MSE News: Benefits shake-up to introduce Universal Credits

rogerblack

Sixer wrote: »

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?

A quick reading of http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/universal-credit-wr2011-ia.pdf - point 64.

It addresses the fact that if you earn >20 quid, or >96 quid, then there is a 100% marginal tax rate for any increased earning with ESA.

However - up to these limits - the current marginal tax rate is 0.
You need to earn ~230/week to hit the equivalent of the 96 quid permitted work limit of ESA.

It would be reasonable if the disabled had a higher earnings disregard.

I need to read more of the bill.

The upcoming ESA changes (due the 11th) paint a very rosy picture of the workplace.

The disability discrimination act has made it so that if you can scrawl barely legibly on a sign, to communicate in an emergency, but can't talk or hear you have no barrier to work, for example.

I hope the universal credits are a more balanced system, but I have doubts.
I've just got through understanding the current state of ESA and DLA for my claim.
Next time I get called in for an interview - probably 3-6 months - it's all changed.

MissMoneypenny

Sixer wrote: »

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.

How can I be "hard of hearing" when I am reading your posts and not listening to them?

I can see from your posts that you are fixated and angry about losing your welfare payments and that you simply don't want to accept that many other voters (including Tories) think that universal credit is still too generous.

Instead of spending all these hours posting on internet boards about your welfare cuts, why don't you channel that energy into doing something productive for your family? Such as looking at cutting your expenditure and upping your income (by working)? Relying on welfare payments is never a good idea.

Sixer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

How can I be "hard of hearing" when I am reading your posts and not listening to them?

I can see from your posts that you are fixated and angry about losing your welfare payments and that you simply don't want to accept that many other voters (including Tories) think that universal credit is still too generous.

Instead of spending all these hours posting on internet boards about your welfare cuts, why don't you channel that energy into doing something productive for your family? Such as looking at cutting your expenditure and upping your income (by working)? Relying on welfare payments is never a good idea.

Oh deary me. I am talking to someone who really doesn't understand Plain English, aren't I? You're determined to reply to things I haven't said. I am SAYING lots of Tory voters will "think that universal credit is still too generous". That's the whole POINT of what I'm saying.

a) I don't get any welfare payments beyond Child Benefit because my household income is too high.

b) I won't be losing Child Benefit because both my husband and myself earn just under the 40% tax threshold.

Personally, I am doing exceedingly well out of all these changes. I'm not losing anything, but I will gain from the uprating of the lower income tax threshold.

But I'm not talking personally. I don't know how many times I need to say that for you to actually take it in. This is a discussion thread about the impact of the proposed Universal Credit. I'm putting out there that a Tory-led coalition will find that there is a great deal about that their own voters won't like. Nothing to do with what I get or don't get, or whether I support the changes or I don't.

zagfles

Sixer wrote: »

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.

I don't agree - in my experience people of a more right wing persuasion are generally of the opinion that benefits "should be only for those who need them" and are generally against universal benefits, or benefits being widely available. Some who are personally affected might whinge but I think these will be outweighed by those who would like to see less people being entitled.

If you look at all the fuss over the CB changes, it wasn't so much the removal of universality which was the issue (even though this was clear breach of an election promise), it was the unfairness of the way they want to do it - ie single eaner on 45k, no CB, couple on 40k each (80k total), get full CB.

This is pretty much history repeating itself. About 10 years ago Gordon Brown came up with a plan to tax CB for higher rate taxpayers. But the plan was ditched when it was pointed out that independant taxation means you can't tax anyone on someone else's income, even their spouse's.

So instead he replaced the married couple's and additional personal allowance (which were "universal" for those with kids) with the Children's Tax Credit (not to be confused with the current Child Tax Credit), which was a tax allowance which had to be claimed by the higher earner if either paid 40% tax, so that it could be withdrawn.

This had the same problem - dual earner just under the 40% threshold got the lot, single earner a little above got nothing. It was seen as unfair, so only lasted 2 years and was incorporated into the current tax credits system. But the loss of the "universal" tax allowance for anyone a little above the 40% threshold didn't cause much of an outcry.

Sixer

zagfles wrote: »

I don't agree - in my experience people of a more right wing persuasion are generally of the opinion that benefits "should be only for those who need them" and are generally against universal benefits, or benefits being widely available. Some who are personally affected might whinge but I think these will be outweighed by those who would like to see less people being entitled.

If you look at all the fuss over the CB changes, it wasn't so much the removal of universality which was the issue (even though this was clear breach of an election promise), it was the unfairness of the way they want to do it - ie single eaner on 45k, no CB, couple on 40k each (80k total), get full CB.

This is pretty much history repeating itself. About 10 years ago Gordon Brown came up with a plan to tax CB for higher rate taxpayers. But the plan was ditched when it was pointed out that independant taxation means you can't tax anyone on someone else's income, even their spouse's.

So instead he replaced the married couple's and additional personal allowance (which were "universal" for those with kids) with the Children's Tax Credit (not to be confused with the current Child Tax Credit), which was a tax allowance which had to be claimed by the higher earner if either paid 40% tax, so that it could be withdrawn.

This had the same problem - dual earner just under the 40% threshold got the lot, single earner a little above got nothing. It was seen as unfair, so only lasted 2 years and was incorporated into the current tax credits system. But the loss of the "universal" tax allowance for anyone a little above the 40% threshold didn't cause much of an outcry.

You may well be right. Meet back here in Feb 2014 to see?!

I would definitely agree that PAYE and its non-transferable allowances have meant that what are tax thresholds in most other comparable nations are perceived as welfare payments in this country. And this does muddy the waters considerably.

zagfles

Sixer wrote: »

You may well be right. Meet back here in Feb 2014 to see?!

OK! I hope I'm wrong and there is an outcry - I like universal benefits and don't want to see even more means testing.

Sixer wrote: »

I would definitely agree that PAYE and its non-transferable allowances have meant that what are tax thresholds in most other comparable nations are perceived as welfare payments in this country. And this does muddy the waters considerably.

Indeed. Tax allowances are pretty similar to universal benefits in effect.

Sixer

Zagfles, it's a date!

Of course, the other elephant in the room is the low level at which the minimum wage is set. It's entirely arguable that taxpayers (well, not taxpayers who work for Barclays, because Barclays pays their income tax for them dontchaknow and count it in to the amount they pay the exchequer, talk about Doublespeak) are subsidising employers just as much as they are subsidising benefits claimants. But then again, the domino effect of that is endangering job creation...

... what a tangled web.

vix2000

Having just read this whole thread I am a bit disheartened that working tax credit is seen as a welfare benefit. A lot of people in low paid jobs would not be able to afford to do these jobs without it. So the people on here lumping wtc with non-working benefits should be applauding the people taking these jobs and claiming wtc as opposed to signing on, not denigrating them.

I myself, on losing my part time job, and being disabled on dla, decided to try working on a self employed basis around my disability. I work 16 hours a week and with the recession am finding it difficult. I spend the majority of my time canvassing and advertising and will be lucky to make a profit this year. Luckily wtc has kept me going.

Or maybe, as seems to be the consensus of opinion, if I can't make enough profit being self employed without claiming "welfare" I should just have signed on and claimed esa, I would get a lot more than I get wtc.

You need to get real if you think every small business can start with finance from banks or the financial sector, especially in the current economy. Small businesses should be encouraged to start, and are the way forward for the countries economy and creating jobs. As far as I am aware, government has always offered various subsidies and grants for small business start ups, under different names and methods. Wtc being the current variant.

wobblygreg

Prinzessilein wrote: »

DLA is to be abolished and replaced by a new form of Personal Payments...My DLA award was 'indefinite' because the decision-maker (eventually) agreed that my condition is unlikely to ever improve. I wonder if all claimants in my situation will automatically be passed for the new payments? Somehow I doubt it. It looks like another opportunity for the government to move the goalposts and take money away from those who need it most.

I have no doubt that those that need it like disabled will be targetted DLA is one if not the hardest benefit to recieve I know many people with MS who gave up trying to get DLA as it was so complex/frustrating/humilating and nearly everyone was refused 1st time.

I Also read on another forum that it was the least abused something like 1 percent of claims proved fraudulent(cant confirm that but wouldnt surprise me).

The disabled are an easy target for cuts as they dont have the voice or support that some other parties/groups have(not going to say anymore on that)but at least the goverment changed law on assisted suicide after a woman with MS fought for change:question:makes you wonder doesnt it.

And for those that think mine is a unique view most disabled groups feel they(disabled) will be worse off and that the workshy and scroungers will always have the strength and know how to abuse the system wheras those that are infirm and vulnerable will be left worse off or with nothing, most local councils have cut services and these include CAB and career services etc a main support of a lot of people who need care.

The Cheshire report of 2009 said that a lot of disabled were living in poverty and very little was done then I dread to think what will happen to disabled people living alone or already in poverty .

ska_lover

If I was in charge, I would give everyone who has been on job seekers allowance for longer than six months, no cash whatsoever. I would give them vouchers to buy food, and a meagre amount at that. I would get their utlities and rent paid direct to the supplier. No cash whatsoever given to the claimant. No money for clothes, fags, booze nothing. Im sick of hearing about people on benefits living a luxury lifestyle compared to a lot that are working. I just read a thread on here where a woman is clawing nearly 2.5k a month in benefits and moaning how she is going to afford to pay brighthouse this week.... STOP IT ALL NOW!! STOP THE LOT OF IT! The rates are benefits are FAR TOO HIGH. Theres no incentive to get work.

IT IS NOT THE PEOPLE ON BENEFITS THAT ARE IN POVERTY IN THIS COUNTRY. If you are able bodied, you should be forced to support yourself - in any job for any wage. There are too many bleeding hearts in this country. I wonder how did they manage in cave man times, did their neighbours all go out and catch a wildebeast for you if you couldnt be a*rsed to do it yourself?, no you would have been left to starve and die. Its survival of the fittest baby, and if you cant keep up, then you fall by the wayside.

That doesnt include disability, people who cannot work through ill health, should be supported.

Its just an almighty JOKE on the working public that you can work all month, pay your taxes, and the people on job 'seekers' benefits come away with more money than we do on payday!

All those on jobseekers better watch out when im in charge!