information about universal credit

BigAunty

Like the previous posters, I also want to emphasise that the proposal paper is precisely that at the moment - proposed. Quite often there are some changes to the actual policies once implemented that are different to those in the draft paper. Obviously, the principles expressed in the paper could actually be implemented in full but it's not a done deal.

Here is a recent thread on this topic (stay at home mums and universal credit). The types of ripples and shock expressed here about higher thresholds for couples is also replicated by the self-employed, who are also anxious about changes which means a potential significant loss in state subsidies under UC than they enjoy now. Looks like UC is really going to cause some debate and anxiety.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3608257

Weary_soul

Universal Credit is just a nightmare waiting to happen imo, and I sincerely believe that they will drag it pretty much as drafted into life in a couple of years time.

Thus bringing untold hardship to even more people, working or not.

Sixer

BigAunty wrote: »

Like the previous posters, I also want to emphasise that the proposal paper is precisely that at the moment - proposed. Quite often there are some changes to the actual policies once implemented that are different to those in the draft paper. Obviously, the principles expressed in the paper could actually be implemented in full but it's not a done deal.

Here is a recent thread on this topic (stay at home mums and universal credit). The types of ripples and shock expressed here about higher thresholds for couples is also replicated by the self-employed, who are also anxious about changes which means a potential significant loss in state subsidies under UC than they enjoy now. Looks like UC is really going to cause some debate and anxiety.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3608257

I agree with this. Nothing in these briefing papers is set in stone - although I would say IDS has done a great deal of work, the full implications may not emerge until after everyone's got a real handle on what's being proposed.

Plus, while I agree with Zagfles that there is probably all-party support for the principle of Universal Credit, we need to remember that IDS (and the current administration) have a particular political agenda. It's entirely likely the full bill won't make it through both Houses without significant amendments.

Even before the Bill is drafted, I note that all the IDS think tank work said that a 55% withdrawal rate was the one that would really incentivise work. But with the cuts agenda, that's been changed to 65% (or 76% if you take tax into account). So it could well be that its main advantage has been scuppered before it's even begun.

When you factor in the merging of DWP and HMRC information and the transforming of it into a real-time system (laughable when you consider the abject failure of all other government IT projects) - then the whole thing really is looking wobbly.

FBaby

Sixer wrote: »

If you don't earn enough money between you, they intend to make you look for more work. Eg: couple with kids of 13 and 14 would need to earn at least £425 a week (2 x full-time jobs at NMW). If they don't, they'd have the same 'look for work' conditions as JSA now. Or they couldn't claim UC.

Really? I haven't been paying attention to UC until now, but that is exactly what I think make the system fair. Providing support to those who work full-time but on low salaries. I really hope this proposal sticks.

Sixer

FBaby wrote: »

Really? I haven't been paying attention to UC until now, but that is exactly what I think make the system fair. Providing support to those who work full-time but on low salaries. I really hope this proposal sticks.

Really! Take a look at the PDF I posted above.

Basically, the conditionality won't work on hours worked like it does now (ie 16, 24 and 30 hours). It'll be an income threshold based on X hours of work x NMW.

If you're a single parent, it'll be broadly similar to now - kids under 5 no obligation to look for work, kids 5-12 obligation to look for part-time work, 13 and over obligation to look for full-time work.

If you're part of a couple, it'll be one person working full-time and one person treated as lone parents were treated.

But, as I read it, you could have one half of a couple earning £425 a week (which is 35 hours x NMW x 2) and in that case, the non-working parent wouldn't be obliged to look for work.

Spendless

Sixer wrote: »

Really! Take a look at the PDF I posted above.

Basically, the conditionality won't work on hours worked like it does now (ie 16, 24 and 30 hours). It'll be an income threshold based on X hours of work x NMW.

If you're a single parent, it'll be broadly similar to now - kids under 5 no obligation to look for work, kids 5-12 obligation to look for part-time work, 13 and over obligation to look for full-time work.

If you're part of a couple, it'll be one person working full-time and one person treated as lone parents were treated.

But, as I read it, you could have one half of a couple earning £425 a week (which is 35 hours x NMW x 2) and in that case, the non-working parent wouldn't be obliged to look for work.

But they wouldn't be able to apply for UC either? I think that's fair enough. I've never understood why the 2nd adult can have their household income topped up due to the low wage of the other adult and the amount makes no difference regardless of whether there are toddlers or teenagers in the house.

zagfles

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Salary sacrifice will fix that - otherwise a big can of worms for employer contributions for defined benefit schemes!

They'll probably have "notional income" rules like tax credits. Tax credits now are very cagey about salary sacrifice - the manuals state that all salary sacrifice other than for childcare has to be reported to their technical team - even for pensions, despite normal pension contributions being 100% deductable.

zagfles

melly1980 wrote: »

yeah, theyve done really well in making one simple benefits system that they harped on about.

So in short, assume nothing and I could be in a position where I dont qualify for CB but magically qualify for this new means tested benefit. How idiotic.

Don't assume anything about CB either. The UC is pretty much inevitable (though it could be tweaked), the CB changes aren't.

zagfles

Spendless wrote: »

But, as I read it, you could have one half of a couple earning £425 a week (which is 35 hours x NMW x 2) and in that case, the non-working parent wouldn't be obliged to look for work

.But they wouldn't be able to apply for UC either? I think that's fair enough. I've never understood why the 2nd adult can have their household income topped up due to the low wage of the other adult and the amount makes no difference regardless of whether there are toddlers or teenagers in the house.

Yes, they would if the partners income was over the £425 a week (or whatever the threshold is).

zagfles

Sixer wrote: »

I agree with this. Nothing in these briefing papers is set in stone - although I would say IDS has done a great deal of work, the full implications may not emerge until after everyone's got a real handle on what's being proposed.

Plus, while I agree with Zagfles that there is probably all-party support for the principle of Universal Credit, we need to remember that IDS (and the current administration) have a particular political agenda. It's entirely likely the full bill won't make it through both Houses without significant amendments.

Even before the Bill is drafted, I note that all the IDS think tank work said that a 55% withdrawal rate was the one that would really incentivise work. But with the cuts agenda, that's been changed to 65% (or 76% if you take tax into account). So it could well be that its main advantage has been scuppered before it's even begun.

At the lower end of the income scale 65% is still an improvement, but yes it would have been far better to go for 55% or even lower - but they haven't got the guts to make the necessary rises in taxes it'd cost. Even though it'd probably shift the incentives to those more likely to spend and so boost the economy.

When you factor in the merging of DWP and HMRC information and the transforming of it into a real-time system (laughable when you consider the abject failure of all other government IT projects) - then the whole thing really is looking wobbly.

It's ambitious but it really has to be done. The way tax credits (and benefits) work with the claimant having to manually inform HMRC of changes in income is out of the stone age. There will be problems with the IT systems as there always are, but I imagine there were when companies started computerising PAYE. Imagine if income tax was still a manual process for employees!