Universal Credit for [merged]

BigAunty

Killmark wrote: »

...

Having said that attempts at creating jobs either via the public sector or subsidies has repeatedly proven ineffective, if you want to create jobs then cut corporation tax to 10% and offer companies relocating to the UK a 1 yr corporation tax rebate after being in the UK for 5 years.

Well, corporation tax in Ireland was very low and look where their celtic tiger economy ended up?

I reckon that greater devolution and independence in Scotland will mean the Scots will pip the rest of the UK by slashing corporation tax, just an opinion.

Marisco

Killmark wrote: »

And under UC no one is unemployed, they just aren't earning enough and so receive welfare if meeting conditionality.

This is another example of the government fudging unemployment statistics.

Having said that attempts at creating jobs either via the public sector or subsidies has repeatedly proven ineffective, if you want to create jobs then cut corporation tax to 10% and offer companies relocating to the UK a 1 yr corporation tax rebate after being in the UK for 5 years.

Spot on! The problem as well is they seem to be cutting jobs at the "sharp" end! Instead of starting at the top down, they always start at the bottom - the actual ones who do the work - then services start falling to bits! The care crisis is an example of this, because there are not enough carers, the ones there have to skimp on their job! The obvious answer is employ more of them, train them properly and pay them a decent wage. But no, perish the thought that it would cut into the profits of the company!! It might be an old clich!, but it still holds true - people before profits!

Killmark

BigAunty wrote: »

Well, corporation tax in Ireland was very low and look where their celtic tiger economy ended up?

The big difference is the BoE sets our interest rates, as opposed to Ireland's situation.

Lower corporation tax offset against increases in NWM should encourage job creation and increase consumer spending. It would also act as an incentive for people to get off benefits as their standard of living would greatly improve rather than being comparable or "better off" on benefits.

BigAunty

Killmark wrote: »

And under UC no one is unemployed, they just aren't earning enough and so receive welfare if meeting conditionality.

This is another example of the government fudging unemployment statistics.

.

Well, I haven't read anything that details this specific change. I'd have thought it must be easy under a single system to identify those who receive UC for sickness, disability, part time employment or no employment, being a lone parent, etc.

Perhaps its an acknowledgement that full employment is impossible to achieve, that unemployment is embedded into the structure of a modern capitalist society, and that some work is better than no work.

Killmark

BigAunty wrote: »

Well, I haven't read anything that details this specific change. I'd have thought it must be easy under a single system to identify those who receive UC for sickness, disability, part time employment or no employment, being a lone parent, etc.

Its not a change really, its just a tendency of governments to fudge figures. Lone parents for example are unemployed but don't make the official statistics because they receive another benefit, or stay at home parents who don't claim anything, or students. Who is classed as unemployed depends on your perspective and I don't recall a single time that a change in unemployment is classification by the government that led to the official figures increasing.

Also if you would get a little UC but have to meet certain conditions would you bother:

e.g couple with children where only 1 works full time but earnings affect ability to claim

chez1979

Another thing to keep in mind as well is that if the stay at home parent has to gain employment during school hours, what happens to the children in school holidays..i can;t see many companies allowing staff to have 6weeks in the summer off. Not everyone has pepple who can look after children in the holidays.

BigAunty

chez1979 wrote: »

Another thing to keep in mind as well is that if the stay at home parent has to gain employment during school hours, what happens to the children in school holidays..i can;t see many companies allowing staff to have 6weeks in the summer off. Not everyone has pepple who can look after children in the holidays.

Doubt this will ever happen, but i have a dream that one day the Prime Minister will think 'lots of unemployed people, lots of parents seeking child minders so they can get into employment, I know, why don't I produce a scheme to train up loads of unemployed and lone parents to be child carers...'

chez1979

My children are 5 and 7..and we would'nt have anyone around to take them to school or pick them up, or have them in the holidays if i worked. My husband works 40hrs sometimes more a week just over the NMW, so hopefully we shoud be ok, Nut as some others have said , this is no done deal yet far from it.

Sixer

chez1979 wrote: »

My children are 5 and 7..and we would'nt have anyone around to take them to school or pick them up, or have them in the holidays if i worked. My husband works 40hrs sometimes more a week just over the NMW, so hopefully we shoud be ok, Nut as some others have said , this is no done deal yet far from it.

We live in the back end of beyond with next to no public transport so I sympathise with these kinds of difficulties. I work from home but if I were unable to do that, it would cost a fortune just for me to have a job - a reliable car (we only run one car) and a probable 40 mile round trip to get to any likely job available. I'd be looking at £5k per year before I even started - comparable to childcare.

Under UC, I think what they envisage for those in your situation is that you would have to prove you were always looking for a job you could do and childcare that would enable you to do it. So you'd have to turn up to regular appointments and demonstrate how, where and how often you had looked for and applied for suitable vacancies.

Quite how they envisage this working practically, I'm not sure. There will be so many more people under conditionality. Queues at the Jobcentre will be out of the door!

Killmark

Sixer wrote: »

Quite how they envisage this working practically, I'm not sure. There will be so many more people under conditionality. Queues at the Jobcentre will be out of the door!

Which is why they introduced workfare, after 12mths they'd refer to the private sector partners. I'd expect shorter queues due to the change in claim linking rules.