Universal Credit for [merged]

MissMoneypenny

Fiver29 wrote: »

I still don't get it.

Does that mean a person working say 30 hours a week will have to job seek for a 35 hour a week job, and leave their current employment if one comes up?

Or take a second job of 5 hours.

From what I understand from this newspaper article, is that the proposals are that they will have to earn the equivalent of 35 hours at the NMW. It's based on 'how much they earn' and not 'how many hours they work'.

MissMoneypenny

Fiver29 wrote: »

Edited

:doh: Think I just got it.


So they're saying that if someone earns £212 a week, they'll get the top up UC with no questions asked (not literally no questions, but you know what I mean), whereas if you earn £150 a week you'll get the UC, but on the condition you look for more work or better paid work.

Is that right?

I think I read that they will have to prove they are looking for work (like a job seeker has to).

Sixer

Fiver29 wrote: »

Edited

:doh: Think I just got it.


So they're saying that if someone earns £212 a week, they'll get the top up UC with no questions asked (not literally no questions, but you know what I mean), whereas if you earn £150 a week you'll get the UC, but on the condition you look for more work or better paid work.

Is that right?

Yes. It's just a bit more complicated if you're in a couple or have children. At present, if you work more than X number of hours you qualify for tax credits. At present, if you don't have a job and claim JSA you have to go and sign on and prove to DWP employees that you are taking sufficient steps to look for a job.

Under UC, if you earn under X pounds, you will qualify for UC but you will have to prove to DWP employees that you are taking sufficient steps to look for a) a second job, b) a different job with the same hours that pays more, c) a different job with more hours that pays more.

The X pounds will depend on whether you are single, part of a couple, have children, and what ages your children are.

Proposed X pounds:

Singleton: 35 x NMW
Childless couple: 35 x 2 x NMW
Couple with children under 5: 35 x NMW
Couple with children 13 and over: 35 x 2 x NMW
Couple with children 5-13: 35 x NMW + £s from part-time hours that are TBA

Note that you could have one person in a couple earning all the required money and then the other person wouldn't have to go to the DWP and prove they were looking for work. It's all on the household income, not individual income.

Fiver29

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Or take a second job of 5 hours.

From what I understand from this newspaper article, is that the proposals are that they will have to earn the equivalent of 35 hours at the NMW. It's based on 'how much they earn' and not 'how many hours they work'.

Yes, that just clicked after I wrote the post.

Fiver29

Sixer wrote: »

Proposed X pounds:

Singleton: 35 x NMW
Childless couple: 35 x 2 x NMW
Couple with children under 5: 35 x NMW
Couple with children 13 and over: 35 x 2 x NMW
Couple with children 5-13: 35 x NMW + £s from part-time hours that are TBA
.

I can't see anything for single parents with children over 12, have you seen anything for that group?

Sixer

Oh, and presumably, this is where the so-called pin-money self-employment people will find themselves scuppered. Unless their business turns a profit equivalent to a full-time NMW job, they'll have to sign on and prove they're looking for other work (or whatever the replacement for signing on is called under UC).

Sixer

Fiver29 wrote: »

I can't see anything for single parents with children over 12, have you seen anything for that group?

It's all in the briefing notes posted here and on the thread Zagfles linked to.

A single parent with children 13 and over will have a £ threshold equivalent to 35 x NMW per week.

A couple with children 13 and over will have a £ threshold equivalent to 70 x NMW per week.

seven-day-weekend

Thanks, I think I understand it now for people in work, or unemployed.

What happens to people who are off sick?

And do I understand correctly, that in a couple if one earns twice the NMW @35 hours, then the other is not required to look for work?

So my son (whose contract is 29 hours at just over minimum wage) and his girlfriend (who does 35 hours at NMW) , with no children, would have a condition built in that one or both of them would have to look to earn a little bit more if they required any of the Benefits that go into the UC? Is that correct?

melly1980

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Thanks, I think I understand it now for people in work, or unemployed.

What happens to people who are off sick?
t?

There is no such thing as sick anymore. It has been outlawed or re-classified as fraud

BigAunty

Sixer wrote: »

Oh, and presumably, this is where the so-called pin-money self-employment people will find themselves scuppered. Unless their business turns a profit equivalent to a full-time NMW job, they'll have to sign on and prove they're looking for other work (or whatever the replacement for signing on is called under UC).

I know. It's about time it was tackled. I've lost count of the amount of self employed people posting benefit related queries on this forum because of low profits. I query how they are doing versus their business plan and not one poster has acknowledged producing one.

So I get the impression that they launch into a 'business' without any kind of basic research into competitors, marketing, cash flow, estimated profit and expenses...

In other words, instead of planning for success and seeing if it is even feasible for them to earn an income, they simply walk blindfolded into failure.