MSE News: Benefits shake-up to introduce Universal Credits

Sixer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I should imagine that everyone who claims welfare payments of some sort, wanted other peoples welfare to stop; but not their own.

The last lot left this country with massive debts, so taxes have to go up and spending has to be cut.

Are you misunderstanding me? I'm not offering an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the changes to benefits - although I have one. I'm offering an opinion about how these changes will be viewed - by people who voted differently to me, and for this administration. (I didn't vote Labour either, btw).

Large numbers of people who voted in favour of cutting benefits will not like these cuts. Yes, nobody is going to like any cuts to their own money, but this is not the point I am making. I am saying people had targets in mind when they voted - and these are the popular (possibly mythological) stereotypes of the workshy and fake disabled. They didn't vote for reciprocity payments to go. This voting demographic believes in a quid pro quo: "I work and pay lots of money in tax. I am not the demographic who should suffer." When they realise exactly what Universal Credit means, they will not like it. I wonder if the Coalition is even strong enough to drive it through.

There are three ways to reduce the deficit, not two: reducing spending, increasing taxes, and creating economic growth. Economic growth is by far the most important of these because it a) involves much larger sums of money and b) increases the tax take and decreases the benefit bill without penalising working or non-working individuals. It's the three-in-one answer to the deficit.

To listen to people on here, you'd imagine a full frontal attack on the benefits bill would sort the deficit out once and for all. When in fact it's a drop in the ocean.

zagfles

Sixer wrote: »

Are you misunderstanding me? I'm not offering an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the changes to benefits - although I have one. I'm offering an opinion about how these changes will be viewed - by people who voted differently to me, and for this administration. (I didn't vote Labour either, btw).

Large numbers of people who voted in favour of cutting benefits will not like these cuts. Yes, nobody is going to like any cuts to their own money, but this is not the point I am making. I am saying people had targets in mind when they voted - and these are the popular (possibly mythological) stereotypes of the workshy and fake disabled. They didn't vote for reciprocity payments to go. This voting demographic believes in a quid pro quo: "I work and pay lots of money in tax. I am not the demographic who should suffer." When they realise exactly what Universal Credit means, they will not like it. I wonder if the Coalition is even strong enough to drive it through.

There are three ways to reduce the deficit, not two: reducing spending, increasing taxes, and creating economic growth. Economic growth is by far the most important of these because it a) involves much larger sums of money and b) increases the tax take and decreases the benefit bill without penalising working or non-working individuals. It's the three-in-one answer to the deficit.

To listen to people on here, you'd imagine a full frontal attack on the benefits bill would sort the deficit out once and for all. When in fact it's a drop in the ocean.

The Tories did state in their manifesto that they'd cut tax credits for higher earners - basically what they're doing with the family element of CTC is pretty much what they said they'd do. I think the LibDems promised similar (probably part of their funding for the tax allowance increase). When UC comes in it'll be pretty similar for such people except with capital rules, which again I don't think is unexpected, especially with the transitional protection (though no real detail as to how this will work).

The child benefit changes are different (CB is not going to be incorporated into UC). The Tories promised to retain it as universal. Plus the way they intend to "means test" it are blatently unfair, and technically difficult to implement. Like I've said many times I suspect this will either be abandoned or watered down.

tcr_3

If we were on Universal Credits right now & the government proposed breaking that up into Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Support, Housing Benefit, Employment & Support Allowance, Working Tax Credit & Child Tax Credit ... with 2 government departments & umpteen hundred councils in control, with thousands of administrative staff required, 6 different lots of legislation, complex rules etc etc ... everyone here would think the government had gone completely barmy bonkers.

Surely just in terms of simplifying the system these changes have to be welcomed ?

My pet peeve when I worked for DWP was the Crisis Loan system & how that's abused day in, day out by the same old faces, with made up stories of hardships and privations, tying up a wholly disproportionate number of staff for the number of applications received. I'm delighted to see that Crisis Loans, in their current form, are going to be scrapped altogether, with responsibility for "hardship" type casework passed to Social Services instead.

Sixer

zagfles wrote: »

The Tories did state in their manifesto that they'd cut tax credits for higher earners - basically what they're doing with the family element of CTC is pretty much what they said they'd do. I think the LibDems promised similar (probably part of their funding for the tax allowance increase). When UC comes in it'll be pretty similar for such people except with capital rules, which again I don't think is unexpected, especially with the transitional protection (though no real detail as to how this will work).

The child benefit changes are different (CB is not going to be incorporated into UC). The Tories promised to retain it as universal. Plus the way they intend to "means test" it are blatently unfair, and technically difficult to implement. Like I've said many times I suspect this will either be abandoned or watered down.

