Universal credit - how it will work

nannytone_2

the only people that should be able to sustain a 'lifestyle' on benefits should be those incapable of work.
we hear endlessly of children being bought up in pverty, yet the parents that choose to havve kids they cant afford, seem to bear little responsibility .... knowing that if they choose to have more children, then the state will support them.

people that have worked for 20 or 30 years and then lose their jobs through no fault of their own, are, after 6 ,onths, treated the same as peple who have chosen, never to have worked.

there will never be a 'just' system. it would be too costly to [rovide.

but at the moment t6here are too many rights and too few responsibilities.

jason1231972

I no longer do it for a living, but I too have worked closely amongst 'deprived communties', coming mostly into contact with claimants of means-tested benefits.

I've encountered everything from the so-called 'deserving poor' (people who don't want to be on benefits, but through matters of circumstance are effectively forced to claim), to downright p1$$ takers (a young lad who was 'on the sick' - Incap, at that time - because he suffered from occasional bouts of tonsilitis. I am not making this up), to everything in between.

'They' are a real mixed bag, and for every person who 'needs' the latest iPhone (yes, the stereotypes are true - many of these people exist), there's also another average person/family just plodding along and living a quiet and modest life.

Some people absolutely infuriated me. Not because they were on benefits (I feel proud to live in a country with such a comprehensive welfare system, for all its problems), but because no matter how little or much they received, it was never enough. The money would never last, whether it was weekly, fortnightly, or 4-weekly.

Many didn't even realise exactly what they were being paid, in terms of the names and frequency of their benefits. One particular woman (single mum - Income Support, CTC, Child Benefit) sticks in my mind, as she told me "I don't know what happens, one week I get £xx (high) paid into my account, yet the other week I only get £xx (low)". Yup, her I.S. was 2-weekly, but her CTC & CB were weekly. She genuinely thought that it was some kind of mistake that she had 'bad' weeks and 'good' weeks, even after many years of claiming.

I personally support the idea of UC with its 'one payment' approach, but do not think monthly payments are appropriate. I think payments ought to be weekly by default, but monthly by choice. A very large proportion of the employed population are also paid weekly or 4-weekly, so I don't swallow the idea that a monthly payment would emulate the experiences of how the other half live. Employees in receipt of monthly pay are generally salaried (as opposed to an hourly rate), which is not reflective of the potential job opportunities that are realistically open to the majority of current benefit claimants.

If the 'cap' comes into place and £500 per week becomes the maximum allowance for most benefit claimants, that'd still leave a very large number of households in receipt of £2166.66 per calendar month, which in many cases would be 'blown' in week 1.

dseventy

mrs_motivated wrote: »

The landlord will be able to apply for direct payment when the tenants is a registered drug addict or alcoholic or is espcially vulnerable ...... or eight weeks in arrears

As a LL (with 18 properties) I ask you to take a reality check! :rotfl:

The biggest problem with finding somewhere to live when you can't pay for it yourself was paying the rent direct to claiment.

Whilst I appreciate LLs get a bad rep for upping rents and (god forbid) making a profit, I left the HB and LHA market when money meant for the rent was paid direct.

Yes you can apply for the rent to be paid direct, but why even bother?

D70

dktreesea

princessdon wrote: »

My personal opinion (and yes this is never popular) is that benefits should be the minimum to live on. Workers (full time) should always be far better off financially. Allowing a couple to work 24 hours a week (12 hours each) with teenage children and claim Tax Credits to top it up isn't right (disabilities aside).

The whole system is wrong IMO and whilst UC will have upsides it has downsides too. I personally favour some of the overseas systems.

Eg if someone worked for 20 years then was made redundant they would get the majority of their salary paid for between 6 months to 2 years - depending on contributions. They have a tierred system using insurance, once the insurance goes they then go onto welfare.

It would mean more tax - but I'd happily pay as I know I'd have a safety net if became Ill or out of work, Ie I'd get some benefit. For those incapable of work the govt pays their insurance so they are not disadvantaged.

At the moment I wouldn't get any help if out of work or ill (partner working and savings), I don't think I will get a state pension - feel pretty sure it's on the way out for those who have worked and have private pensions etc. It makes you feel like all you do it give. I don't mind giving (I'd rather live in a society that protects and helps those unable), but not the way it is now.

I feel like I support at times peoples lifestyle choice. Why should 2 parents of older children with no disabilities be able to claim TC on 24 hours a week? Why aren't they sujbect to JS rules - Ie they have to sign on to get more work. I don't see why tax payers pay for what can be at times a "lifestyle choice" where a SAHM wants to stay at home and not work (even when her children are capable of being left ie healthy and older etc). If she wants that luxury then they shouldn't claim TC to make up the difference. Sorry if this offends but it's how I feel.

I would agree with you if full time jobs were plentiful, and anyone electing to just work part time had the option to go full time. In that situation I would say yes, you only get paid for your 24 hours a week, but because you choose not to accept a full time job, for benefits purposes, you will be assessed as if you earned full time wages. But that's not the situation, is it! The reality is there are thousands of part time workers who would like to work full time but can't get a full time job. So what if they sign on? It doesn't mean they are going to bwe able to get anything.

Jumbo_Cod

I think this forum might actually be better off if people who actually grew up in deprived communities contributed rather than all these so called experts who claim they "work in deprived communities."

!!!!!! does that actually mean? LOL...."I work in a deprived community therefore I can judge what is best for those I happen to be near from my office."

jason1231972

Jumbo_Cod wrote: »

I think this forum might actually be better off if people who actually grew up in deprived communities contributed rather than all these so called experts who claim they "work in deprived communities."

Who says the two are mutually exclusive? I did both - grew up in, and worked in. At the risk of sounding like a pensioner war baby, times were extremely hard for our family growing up (means tested benefits for the vast majority of childhood, scattered with bouts of dad working and not working, then dropping dead at a very tender age), and remained so well into adulthood.

As it happens, I found a way out. Others don't/won't - either through willingness or actual inability.

Jumbo_Cod

I would like to understand from all of those who make a point of saying they come from "deprived communities" or work in "deprived communities" actually spit out what they do.

It's all too easy for people to throw that card down then spew their vitriol and rely on the former for justification.

"As it happens, I found a way out. Others don't/won't - either through willingness or actual inability"

LOL just proven....another anti-benefit crusader. Just because you claim you found a "way out" doesn't appoint you as moral crusader.

Why don't you tell us of your gallant struggle?

jason1231972

Jumbo_Cod wrote: »

LOL just proven....another anti-benefit crusader. Just because you claim you found a "way out" doesn't appoint you as moral crusader.

I am not anti-benefits, I am anti-p1$$ taking. Clearly, you can't read/comprehend, since you didn't notice (or don't care to draw attention to) the points in my former post that infer my beliefs: namely that not all benefit claimants are 'bad'/undeserving.

As stated, I grew up on benefits and - for the record - have claimed benefits in the past, and would do so again if the need arose. How is that anti-benefits?!

Or have you just picked out the bits that support your own agenda, i.e. that anyone who dares to criticise the benefits system and its claimants are, by very nature, anti-benefits?

getzls

Jumbo_Cod wrote: »

I would like to understand from all of those who make a point of saying they come from "deprived communities" or work in "deprived communities" actually spit out what they do.

It's all too easy for people to throw that card down then spew their vitriol and rely on the former for justification.

"As it happens, I found a way out. Others don't/won't - either through willingness or actual inability"

LOL just proven....another anti-benefit crusader. Just because you claim you found a "way out" doesn't appoint you as moral crusader.

Why don't you tell us of your gallant struggle?

God damn Yank.:cool:

mrs_motivated

Jumbo_Cod wrote: »

I think this forum might actually be better off if people who actually grew up in deprived communities contributed rather than all these so called experts who claim they "work in deprived communities."

!!!!!! does that actually mean? LOL...."I work in a deprived community therefore I can judge what is best for those I happen to be near from my office."

I never claimed that I can judge what is best for those I see from my office. That is a crazy statement , people were having an interesting discussion, which clearly you didn't understand.


You want to know what work I do, well here goes.

I work as CEO for a Tenant led (yes the board of directors are 100 percent tenants who live on the estate) housing organisation which I might add, is a top quartile perfoming housing organisation (thanks to the efforts of tenants) I am also an executive member of one of the NAtional tenants organisations (elected by tenants) , so it's utterly laughable to think I am judgemental of people on benefits or otherwise.



My views on the bedroom tax were formulated after doing over 150 face to face interviews with people affected.