universal credit again

zagfles

quintwins wrote: »

wow i thought i understood this all til i read this thread

So did I!

so if my youngest is 3 when uc come in and my hubby works 40hrs, but i don't claim jsa element of uc and only claim child element we won't have to go to work interviews.

I think you will, I don't think the sanction only applies to a particular element of UC (although the level of the sanction is stated as being the same as JSA). But as you can see HappyMJ has a different interpretation.

it's all well and good saying mothers should work, but even when my youngest is 5 i'll have a schoolrun at 9, a school collection at 1 (we're in n.i) a school collection at 3 then 2 speech therapy appointments a physio appointment and 2 ocupation therapy appointments a week aswell as a hubby who regularly works til midnight or starts at 6/7 when exackly am i suppose to work? surely they should look at each familsy own situations rather than blanketing us all together

You'd only be expected to seek work in school hours, plus it says under "personalised conditionality":

In setting conditionality, advisers will ensure that the requirements they place on a recipient are reasonable for that person, taking into account their particular capabilities and circumstances. In line with this personalised approach, we will continue to give advisers the flexibility to target stronger conditionality on some jobseekers where they think this is necessary to help move them into work.

But how it will all actually work is speculation at the moment.

zagfles

HappyMJ wrote: »

There is no requirement for a second member of a couple to take any job at all. The requirement is that the primary earner earns at least as much as someone on minimum wage would earn by working for 35 hours at minimum wage and in shared care situations the amount earnt by both parents must be equal to 35 hours at minimum wage there is no requirement that both parents to work or that both husband and wife work where no children are involved.

See the link I posted above:

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.

quintwins

zagfles wrote: »

So did I!


I think you will, I don't think the sanction only applies to a particular element of UC (although the level of the sanction is stated as being the same as JSA). But as you can see HappyMJ has a different interpretation.



You'd only be expected to seek work in school hours, plus it says under "personalised conditionality":


But how it will all actually work is speculation at the moment.

originally i thought it was that unless you earned 35hrs+ no matter what you applied for you had to go in for interviews, i can't see how they can change it from 5 to 1 tho and how can they say school hrs when kids at 5 over there are in school 6hrs where am here it's 4hrs it can't be one rule for me and one for you

i think we'll never know whats really going on til they bring it in

also how i understood it is once we the people who claim tax credits now have a curciumstance change they will go onto the new system, then they'll slowly start moving us all over not that we have 6 years just that it could take 6 years

zagfles

quintwins wrote: »

originally i thought it was that unless you earned 35hrs+ no matter what you applied for you had to go in for interviews, i can't see how they can change it from 5 to 1 tho and how can they say school hrs when kids at 5 over there are in school 6hrs where am here it's 4hrs it can't be one rule for me and one for you

i think we'll never know whats really going on til they bring it in

also how i understood it is once we the people who claim tax credits now have a curciumstance change they will go onto the new system, then they'll slowly start moving us all over not that we have 6 years just that it could take 6 years

Everyone will be moved over (think around 2014 is the plan) but there will be transitional protection until a "significant change of circumstances" which isn't defined yet.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/ucpbn-6-transitional-protection.pdf

Vejovis

quintwins wrote: »

wow i thought i understood this all til i read this thread

so if my youngest is 3 when uc come in and my hubby works 40hrs, but i don't claim jsa element of uc and only claim child element we won't have to go to work interviews.

it's all well and good saying mothers should work, but even when my youngest is 5 i'll have a schoolrun at 9, a school collection at 1 (we're in n.i) a school collection at 3 then 2 speech therapy appointments a physio appointment and 2 ocupation therapy appointments a week aswell as a hubby who regularly works til midnight or starts at 6/7 when exackly am i suppose to work? surely they should look at each familsy own situations rather than blanketing us all together

yet many parents manage to do exactly that, work and not have a partner to help them.

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

I think you will, I don't think the sanction only applies to a particular element of UC (although the level of the sanction is stated as being the same as JSA). But as you can see HappyMJ has a different interpretation.

