MSE News: Benefits to rise 2.2%, as inflation falls

MissMoneypenny

MrBill wrote: »

I have worked with so many people who receive these in work benefits and they are so unaccommodating when they're asked to help out with a few hours overtime; they can't risk jeopardising the benefit.

Employers find Tax Credits limiting too when they try to get their staff to work extra hours.A neighbour of mine finds that benefit attitude of 'I don't want more hours work as it affects me tax credits' really frustrating when he offers more hours to his employers. Roll on Universal Credit.

Pedent

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Employers find Tax Credits limiting too when they try to get their staff to work extra hours.A neighbour of mine finds that benefit attitude of 'I don't want more hours work as it affects me tax credits' really frustrating when he offers more hours to his employers. Roll on Universal Credit.

I'm not sure Universal Credit will help with this.

At the moment, a tax credits recipient who pays tax and national insurance who earns an extra £100 will typically pay £20 income tax, £12 NICS, and lose £41 of tax credits, leaving them with £27 extra income.

Under UC, they will still pay the £20 income tax and £12 NICS, but will lose £44 of UC, leaving them with £24 extra income.

UC will reduce the withdrawal rate for those receiving multiple benefits, but increase it for those receiving tax credits only.

MissMoneypenny

Pedent wrote: »

I'm not sure Universal Credit will help with this.

At the moment, a tax credits recipient who pays tax and national insurance who earns an extra £100 will typically pay £20 income tax, £12 NICS, and lose £41 of tax credits, leaving them with £27 extra income.

Under UC, they will still pay the £20 income tax and £12 NICS, but will lose £44 of UC, leaving them with £24 extra income.

UC will reduce the withdrawal rate for those receiving multiple benefits, but increase it for those receiving tax credits only.

I was thinking more of the hours parents will have to work under UC. No more of parents just working 24(?) hours between them as one parent will have to work 35hours (or rather a minimum of their hourly set rate x 35 per week) and the other (carer parent) will have to work according to their youngest childs age; or face UC conditions. Therefore employers won't be faced with some people refusing to work a full week of 35 hours (or 37 hours; whatever the government decides for those claiming welfare).

Pedent

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I was thinking more of the hours parents will have to work under UC. No more of parents just working 24(?) hours between them as one parent will have to work 35hours (or rather a minimum of their hourly set rate x 35 per week) and the other (carer parent) will have to work according to their youngest childs age; or face UC conditions. Therefore employers won't be faced with some people refusing to work a full week of 35 hours (or 37 hours; whatever the government decides for those claiming welfare).

Ah, I see.

I do think that there'll be another set of problems in addition to increased withdrawal rates though, to do with transitional protection. The plans are vague, but the idea is that no one will lose out at the point of transfer (except the low earning self-employed), but that transitional protection will be removed when claimants' circumstances change. It looks to me like an increase in hours could therefore result in a large reduction in benefits, so we could see claimants doing everything they can to avoid changes in circumstances.

Overall, I think UC is a good thing, but I think that the transitional protection arrangements need rethinking. Perhaps instead of it being all-or-nothing, it should just be reduced by 10%-20%/year until its gone, irrespective of whether claimants' circumstances change.

Midnighter

jobdone1 wrote: »

Lets get this clear then -

benifits to rise 2.2%

Pensions 2.5% as agreed

And yes the resent rise in the min wage of o yes thats right 1.8% but only if you are 21 or over.

And, according to the press, it's been proposed that MPs will get a rise of at least 6%. All in it together? Yeah, right!

PaulF81

miduck wrote: »

"The benefits classes" (whoever they are) have not chosen to have this increase, the govt has decided to give it. Almost like they are trying to feed bigoted views like yours?

ever considered that your dogma of the right to pay some who should get off their fat lazy behinds is a bigoted view?
my point is, those that have a genuine need will get the rises, those on the scam and too lazy to work for a living are going to get their cuppance and not before time.

PaulF81

Midnighter wrote: »

And, according to the press, it's been proposed that MPs will get a rise of at least 6%. All in it together? Yeah, right!

to be fair, the allowances scandal has significantly cut their "pay" and was long accepted as part of pay and the "package" for mp's, who get paid very little comparatively for the level of responsibility they hold.

Morlock

Midnighter wrote: »

And, according to the press, it's been proposed that MPs will get a rise of at least 6%. All in it together? Yeah, right!

There is a proposal to raise MPs' salaries by 40%, "If the proposal was adopted, it could see MPs’ pay jump to £92,000."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9609760/MPs-pay-could-jump-to-90000-a-year-after-Ipsa-review.html

Russe11

zoominatorone wrote: »

How many working people have gone without a payrise this year. Disgusting.

thats a employer - employee relationship issue, nothing to do with outside effects.

If you want a payrise, many places you either need to ask for it or be prepared to walk away from current employer and move. Mnay employer are not going to just give annual payrises across the board when they don't need to.

Public sector wokers, well the issue is there is they have to take a hit as payrises would just be borrowed money.

LesU

So the big energy companies all raised their rates in September last year. Result? A rise in inflation and a big bill for the Government. (everything linked to September CPI/RPI).
This year, no rises until October. Result? A fall in inflation in September and a much lower bill for the Government for all next year. Although, of course, the people paying the energy bills will still be paying a lot more next year.
Was there some pressure on the energy companies to delay for a month? If so, what was the deal? No energy cost investigations?