We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Universal Credit for [merged]
Comments
-
Yes !So the state must produce tailored benefit plans on a household by household basis, adapting itself to the circumstances of each claimant, rather than having simple rules and conditionality in order that the claimant fits in with it?
And this includes factoring in the inability of some people to manage their commitments?
In this day & age, this should be possible, otherwise you hit everyone with the same indiscriminate big stick, whch gets you nowhere.0 -
Yes !
In this day & age, this should be possible, otherwise you hit everyone with the same indiscriminate big stick, whch gets you nowhere.
No. If you complicate things too much you get nowhere. Benefits should have simple eligibility rules which everyone understands.
Otherwise you get lots of people who would be eligible to claim but who don't, because they don't understand the rules/don't want the hassle or risk claiming something they weren't entitled to. Then you get others who understand the rules inside out and manipulate them to their advantage. And if there are grey areas someone has to be arbiter and then there has to be an appeals process etc, look at the amount of people whinging about ATOS etc.
Look at how many pensioners don't claim the "tailored" pension credit when they're entitled. Compared to the state pension, which nearly everyone claims if entitled. Same with child benefit and child tax credits.
The govt (even the last one) finally accepted this wrt pensioner benefits, which will move more towards a simpler flat payment and less means testing. The UC moves in the right direction but still too much means testing.0 -
UC isn't replacing any non-means tested or contributory benefits such as DLA or ESA(C), don't believe all the scare stories.
It will make it a lot easier and more beneficial financially for people who go into and out of work regularly due to health/disability issues. Now it's a complete nightmare and not worth it financially anyway.
Sorry what I meant was these benefits in general do punish the most needy.
ESA is means tested though for the income related part and if you're going from a non means tested benefit onto means tested such as ESA you're not going to get that benefit as you're supposed to be reliant on your partner. They have made the concession as Age Concern have reported that those that don't have enough NI contributions (usually through getting ill at a young age and having intermittent jobs) to get the contributory part of ESA you will get them for a year.
I can't find the article but one was published that week that it said about the real impact would come from those changing from non means tested to means tested.
As for people whinging about ATOS, it is wrong the way they do things. Look at last week when it hit the news that they had sub contracted the Royal Mail to open confidential papers. People have every right to complain.
I know things need to change but somehow the way they're doing it it will already make those that struggle, struggle even more so.0 -
-
Simplifying rules means people get things they shouldn't or don't really need or people are denied because the rules are too simple & don't take into their circumstances.No. If you complicate things too much you get nowhere. Benefits should have simple eligibility rules which everyone understands.
Otherwise you get lots of people who would be eligible to claim but who don't, because they don't understand the rules/don't want the hassle or risk claiming something they weren't entitled to. Then you get others who understand the rules inside out and manipulate them to their advantage. And if there are grey areas someone has to be arbiter and then there has to be an appeals process etc, look at the amount of people whinging about ATOS etc.
Look at how many pensioners don't claim the "tailored" pension credit when they're entitled. Compared to the state pension, which nearly everyone claims if entitled. Same with child benefit and child tax credits.
The govt (even the last one) finally accepted this wrt pensioner benefits, which will move more towards a simpler flat payment and less means testing. The UC moves in the right direction but still too much means testing.
Less means testing means many well off pensioners getting benefits they don't need, getting tv licence free when they can afford, getting winter fuel allowance they can afford.
Similiarly for other benefits people falling one side of fence or other on a rule.
Benefit rules are simple but complicated for good reason, as you would expect.
Saying that benefit rules should be simple is a meaningless comment.
They can never be that simple.
Then you have people using rules to their advantage, so you create more rules to close loopholes & stop abuse, then you create more rules & more rules .........ad infinitum !
Because that is what government does & systems do to control & manage the situation !0 -
To me that's a move backwards into victorian times and as I said for those affected badly by the recession the consequences can be and will be disastrous for some....
That's ridiculous, in Victorian times you had work houses people starved and froze to death or there was the work house.
What is being proposed is a return of traditional values of household support, where people who have a partner who can support them financially do. Why do you think people who are stay at home parents and have a working partner can't claim income support?0 -
That's ridiculous, in Victorian times you had work houses people starved and froze to death or there was the work house.
Interestingly, from watching Stehen Fry on 'Who Do You think You Are', before the workhouse, the churches gave money out to the poor. However, church records show that the same people were coming back for handouts again and again and these people just kept having more children with no real means to look after all these extra children. The extra children were used to get more money from the church.
Then the job of handing money out to the poor, was taken away from the churches and the workhouse was born and they took over providing for the poor. Those without jobs were now required to move in to the workhouse and had to such work long hours, that working in a job became the easier option. The workhouse then became a place for people who really had no other means of supporting themselves or their families.
In Stephen Fry's relative's case, as soon as he had to go the workhouse instead of just keep going back to the church for money, he managed to find a job:)RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
That's ridiculous, in Victorian times you had work houses people starved and froze to death or there was the work house.
What is being proposed is a return of traditional values of household support, where people who have a partner who can support them financially do. Why do you think people who are stay at home parents and have a working partner can't claim income support?
For some disabled people living on one wage isn't feasible, not everyone claiming non means tested benefits has a partner earning great lots.....and you'll actually find that despite what you read in the Daily Wail most peoples disability benefits goes to paying council tax, heating bills (which are often far higher due to the illness), food etc....
Stay at home parents aren't a comparison that's a choice to have children, being ill isn't.....:mad: If you have children you must have the money to support them so you can choose not to work. It's a lifestyle choice being seriously ill for many years isn't.
You forget that with being ill comes extra costs not everything comes free courtesy of the NHS and government, even some medicines have to paid for privately because of NHS cutbacks etc...
For those already struggling and are just over that cut off point you will see more people losing their houses, more bills being unpaid and more debts mounting up.0 -
For some disabled people living on one wage isn't feasible, not everyone claiming non means tested benefits has a partner earning great lots.....and you'll actually find that despite what you read in the Daily Wail most peoples disability benefits goes to paying council tax, heating bills (which are often far higher due to the illness), food etc....
The same applies to any group in society, this is why we have means testing in the first place. We have DLA for the increased costs that people incur for health reasons.Stay at home parents aren't a comparison that's a choice to have children, being ill isn't.....:mad: If you have children you must have the money to support them so you can choose not to work. It's a lifestyle choice being seriously ill for many years isn't.
Your arguing that people with health conditions shouldn't be means tested but everyone else should? For example there are 3 couples.
couple 1.
2 adults working on low wage, no children so minimal welfare support.
couple 2.
1 adult working, other adult caring for 2 children because the costs of childcare equal the second wage.
couple 3
1 adult working, other adult ill and unable to work.
All three couples have low incomes, if it is determined by the state that they have a household income sufficient to meet their basic needs then why should any group get priority? This is of course ignoring non means tested benefits like DLA.You forget that with being ill comes extra costs not everything comes free courtesy of the NHS and government, even some medicines have to paid for privately because of NHS cutbacks etc...
No I don't forget that.For those already struggling and are just over that cut off point you will see more people losing their houses, more bills being unpaid and more debts mounting up.
People struggle when their Outgoings exceed their Incoming, giving more money doesn't solve the problem if people can't priorities their spending if the first place.
But anyway as a person with a disability and health problems I have no problems with means testing.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards