAYE data should help avoid the overpayments farce we've seen with tax credits, assuming it works (which is a big assumption given the recent history of government IT projects).

Sixer

flashnazia wrote: »

While you're having a look, f its in there, let me know if it say anything about restrictions on tax credits for those with savings. Thanks

(I've a feeling those with savings won't be able to claim, once tax credits are merged with all the other benefits.)

I read it through quickly and couldn't find anything. I strongly suspect your feeling is on the money.

liam8282

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I saw a woman on the TV yesterday who said she 'couldn't' work as any job she got would 'only' make her £27 a week better off.

This is over £100 a month,:eek: without even mentioning the non-financial benefits such as self-respect and contributing to society instead of taking from it.

My son worked for several months in a job paying less than JSA (because it was only eight hours at minimum wage). He said he did not want to be unemployed and even this was preferable as it was at least a job that he could put on his CV and get a reference from.

I'm glad to say he has now got a much better job at Morrisons.

I just hope people like the one I saw on the TV ARE sanctioned; it might bring them up with a short sharp shock.

People like this simply don't work, because they don't have to.

They have a comfortable lifestyle on the benefits they receive, and there is no effort or hard work required to receive benefits.

The problem is they see the value of their work as the difference between benefits received and the salary from work, in this example, the value of their work is only viewed as the £100 pm that they would be better off.

So £100 more pm for actually having to go to work everyday, rather than having to do nothing and receive benefits, hmm not such a hard decision to make really.

Also when you think that extra £100 will be gone very quickly when you include the costs of working, travel, lunches etc....

Sixer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You said people with children should get more, whether from earnings or benefits. I disagree.

I didn't say that. I explained the situation to a poster who didn't understand it. I gave no personal opinion at all.

If you don't mind my saying, this is exactly what is wrong with this board. It's supposed to be about helping people find their way around a complex benefits system. It's specifically - via a sticky at the top of the forum - *not* about offering personal or political opinions about benefits policy.

As it stands, the law says that households with children should get more - both in out-of-work and in-work benefits. That's the situation. And that's what posters should be helped to understand.

Almost every thread on this forum is littered with posts like yours here, which is informed by a personal or political opinion and not by the situation as it stands. As I see it, the forum is completely out of control for much of the time.

My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is somewhat divided with regards to benefits. On the one hand, I believe the country needs to get a solid grip on benefits dependency and that individuals need to take responsibility for their own lives. On the other, I see the 'why should I pay for someone else to have children' attitude as borderline offensive. Children aren't the possessions of their parents. They are human beings. Thus they can't be thrown into destitution simply because they have !!!!less parents.

However, I did not express this personal opinion to the poster who asked the question. I simply informed them why tax credits exist in addition to the PAYE system: to allow for more money to go into households with more people. That's the benefits legislation, which this forum is here to explain. What I think didn't/doesn't come into it.

PS: Oh! I tried to say F-E-C-K-L-E-S-S. Silly swearing software. It's a good word.

JimmyTheWig

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You said people with children should get more, whether from earnings or benefits. I disagree.

They didn't say they should get more. They said they do get more.
But I presume that the government believes they should get more because they need more.

liam8282

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

They didn't say they should get more. They said they do get more.
But I presume that the government believes they should get more because they need more.

Ok, I get the couples with children getting more....

But when I was looking yesterday, can anybody tell the difference between a single person over 25 being entitled to tax credits, but a single person under 25 not?

Oldernotwiser

Sixer wrote: »

I didn't say that. I explained the situation to a poster who didn't understand it. I gave no personal opinion at all.

If you don't mind my saying, this is exactly what is wrong with this board. It's supposed to be about helping people find their way around a complex benefits system. It's specifically - via a sticky at the top of the forum - *not* about offering personal or political opinions about benefits policy.

As it stands, the law says that households with children should get more - both in out-of-work and in-work benefits. That's the situation. And that's what posters should be helped to understand.

Almost every thread on this forum is littered with posts like yours here, which is informed by a personal or political opinion and not by the situation as it stands. As I see it, the forum is completely out of control for much of the time.

My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is somewhat divided with regards to benefits. On the one hand, I believe the country needs to get a solid grip on benefits dependency and that individuals need to take responsibility for their own lives. On the other, I see the 'why should I pay for someone else to have children' attitude as borderline offensive. Children aren't the possessions of their parents. They are human beings. Thus they can't be thrown into destitution simply because they have !!!!less parents.

However, I did not express this personal opinion to the poster who asked the question. I simply informed them why tax credits exist in addition to the PAYE system: to allow for more money to go into households with more people. That's the benefits legislation, which this forum is here to explain. What I think didn't/doesn't come into it.

PS: Oh! I tried to say F-E-C-K-L-E-S-S. Silly swearing software. It's a good word.

I accept that you didn't intend to convey approval of the situation, so I apologise for misinterpreting it.

As far as giving opinions goes, I'm surprised that you've chosen to single me out on this, particularly as this is specifically a discussion thread, set up by MSE for that purpose. I gave my opinion on this in post #3.

Oldernotwiser

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

But I presume that the government believes they should get more because they need more.

Since when did we have to accept what a government believes without questioning it?

Sixer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I accept that you didn't intend to convey approval of the situation, so I apologise for misinterpreting it.

As far as giving opinions goes, I'm surprised that you've chosen to single me out on this, particularly as this is specifically a discussion thread, set up by MSE for that purpose. I gave my opinion on this in post #3.

Apologies, yes. General to specific, really. I wasn't intending to single you out, but I replied to you as it was you who picked me up on giving a non-partisan, factual response.

To my mind, there are two ways in which posts on this forum continually break its code as posted in the sticky by the site owner:

1. Outright abuse posted by users who seem to trawl every thread looking for someone to denigrate. If they're a benefits claimant, they're fair game.

2. Political and personal opinion about benefits policy dressed up as motivational advice. The more articulate posters use this option, but really the sense of what they are saying is not different to the posters at 1.

People coming to this forum aren't looking for life coaching or moral guidance. They are looking for impartial advice about a complicated benefits system - and the site owner himself insists this is what they should get: no more, no less.

My personal opinion on benefits policy has no bearing on this. However, I do maintain that threads adhering solely to the site owner's instructions are a rarity hereabouts, and that this forum is largely out of control.

Sorry.

cit_k

Sixer wrote: »

Apologies, yes. General to specific, really. I wasn't intending to single you out, but I replied to you as it was you who picked me up on giving a non-partisan, factual response.

To my mind, there are two ways in which posts on this forum continually break its code as posted in the sticky by the site owner:

1. Outright abuse posted by users who seem to trawl every thread looking for someone to denigrate. If they're a benefits claimant, they're fair game.

2. Political and personal opinion about benefits policy dressed up as motivational advice. The more articulate posters use this option, but really the sense of what they are saying is not different to the posters at 1.

People coming to this forum aren't looking for life coaching or moral guidance. They are looking for impartial advice about a complicated benefits system - and the site owner himself insists this is what they should get: no more, no less.

My personal opinion on benefits policy has no bearing on this. However, I do maintain that threads adhering solely to the site owner's instructions are a rarity hereabouts, and that this forum is largely out of control.

Sorry.

Even the site team itself break the rules of this forum - it sets a terrible example for other users, who see the posts by MSE staff, and assume its normal to post discussion threads in this forum.

I agree with your other points too - all long standing problems on the site.