MSE News: Benefits shake-up to introduce Universal Credits

johnden

not sure but will under IDS plans will couples with one partner working and other looking after children be treated as a single person, heres few bits from papers if anyone knows more info on it:


Telegraph:
Conditionality for couples will also be changed. The Impact Assessment says it “represents an increased level of conditionality for certain couple groups. The conditions for receiving Universal Credit will require a joint claim from both members of a couple in all cases, i.e. both members of the couple play an equal part in the claim and so are required to undertake the same level of conditionality as for single people”. This FT piece brands it a “Crackdown on stay at home mums”. I’m not convinced by that.


FT:
This is definitely the most curious policy included in the Universal Credit reforms. Why does IDS want to meddle with the mighty army of stay-at-home mums?

Under his plan, if mothers with working partners want to claim Universal Credit, they will face the same jobseeking regime applying to single-mothers. With a few important caveats, they’ll effectively be regarded as someone claiming Jobseekers Allowance.

This is a big change. It will mean that these mums (or stay-at-home fathers) will in future have to turn up at the Jobcentre to explain how they’re planning to return to work.

Once their children are aged seven, if they don’t turn up for their “work focussed interview”, they could even have their benefit docked.

For, say, the proud wife of a postman who stays at home because it makes economic sense, turning up at the Jobcentre could be quite a unsettling experience.

What is even more peculiar is the fact that IDS will be toughening the rules and threatening sanctions, while at the same time reducing the financial incentive to work.

Around 330,000 second earners will, after these reforms, face a higher marginal deduction rate. That said, these reforms will make it easier to work fewer hours — one of many positive benefits.

But I struggle to see the advantage of extending a conditionality regime on to stay-at-home mothers in working families. This will cost money, use up the scarce time of jobcentre advisors and be unpopular in many households. What is the point?

DaisyFlower

Its very fair. If you cant afford to be a stay at home parent without tax payers support then you shouldnt. If you household income from wages/business is enough to support the family without help then nothing will change.

flight747

Nickynoo1 wrote: »

why do people always include food as an expense when working? Do you not eat when you don't work?

If we don't eat while in work: result: illness!!!! because lower wages mean some of us cannot afford to eat foods at work.

merlin1

covlass wrote: »

Please do not get me wrong I amnot saying that we should to entilted to it, quite the opposite, what I was trying to say is that we work hard pay our tax's so on keep other sin employment yet do not really benefit ( apart from keeping out pride) yet others seem to be able to take and take some more then do not like it when there is a possibility it may be taken away. Not very good at explaining things am I lol

Sixer wrote: »

We are probably saying the same thing!

i think we all are! :rotfl:

merlin1

flight747 wrote: »

If we don't eat while in work: result: illness!!!! because lower wages mean some of us cannot afford to eat foods at work.

eh? are you trying to say it costs more to eat at work than it does at home? why so?

Sixer

If that is correct vis a vis the one earner households, I foresee huge unpopularity. They seem determined to take away all state support for families who aren't the very poorest (cf child benefit changes, etc). While this can be seen as a good thing in many ways, I really don't think this is what people - especially traditional Tories - thought they were voting for. In addition, there has to be some level of consent, doesn't there? Working people are far less likely to support ANY benefit regime if there's no reciprocity and their CB and family element CTC gets taken away.

This is more radical than perhaps we have thought!

I wonder how it will all pan out?

bayness0

this is taken from the Guardian for an unemployed person under the new scheme.

Unemployed lorry driver living with his wife and three children in inner London, paying £320 a week rent. No disabilities in the family

Job seekers' allowance for couple: £5,343

Child benefits: £2,433.60

Child tax credits: £7,445.88

Housing benefit: £16,640

Council tax benefit: £1,274

Income before changes: £33,136

Income after changes: £26,000

Cut in income (after benefits capped at £500 a week): £7,136

Interesting that their rent and council tax will not go down so that 7k drop in income is pretty much the same as their child tax credits (i.e. it is the amount of money the Government says they need to bring up 3 children).

The problem is their rent and council tax is over half their income and it goes straight to someone else. Their entitlement for housing is the same as everyone else. So if you work you are also entitled to rent and council tax help - if you are limited to 26k also (and I guess you are) then everyone working is in the same boat.

It is no good saying to an unemployed family, you need 17k a year to live and we are going to take 7k off you. but even more interesting the family earning 81k a year - how much does the change affect them - nothing.

If this Government stupidity continues it is time for the masses to take to the streets and have ourselves a little revolution of our own.

Sixer

bayness0 wrote: »

this is taken from the Guardian for an unemployed person under the new scheme.

Unemployed lorry driver living with his wife and three children in inner London, paying £320 a week rent. No disabilities in the family

Job seekers' allowance for couple: £5,343

Child benefits: £2,433.60

Child tax credits: £7,445.88

Housing benefit: £16,640

Council tax benefit: £1,274

Income before changes: £33,136

Income after changes: £26,000

Cut in income (after benefits capped at £500 a week): £7,136

Interesting that their rent and council tax will not go down so that 7k drop in income is pretty much the same as their child tax credits (i.e. it is the amount of money the Government says they need to bring up 3 children).

The problem is their rent and council tax is over half their income and it goes straight to someone else. Their entitlement for housing is the same as everyone else. So if you work you are also entitled to rent and council tax help - if you are limited to 26k also (and I guess you are) then everyone working is in the same boat.

It is no good saying to an unemployed family, you need 17k a year to live and we are going to take 7k off you. but even more interesting the family earning 81k a year - how much does the change affect them - nothing.

If this Government stupidity continues it is time for the masses to take to the streets and have ourselves a little revolution of our own.

But what happens if the unemployed lorry driver and/or his unemployed wife take low paid jobs? What happens to their Universal Credit then? I don't know - I'm just asking.

bayness0

We need to find a way to get them into work, but leaving them with less money than the Government recognises people need to live (and not to live well) is not the way to get them into work.

We need to make work pay. that is a difficult thing but in a society where we recognise there is a minimum amount people need to live we need to ensure that every job pays at least that.

There is something very strange about an economic system that can pay the majority of people less than they need to live. The housing market skews that completely due to the massive cost borne by the low end tax payers to pay people with houses for rent. How anyone can justify that system I do not know.

It needs some radical thinking, but penalising the unemployed is not the right answer. Every £ taking off an unemployed family will cause real hardship. Every £ taken off someone with a second home - I cannot see how that will stop them feeding their children.

As I said above we need to make work pay - that is not achieved by making the poor ever poorer. It is achieved by ensuring that those in work are not living on the breadline. As in my previous post, as 12k job for an unemployed family will make them £25 per week better off. Maybe they can treat the whole family to a night at the cinema, actually no they can't it is not enough...

AliceBrown

[FONT=&quot]The BBC news website have an interesting article called:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Benefits: Thousands face £50 fine for errors[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Sorry can't post link


Link has now been added by [/FONT] bayness0 [FONT=&quot]a couple of posts below -Many Thanks
[/FONT]