information about universal credit

FBaby

Sixer wrote: »

Couples with children of 13 or over: 2 x National Minimum Wage x 35 hours = £425.60

I took this as 2 people 35 hours at NMW, not one person earning double NMW whilst other not working. That would make no sense...

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

I took this as 2 people 35 hours at NMW, not one person earning double NMW whilst other not working. That would make no sense...

Why not? If you're going to assess couples jointly then why dictate which of them should earn the money?

Sixer

FBaby wrote: »

I took this as 2 people 35 hours at NMW, not one person earning double NMW whilst other not working. That would make no sense...

No, read my posts again. The whole point is that the household (not the individuals within it) will have an income threshold, not an hours threshold. It doesn't matter whether one or both members of the couple work to earn it. For a couple with children at secondary school, the income threshold will be 2 x full-time (which the briefing notes set at 35 hours) positions at NMW. Currently £425 a week.

From the PDF I've quoted:

5. A personalised threshold that reflects a claimants circumstances

b) Lone parents with children between five and 12, for example, will only be expected to look for work that is compatible with school hours. Similarly, couples with young children will be able to nominate a principal carer who will be treated as a lone parent for conditionality purposes. We have also made clear that individuals with caring responsibilities would only be expected to look for work that is compatible with their caring requirements, while claimants with work-limiting

6. A threshold for couples that reflects their circumstances

a) Just as an individual’s conditionality threshold will reflect their circumstances and capabilities, so a couple’s conditionality threshold should reflect both members’ individual circumstances and capabilities.

b) We therefore intend to define in regulations a conditionality threshold for joint claimants as the sum of what would be their two individual thresholds. This means that the maximum threshold for couples without caring responsibilities or health conditions would be the level of earnings that would be accrued by both members working full-time at the National Minimum Wage.

c) Couples with young children, other caring responsibilities or with health conditions that reduce the number of hours we expect them to work would face a lower conditionality threshold, in line with their circumstances.

d) Couples earning below their conditionality threshold would then both be subject to conditionality, in line with their personal circumstances and capabilities. This means that where both members of a couple had the capacity to increase their hours and earnings, both would face conditionality. Where one member of a couple was already working full-time however we would not anticipate applying further work search conditionality to them.

e) Couples with combined earnings above their conditionality threshold would both be out of scope of conditionality, regardless of the composition of their earnings.

Spendless

zagfles wrote: »

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

Oh ok. I'd read the thresholds as being that was the amount that top up benefits of wages stopped.

merlin68

I also read that those with savings over £16000 won't get UC.

BigAunty

merlin68 wrote: »

I also read that those with savings over £16000 won't get UC.

That's my understanding, too. I never understood why a household with substantial savings could qualify for tax credits anyhow since only the interest paid on their nest egg was an influencing factor, not their huge capital.

But timing wise, I'm not optimistic that UC will be implemented in 2013 since there is bound to be a general election in 2015 and surely the coalition realise they are about to hack off virtually everyone receiving benefits (and that is many...)

Sixer

BigAunty wrote: »

That's my understanding, too. I never understood why a household with substantial savings could qualify for tax credits anyhow since only the interest paid on their nest egg was an influencing factor, not their huge capital.

But timing wise, I'm not optimistic that UC will be implemented in 2013 since there is bound to be a general election in 2015 and surely the coalition realise they are about to hack off virtually everyone receiving benefits (and that is many...)

I think the lack of capital rules was because this whole system is such a hopeless mishmash of old tax allowances on earned income (quite rightly with no capital rules) and old top-up welfare benefits (which should have capital rules).

We do need to remember that tax credits did not solely replace earlier welfare benefits. They also replaced earlier tax allowances.

Overall, I think the prudent and the so-called squeezed middle will be pretty much excluded from UC.

Which, in terms of benefit-dependency, is a good thing. But in terms of the absence of any sensible tax allowances remaining, which are common to all big, developed economies, even the US, is a bad thing.

mummyroysof3

im worried and confused about this new universal credit...not sure ive read it right though