Universal Credit

Sixer

Spendless wrote: »

At the min though the current system makes no distinction between a married SAHM with 3 x under 5s and someone with 15 year old triplets. The way it is being proposed Mrs married to the postie I mentioned earlier would currently be expected to have 1 x f-time NMW and 1 x part-time NMW, within a couple of years she'd be expected to have 2 x f-time NMW incomes due to the age of her kids. If she found a part-time job it would be in her own interest to do as many extra hours as she was offerred or to find a f-time job instead as her children hit the age brackets.

Yes. That's right.

Although don't forget that a postie will earn more than £11,065 (52 x 35 x 6.08), so the amount the SAHM would be expected to earn in this case, would be less than 1 x FT/PT x NMW. If you see what I mean!

MummyOfTwo

Sixer wrote: »

The briefing notes are more useful than Miss Moneypenny's link (sorry, Miss Moneypenny!)

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/welfare-reform-bill-2011/universal-credit-briefing/

However, you'll find I summarised it more clearly than the briefing notes do.

If you read what I said, I've made it as clear as I can. Tax credits won't exist. Universal Credit will be available to all. Nobody will lose anything altogether. People will be expected to attain a level of income based on their household type. If they do not attain this level of income, they will have a choice:

* prove they are jobseeking to try to get to the level of income (like JSA claimants have to now

* if they don't want to jobseek, then they will receive Universal Credit AS IF they were earning the target income

The target income will be based on NMW x a certain number of hours depending on whether or not they have children and how old the children are.

Let's take the example of a family with children aged over 12. That family's target will be 35 x 52 x 6.08 x 2 (two full time workers). Their target income will therefore be £22,131. If they earn this much between them (doesn't matter if it's just one of them or both of them), then they'll receive UC on an income of £22,131. If they only earn £15,000 between them, then they have a choice:

* prove they're looking for work in the same way JSA claimants do now and receive UC on an income of £15k

* say they don't want to submit to that conditionality and receive UC based on an income of £22,131 even though they only actually earn £15,000.

I don't know how I can make it any simpler or clearer!

this is the best explanation ive seen so far! thank you very much indeed.

marrbett

Can someone point me to the information that gives the breakdown of the child's age and the hours required to work under UC. All I can find is the general under 5, under 12 categories and I was looking for specific ages inbetween.
Thankyou(and I have looked at the DWP site and couldn't find anything!!)

Sixer

marrbett wrote: »

Can someone point me to the information that gives the breakdown of the child's age and the hours required to work under UC. All I can find is the general under 5, under 12 categories and I was looking for specific ages inbetween.
Thankyou(and I have looked at the DWP site and couldn't find anything!!)

As I said, you need to read the whole thing, really.

There aren't specific ages. There are bands. Under 5s - which means no conditionality because under 5s aren't at school. 5-12s - which means conditionality for work compatible with school hours because primary school children can't look after themselves when they get home. 12 and over - full-time conditionality because secondary school children don't need childcare when they're not at school.

Note that the "because" bits in the above paragraph are my explanation of the thinking behind them.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/welfare-reform-bill-2011/universal-credit-briefing/

From part 11:

If we take full-time to mean 35 hours, the maximum conditionality threshold for an individual would be set at £212.80 at current rates. This means that if an individual earns over £212.80 per week before tax, they will be in the no conditionality group.

For some claimants it would not be appropriate to expect them to work full-time, and for those claimants their conditionality threshold will be lowered in line with their personal circumstances.

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.

From part 12

Claimants who are lone parents with responsibility for a child between the ages of 5 and 12, or for an older child who has exceptional care needs, will be able to restrict their work search and availability to work which:
•fits with the hours their child is in school;
•provides reasonable time to take and collect their child from school;
•takes into account their child’s care needs, including whether child care is available and affordable, in particular during the child’s school holidays.

A couple with a child under 13 will be able to nominate one member of the couple who will be treated in the same way as a lone parent for conditionality purposes (i.e. who will be able to place limitations on their work availability and work search as above). Couples who choose not to nominate and who prefer to share child care and work responsibilities will be able to do so, as long at collectively the couple are looking for work at least equivalent to one person working full-time and one person working as many hours as a lone parent would be expected to.

Although these excerpts don't specifically SAY those with care of children under 5 won't be subject to conditionality, this is still the case. They don't say it because it's not a change from what is happening now - ie lone parents of children under 5 can claim income support; they don't have to submit to JSA conditionality. The excerpts above don't include a number of hours for carers of children from 5-12. This is because the threshold will be individual, but the ballpark figure stated elsewhere in various DWP documents is 20 hours. So most parents of children aged 5-12 should probably work on 20 hours.

marrbett

Thanks Sixer,I need some time to digest all this, as it's going to impact our family quite alot. We home-educate our children and I've been at home with them full-time, whilst my dh works full-time, but doesn't bring home 2X NMW.
I appreciate all the help people on this thread have given me.
Thankyou.

melly1980

BigAunty wrote: »

That's why I've never been a fan of tax credits - they disguise true levels of unemployment, have broken work ethic because they've legitimised a work-life balance for many households !

How dare they....your right, everyone should be born, schooled and then spend the rest of their lives working obscene hours at the expense of their family ultimately to benefit those at the top of the tree. Oh...and then be kind enough to die, preferable before they start costing money.

BigAunty

melly1980 wrote: »

How dare they....your right, everyone should be born, schooled and then spend the rest of their lives working obscene hours at the expense of their family ultimately to benefit those at the top of the tree..

Well, if they could support their children by working a tadge more than approx 2 hours a day between two healthy adults, it would be awfully appreciated....

melly1980

BigAunty wrote: »

Well, if they could support their children by working a tadge more than approx 2 hours a day between two healthy adults, it would be awfully appreciated....

The tax credits system primarily supports families and a legitimate part of bringing a family up is spending time with those children. Quite why anyone would be so incredulous about the value of a good balance in life is beyond me.

we are not here on this earth to work ourselves to death to ultimately make the ruling classes extremely rich.

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

There is no income "cut-off" with tax credits, you get various elements which are tapered and at some point they will taper to zero, but that point depends on exactly what elements you are entitled to. The more elements, the higher the income at which they get tapered to zero.

I imagine it'd be similar with UC.

With Universal Credit there will be a cap; a maximum amount they will pay in welfare per week; child benefits will be included in that cap (even though it isn't part of Universal Credit at the moment).

I'm not sure what is excluded from that cap, but I assume childcare will be, as they want parents to do more to keep their own children? I read that council tax benefit and DLA will not be included in that cap either, but that may have been altered now? Anyone?

confusedmummy

In this document http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn116.pdf it says; "Basic entitlements to Universal Credit have been set so that the majority of workless families will receive the same amount of benefits as they do under the current regime".

If that is the case, what is the point of bringing in UC? I thought the whole point of "welfare reform" was to get people back into work by reducing the attractiveness of benefits for long term worklessness? How is this going to get long term workless into work if they are not going to lose any benefits by switching to UC?