universal credit

delain

I suppose this is why they plan it to iron the kinks out.

Now LHA... We live in a 3 bed rented house. We pay £100 pm less than the lha rate for here. That doesn't seem very fair if we'd get the same amount of money as the family three doors down with less rent to pay :think:

Also we are in a 3 bed house but have a 4 bedroom entitlement, will the payments made to us be based on the 3 or 4 bed rate?

I hope the 3 bed rate otherwise that's just bonkers.

Sixer

anguk wrote: »

Have I worked this out right? A couple with a child over 5 but under 12 would have to earn about £334 a week, roughly 35 hours a week for one parent and 20 hours for the other parent if they're earning minimum wage.

But you could have another couple where one is not working and the other earns £20 an hour, they would only have to work 16 hours a week to get the same amount of Universal credits?

I can understand why they're doing it by amount earned rather than hours worked but it seems odd that one couple would have to work 55 hours between them but another couple could just work 16 hours between them and they'd end up with exactly the same amount of UCs? It doesn't exactly give those who have a good hourly rate any incentive to work more.

You've got it right.

The concept is (from the briefing notes):

We do not believe it is appropriate to require anyone to earn more than the National Minimum Wage, or to work longer than full-time. We therefore intend to set the maximum threshold for a single claimant at the level of earnings that would be accrued by working full-time at the National Minimum Wage.

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.

Presumably, the point is that the benefit paid out is the same, so the public purse is not compromised by hours worked but by wages earned.

Sixer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Why not? If they don't earn £212.80 per week (maximum work of 35 hours per week @ NMW) then they will have time to visit the job centre or one of those back-to-work providers they have contracted out to. Someone who earns more than the minimum wage per hour but still doesn't earn £212.80pw, will have more spare time to visit these places.

As the back-to work- people aren't state workers, then perhaps they will work longer hours? More incentive to work longer perhaps, as they only get paid when they get results.

Because this whole thing has to be administered? Weekly or fortnightly face-to-faces for people who are a tenner short on their threshold seems like a hammer to crack a walnut. I realise you have a strong ideological position (not mine but I respect it) but the entire point of UC is practicality and utilitarianism, both for claimant and state. They're looking for the best results for the minimum investment/supervision, rather than whipping all claimants into an ideologically-determined shape a la arbeit macht frei (way to mix yer lingos, Sixer!)

From the briefing notes:

As a minimum therefore, claimants should be engaged in work search for at least the number of hours we expect them to be available for work. For many claimants this will be the equivalent of a full time job.

Claimants will be required to regularly demonstrate the actions they have taken to look for work, and that they have used their time effectively in order to improve their prospects of moving into work, or into more or better paid work

Quite how much of a clue that gives in relation to conditionality for working, rather than non-working, claimants, I don't know.

annoat

Hi, I think that the reform is well needed however I have to agree with Spendless. I worked full time as a single parent from my son being 14 months old and part time from him being 6 months and I am currently not working my OH works full time.

I think that there needs to be childcare easily accessible for 12+ as I know that leaving children to their own devices throughout school holidays could lead to a heap more social issues than we have already. In some ways they need just as much supervision at this age than as younger children

DaisyFlower

It sounds far better than tax credits so thats a great start. Its looks like it will ensure people have to work x hours rather than the pittance that is required for tax credits.

If the self employed dont earn much for many hours, then they have the choice to find a salaried job or face the signing on until their income is in line with the criteria. Lots of people would like to be self employed but simply cant survive on the money and top up benefits should not support that.

MissMoneypenny

Sixer wrote: »

Because this whole thing has to be administered? Weekly or fortnightly face-to-faces for people who are a tenner short on their threshold seems like a hammer to crack a walnut.

So what about the people who will be £11 short? Or £12 short? Where is the cut off point? Logic would say that all those who are short will be required to show they are looking for work. You say the cut off point will be £10: it will be interesting to see if the government agree with you and maybe they will - to start with. The new welfare bill seems quite flexible.

Sixer wrote: »

re I realise you have a strong ideological position (not mine but I respect it)

I think Tax Credits have people caught in a benefit trap, which was prediticted when Blair/Brown first decided on Tax Credits.

Some people want to work but are genuinely worried how they will pay their bills without welfare support: but welfare is limiting. The welfare state can be institutionalising for some. These people need the support to get back to helping themselves more so they can get all the freedom that provides.

Then there are others who are happy to work as little as possible, live on welfare and just want others to provide things for them/their children. These people need a boot up their @rs=.

I think Universal Credits are a step in the right direction, to do both these things. Good for those that want to be free of welfare support and scary for those able bodied people who were hoping to live off others.

Sixer wrote: »

but the entire point of UC is practicality and utilitarianism, both for claimant and state. They're looking for the best results for the minimum investment/supervision, rather than whipping all claimants into an ideologically-determined shape

They also said they were going to return the welfare state to what it was intented for and not the way of life it has become for many.

From reading threads (even this one) some people are more than happy to fill in their tax credit form once a year and then just get the money paid straight into their account; but mention regular visits to the job centre or work provider and suddenly they aren't so happy. If people fit into this group and are "a tenner short on their threshold" they might be suddenly motivated to meet their threshhold (which is very low threshold anyway and is attainable by all) rather than visit the job centre/ work provider?

Sixer wrote: »

From the briefing notes:

As a minimum therefore, claimants should be engaged in work search for at least the number of hours we expect them to be available for work. For many claimants this will be the equivalent of a full time job.

Claimants will be required to regularly demonstrate the actions they have taken to look for work, and that they have used their time effectively in order to improve their prospects of moving into work, or into more or better paid work

Quite how much of a clue that gives in relation to conditionality for working, rather than non-working, claimants, I don't know.

It seems to be the same as they expect from job seekers. I see the words "required" and "regularly" there. I don't see, "but not if they only are a tenner short". Time will tell if you are right with your tenner short, but at least the welfare reform bill has been passed and as I said above, it is flexible enough to make alterations as needed.

Sixer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

So what about the people who will be £11 short? Or £12 short? Where is the cut off point? Logic would say that all those who are short will be required to show they are looking for work. You say the cut off point will be £10: it will be interesting to see if the government agree with you and maybe they will - to start with. The new welfare bill seems quite flexible.



I think Tax Credits have people caught in a benefit trap, which was prediticted when Blair/Brown first decided on Tax Credits.

Some people want to work but are genuinely worried how they will pay their bills without welfare support: but welfare is limiting. The welfare state can be institutionalising for some. These people need the support to get back to helping themselves more so they can get all the freedom that provides.

Then there are others who are happy to work as little as possible, live on welfare and just want others to provide things for them/their children. These people need a boot up their @rs=.

I think Universal Credits are a step in the right direction, to do both these things. Good for those that want to be free of welfare support and scary for those able bodied people who were hoping to live off others.



They also said they were going to return the welfare state to what it was intented for and not the way of life it has become for many.

From reading threads (even this one) some people are more than happy to fill in their tax credit form once a year and then just get the money paid straight into their account; but mention regular visits to the job centre or work provider and suddenly they aren't so happy. If people fit into this group and are "a tenner short on their threshold" they might be suddenly motivated to meet their threshhold (which is very low threshold anyway and is attainable by all) rather than visit the job centre/ work provider?




It seems to be the same as they expect from job seekers. I see the words "required" and "regularly" there. I don't see, "but not if they only are a tenner short". Time will tell if you are right with your tenner short, but at least the welfare reform bill has been passed and as I said above, it is flexible enough to make alterations as needed.

Don't create a straw man out of a tenner! You do have an awful habit of doing that. It was an illustration, leading on from a conversation with someone that was only a small amount of money from their likely threshold. My point was about practicality and cost of administration, but you've responded with an ideological argument in favour of your position. Which again, you do a lot of. At no point did I make an ideological point - I try not to on this subforum - so to respond with one creates multiple levels of straw men.

The briefing notes make several mentions about thresholds and conditionality being individually personalised. This may mean, for example, that "compatible with school hours" may mean a different threshold for city and rural dwellers, because rural people may be disadvantaged. Or people with caring responsibilities may be given leeway. I don't know; I'm just hypothesising. And I maintain that someone in Joanne Notts's position - only a few quid short of her threshold - is unlikely to be asked to report as often or as thoroughly as JSA claimants are now.

I predict (from common sense, not any foreknowledge or political point of view) that there will be some kind of initial appointment, at which the adviser will set one of several possible levels of conditionality. This may include frequency (eg weekly, monthly, quarterly) and proof (eg, jobseeking agreement to maintain, CV updating, jobs applied for, etc).

MissMoneypenny

Sixer wrote: »

Don't create a straw man out of a tenner! You do have an awful habit of doing that. It was an illustration, leading on from a conversation with someone that was only a small amount of money from their likely threshold. My point was about practicality and cost of administration, but you've responded with an ideological argument in favour of your position. Which again, you do a lot of. At no point did I make an ideological point - I try not to on this subforum - so to respond with one creates multiple levels of straw men..

Has that made you feel better? It's no good getting angry or name calling, as the welfare reform bill has been passed. It is a massive step forward for the country although I do appreciate that some claimants won't see it like that. The rising welfare bill was too high and getting higher.

Sixer wrote: »

And I maintain that someone in Joanne Notts's position - only a few quid short of her threshold - is unlikely to be asked to report as often or as thoroughly as JSA claimants are now.

Do JSA claimants who don't claim the full JSA amount (as they have done some work that week which has reduced their payment) still have to report to the job centre every 2 weeks as normal?

EDIT - I just received the answer to this on another list; the JSA claimant will still have to report to the DWP every 2 weeks, even if they are only given a few pounds a week of welfare.

Child Tax Credits, Working Tax Credits and JSA (Income Based) are all income based welfare payments (except JSA claimants don't claim for as long as the tax credit claimants do). There is no hierarchy between income based welfare claimants and every claimant is no better or worse, than someone claiming a different type of income based welfare payment.

partysis81

ive been reading all of the posts and have a few questions, please bear with me as i am a mother of twin toddlers so i have baby brain x 200% lol

What benefits will UC replace? i currently receive tax credits, LHA and chb, will it cover all of these?

My twins are 18 months old, so does that mean i automatically get UC until they are 5? i do not work, but my husband works 37 hrs a week on 7.93 ph.

are the target figures based on gross or net pay?

Also, my husband is offered overtime on an "as and when needed" basis, as he works in manufacturing, they get offered overtime when the company need extra orders out on time etc, so some weeks he may earn more than others, do you think they will allow for this?

Sorry if any of my questions sound thick xx

[Deleted User]

I think it's a great idea. The minimum wage has backfired, it was brought in to stop people being exploited, but now too many big blue chip companies who profit billions are using NMW as a starting point and expecting the Government to top up low wages, that is wrong. Hopefully people will push for pay increases.