I agree with you: I read UC as, 'Universal credits are Universal Credits and there will be no split in this'. What would be the point of lumping all these income based welfare payments together, if they then had different terms for claimants of UC?

Changing the subject slightly and going back to another thread where we talked about those self employed who claimed to have a low income and then claimed WTC; and how this will be stopped and an appropiate rate will applied for their trade now. We wondered how the government will sort these appropiate rates, but it seems they have already done this for immigration purposes.

When Camreron said that welfare reforms and immigration were two sides of the same coin, I started reading immigration and welfare boards. Apart from this govenment rapidly closing down just about every immigration route to stay in the UK (unless the UK needs their skills), the government have produced a list of graduate jobs and appropriate rates and hours they must work, for those that already work in the UK and haven't yet been granted citizenship (plus other new rules that won't affect those who already have a UK passport).http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/employersandsponsors/pointsbasedsystem/graduate-cop/

Under this 'graduate list of jobs and appropriate rates' for immigration purpose, there is no allowance for different areas. Whether this will be the same for UC, who knows yet.

It seems they have already worked out what people in various job earn and they will be able to apply it to WTC. For anyone who doesn't fit into one of the graduate jobs list or the new list they will have for WTC purposes for non-graduate jobs, the hours they have to work will be based on minimum wage calculations.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I agree with you: I read UC as, 'Universal credits are Universal Credits and there will be no split in this'. What would be the point of lumping all these income based welfare payments together, if they then had different terms for claimants of UC?

Changing the subject slightly and going back to another thread where we talked about those self employed who claimed to have a low income and then claimed WTC; and how this will be stopped and an appropiate rate will applied for their trade now. We wondered how the government will sort these appropiate rates, but it seems they have already done this for immigration purposes.

When Camreron said that welfare reforms and immigration were two sides of the same coin, I started reading immigration and welfare boards. Apart from this govenment rapidly closing down just about every immigration route to stay in the UK (unless the UK needs their skills), the government have produced a list of graduate jobs and appropriate rates and hours they must work, for those that already work in the UK and haven't yet been granted citizenship (plus other new rules that won't affect those who already have a UK passport).http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/employersandsponsors/pointsbasedsystem/graduate-cop/

Under this 'graduate list of jobs and appropriate rates' for immigration purpose, there is no allowance for different areas. Whether this will be the same for UC, who knows yet.

It seems they have already worked out what people in various job earn and they will be able to apply it to WTC. For anyone who doesn't fit into one of the graduate jobs list or the new list they will have for WTC purposes for non-graduate jobs, the hours they have to work will be based on minimum wage calculations.

Yes, they are going down this route, in the last thread IceQueen posted a list to a House of Lords debate about this where they said the SE would have a conditionality threshold set at not at full time NMW but at the "appropriate rate" for the work they're doing.

I guess this is inevitable as the opportunity and incentive for fraud are far greater with the SE.

But I wouldn't have thought they'd bother applying it to WTC, as we're only a couple of years away from UC.

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

Yes, they are going down this route, in the last thread IceQueen posted a list to a House of Lords debate about this where they said the SE would have a conditionality threshold set at not at full time NMW but at the "appropriate rate" for the work they're doing.

It looks like the governmnet have gone way past the debate stage of "approriate rate" as it seems they have already worked this out are using it for some visas.

zagfles wrote: »

I guess this is inevitable as the opportunity and incentive for fraud are far greater with the SE.

Judgeing by posts from self employed people on here and those on immigration lists who have the (now closed) Tier 1 visa and need an extension, HMRC are already being active on tightening the noose on the SE.

zagfles wrote: »

But I wouldn't have thought they'd bother applying it to WTC, as we're only a couple of years away from UC.

Less than 2 years until the start of UC now; if they can hit the predicted start date which they seem determined to do. From Sunday, we will be talking about 'when UC comes in next year'.