I'll concede the family element of CTC! Agree re CB. I would also include the capital rules for TCs as something that will come as a shock and create fury amongst those who voted for this administration in exactly the same way the proposed CB changes did, once they realise this is what's happening. I would add to that JSA agreements for SAHMs and notional income for the self-employed. There are also, I'm sure, many other bits and pieces that will come to light as people read the documents and absorb the changes.

I get the big idea behind Universal Credit. It is trying to offer genuine and substantial help to people in need - TO MAKE OF THEM PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY (not to just help them with no social contract attached to the help). At the same time, it's aiming to remove the state from everyone's lives as much as it possibly can. Hence we'll see tax thresholds go up and universal benefits disappear.

I actually like IDS and in no way doubt his sincerity or understanding of poverty and generational dependency. But I still maintain that he is missing a huge consent issue from this Universal Credit solution. If people on reasonable incomes feel as though they get nothing back (eg CB, small CTC payments, etc), then they will be LESS willing to finance Universal Credit through their taxes, not MORE.

The Coalition will find that public opinion is surprisingly against them. People might vote Tory, but they don't always hate the state. In the same way the government has recently discovered that people think the commonwealth, aka the state, should own the forests, not private companies, and the councils should run the libraries, not charities, they will find if there is no consent basis to the benefits system, their own voters - let alone others - will not support them.

Again - this isn't my opinion on the cuts/changes; it's my opinion of what the Tory and LibDem voter bases will make of them.

emsywoo123

tcr wrote: »

My pet peeve when I worked for DWP was the Crisis Loan system & how that's abused day in, day out by the same old faces, with made up stories of hardships and privations, tying up a wholly disproportionate number of staff for the number of applications received. I'm delighted to see that Crisis Loans, in their current form, are going to be scrapped altogether, with responsibility for "hardship" type casework passed to Social Services instead.

I assume they had to pay these loans back though? *shruggy shoulders*

naughtyjo

Universal credit is a load of pants. Cameron keeps going on about his Big Society when actually it was Ian Duncan Smiths project for over 10 years. The credits will be done through the PAYE system which as we all know is a sham and many people are now getting demands for cash because their codes are wrong. I agree the benefit systems need streamlining but this is a disaster waiting to happen.
As for the cuts its all a load of pants. Its scare tactics to keep us thick simple folk in our place. £123bn a year outstanding in uncollected/avoided taxes (probably mostly conservative voters). The government now own shares in the banks they bailed out and if they sold them we would have pretty much enough to pay the defecit off. Dont forget that we were alledgedly in this boat after the war but managed to build amongst many things the fantastic NHS we have today.
Next week they will be telling us aliens have been scoping the planet in preperation to land so we need to make more cuts

MissMoneypenny

Sixer wrote: »

I am saying people had targets in mind when they voted - and these are the popular (possibly mythological) stereotypes of the workshy and fake disabled. They didn't vote for reciprocity payments to go.

What you mean is, that this was your "target" when you voted.

Not eveyone who didn't vote Labour, had the same welfare targets as you. Other voters would have had different "targets" in mind for welfare cuts.

I saw an interview with a pensioner who wanted families to keep their own children (all families); abolish working and child tax credits and all the other various child related grants parent claim now and get back to the "don't breed them if you can't feed them" days. She didn't vote Labour either. Do you see now how your targets for welfare cuts is different to others?

Sixer wrote: »

This voting demographic believes in a quid pro quo: "I work and pay lots of money in tax. I am not the demographic who should suffer." When they realise exactly what Universal Credit means, they will not like it.

If they really pay lots of money in tax, they would only be claiming child benefit under this present welfare scheme and Universal Credit will either please them or annoy them because they will see this as still too generous. The 'high paying tax' voters will probably send their children to private school and have BUPA. As these voters will be paying for the state schools and the NHS that their families don't use, I doubt if they would want other child related welfare payments to continue. These voters welfare claiments targets, would have been very different to your welfare targets too.

People who don't claim any welfare payments at all and don't have children, would have also had a different welfare cuts target in mind to you, too.

Sixer wrote: »

To listen to people on here, you'd imagine a full frontal attack on the benefits bill would sort the deficit out once and for all. When in fact it's a drop in the ocean.

It is going to save quite a lot of money, but they also want to get parents back into the mindset where parents feed, clothe and house their own children, without looking to the welfare state for handouts. I suppose you could call it real Family Planning.

rogerblack

Sixer wrote: »

<snip>
Actually, this brings up a very interesting point. As far as I am aware, DWP regard "full-time" as being 30 hours a week or more. So, how will this notional profit work?

I haven't seen the language in the bill.
There is another group this notional earnings rule hits _hard_ if it applies.

The disabled, who are trying to make a little bit extra self-employed.

Currently, it's possible for me to work an unlimited number of hours a week, and earn 20 quid/week, without time limit.
This is 'permitted work, lower level'.

Then there is the option of working under 16 hours a week for less than 92 pounds. (permitted work, higher level (with the barking mad criteria that you can only do it one year in two, if you do it continuously).

I am hoping to be able to start a small buisness, that will enable me eventually to get off benefits.

This would be based around working as and when I'm feeling OK - perhaps an hour at 3AM, a 'normal' working day next day, then nothing for the rest of the week as I feel too crap.

In at least the first phase of this, I would be working perhaps 10-15 hours, for negative profit, to establish the business.

The notion that this would magically transform into 59-89 quid - taking me well into the 'permitted work higher level' range, and meaning I have one year to try to get this off the ground, before I can't do it for another year is disturbing.

This of course assumes the PWHL and PWLL rules remain similar.

Sixer

rogerblack wrote: »

I haven't seen the language in the bill.
There is another group this notional earnings rule hits _hard_ if it applies.

The disabled, who are trying to make a little bit extra self-employed.

Currently, it's possible for me to work an unlimited number of hours a week, and earn 20 quid/week, without time limit.
This is 'permitted work, lower level'.

Then there is the option of working under 16 hours a week for less than 92 pounds. (permitted work, higher level (with the barking mad criteria that you can only do it one year in two, if you do it continuously).

I am hoping to be able to start a small buisness, that will enable me eventually to get off benefits.

This would be based around working as and when I'm feeling OK - perhaps an hour at 3AM, a 'normal' working day next day, then nothing for the rest of the week as I feel too crap.

In at least the first phase of this, I would be working perhaps 10-15 hours, for negative profit, to establish the business.

The notion that this would magically transform into 59-89 quid - taking me well into the 'permitted work higher level' range, and meaning I have one year to try to get this off the ground, before I can't do it for another year is disturbing.

This of course assumes the PWHL and PWLL rules remain similar.

I found it but got waylaid arguing the toss with MissMoneypenny! No hour thresholds at all in UC. Hang on, I'll quote it:

The current system mainly rewards those working 16 or 30 hours, under Universal Credit all hours of work are rewarded.

Moreover, under Universal Credit there is an opportunity to work much more flexibly, where all hours of work pay not just 16 or 30 hours.

They are the best quotes - but it's clear there are no hour thresholds at all under UC. Also, the disregard is £20, where I think it's £5 under JSA?

Sixer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

What you mean is, that this was your "target" when you voted.

Not eveyone who didn't vote Labour, had the same welfare targets as you. Other voters would have had different "targets" in mind for welfare cuts.

I saw an interview with a pensioner who wanted families to keep their own children (all families); abolish working and child tax credits and all the other various child related grants parent claim now and get back to the "don't breed them if you can't feed them" days. She didn't vote Labour either. Do you see now how your targets for welfare cuts is different to others?

Eh? How do you think I voted?! I'm left of Labour, if that gives you a clue. How clear can I be when I say I am not talking about what I think should be done? Shorter words?

Of course people have different targets. But you can still lamp them together in rough demographics. And there is a Tory (not a Sixer, not a Miss Moneypenny) demographic - a big one, just ask the focus groups - that feels universal benefits are a strong consent issue in paying anyone any benefits at all. This is why there was an outcry over the forthcoming changes to Child Benefit. It's that demographic I am talking about. Did you see the hysteria in the middle class newspaper columns?

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If they really pay lots of money in tax, they would only be claiming child benefit under this present welfare scheme and Universal Credit will either please them or annoy them because they will see this as still too generous. The 'high paying tax' voters will probably send their children to private school and have BUPA. As these voters will be paying for the state schools and the NHS that their families don't use, I doubt if they would want other child related welfare payments to continue. These voters welfare claiments targets, would have been very different to your welfare targets too.

People who don't claim any welfare payments at all and don't have children, would have also had a different welfare cuts target in mind to you, too.

Stop saying my targets and read my posts! I couldn't have been any clearer. I am saying exactly "they will see this as still too generous" - do you understand what I mean by consent issue? This demographic will not want to pay for Universal Credit through their taxes if there is no understanding that the benefits system recognises everyone. Sixer is not saying Sixer won't want to pay it. Sixer is saying there is a Tory demographic who won't want to pay it and the government will run into trouble.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It is going to save quite a lot of money, but they also want to get parents back into the mindset where parents feed, clothe and house their own children, without looking to the welfare state for handouts. I suppose you could call it real Family Planning.

Sigh. I think the point is rather that it's going to COST a lot of money, not save a lot of money. £2.6bn a year for the first three years at least, if you read the DWP documentation. Again, this is my point precisely. The Tory demographic I am talking about will not be best pleased when they realise their little bits of benefit - CB, family element CTC - are going, and £2.6bn MORE is going to the Daily Mail's chavs. (I don't think they're chavs, the Daily Mail does).

Note once more in case you do another hard of hearing on me: the only opinion of MINE in there is that there is a large section of Tory voters who will not like these reforms when they realise what they actually are. There is no opinion of MINE in here as to whether I like or dislike these reforms.