Universal Credit

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

The big difference is that now the person who goes off to work to some boring low paid job and sees their lazy neighbour sat on their backside all day being no worse off, and thinks "why bother". Under UC they will be significantly better off than their lazy neighbour, it will become worth working.

UC is all part of the 'making work pay'.

Plus they will be better off as their wages increase as they progress at work ready for when their UC drops when a child leave education: while their lazy neighbour gets less UC when their children leave education and then has to find a minimum wage job (if they can find one by then as they might be viewed as unemployable by some firms). The former might even end up being their lazy neighbour's boss:)

Sixer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Universal credits are there to help people back into work, increase their work hours (earnings) over time and not be living on the poverty line when their children have left education . Plus when we support ourselves, we get a feeling of self worth and self confidence. UC is not the punishment that you seem to see it as.

I thought I was clear - especially by posting "not saying this is good or bad" - but you seem to have misunderstood me.

By mentioning your "rose-tinted spectacles", I mean to say that you seem to have a vision of what the conditionality of UC will look like - and the details they've given so far are sketchy - tainted by what you would like it to be (comprehensive, frequent, testing).

I'm simply saying that the practicalities mean it's likely to be considerably less stringent - and quite possibly very open to abuse - than you imagine. Working UC claimants subject to conditionality on the basis they're not earning enough/working enough hours are highly unlikely to be asked to "sign on" weekly as you stated - for the reasons I said in my post. Jobcentres are on their way out as a matter of policy. There will be too many of them. Staffing levels are being decreased.

No moral opinion supplied.

Sixer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Universal Credit Regulations 2012
For the meeting of the Social Security Advisory Committee on Wednesday 13 June 2012

215. However, some claimants may already have an adequate level of earnings. Other claimants may – because of their particular circumstances and capability – be unable to meet any work related requirements. Such claimants will be outside the Universal Credit labour market regime and will fall into the “no work related requirements” group. Detail on who falls into this group is set out below.

216. All other claimants will be subject to work related requirements intended to help them move into work, progress in work or prepare for work in the future. There are four basic types of work related requirement that can be imposed:

• Work-focused interviews: attend periodic interviews to discuss plans and opportunities for returning to work (immediately or in the future).
• Work preparation: actions to prepare for work – such as attending training courses, preparing a CV or taking part in the Work Programme.
• Work search: take all reasonable action and any particular specific actions to find work – such as applying for suggested vacancies or registering with a recruitment agency.
• Work availability: be available and willing to immediately take up work.

http://ssac.independent.gov.uk/pdf/uc-draft-regs-2012-memorandum.pdf

Has UC changed since this? There doesn't seem to be any separate requirements for those who use to claim Job Seekers and ended up on Universal Credits compared to those that use to claim Tax Credits and ended up on Universal Credits. They all seem to have the same conditions: unless I am reading it wrong?

Yes, but you're conflating types of claimant. UC will absorb both tax credits and JSA. The underemployed - the people we're talking about here - won't be asked to go on work placements (that would be silly, because then they'd lose the work they actually were doing) or to sign on. The JSA people will. If you research further, you'll see the current suggestions are for the underemployed to be sent to number one on the list of four - the periodic interviews. Obviously, they'll be required to confirm they're conforming to number four.

My prediction - cynical and jaundiced though it is - is that this conditionality will end up as a dull box-ticking exercise similar to the fiasco of the current Work Programme interviews now and underemployed claimants will simply shuffle off to them every once in a while, say "yes, no, three bags full" and then carry on as they were.

And that's even if the whole shebang doesn't fall over on day one, which personally, I think is even more likely.

Again: no opinion offered on the rights and wrongs of it all. Just one about it all being pie in the sky, as per usual with all this stuff.

MissMoneypenny

Sixer wrote: »

I'm simply saying that the practicalities mean it's likely to be considerably less stringent - and quite possibly very open to abuse - than you imagine. Working UC claimants subject to conditionality on the basis they're not earning enough/working enough hours are highly unlikely to be asked to "sign on" weekly as you stated

I didn't say they would have to "sign on weekly". I said that under Universal Credits, the old tax credit claimants would have the same conditions as job seekers. Tax Credits and income based JSA are both income based welfare payments and claimants will now (rightly) be treated the same, under Universal Credits.

We see a lot of tax credits claimants on these forums looking down on other welfare claimants because; for some reason known only to themselves; they think "tax credits aren't really benefits". They ignore the fact they have to declare their income every year and this affects how much tax credits they are given; or that they may be claiming more welfare money under TCs than those on other welfare payments.

But in all the things on it I have read so far on UC, there doesn't seem to be any exceptions/different rules, for those who ended up on UC because they claimed tax credits, compared to those who ended up on UC because they claimed income based JSA or ESA. It seems all claimants will have to meet the same conditions under UC. Unless you have read something different to me?

Morlock

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It seems all claimants will have to meet the same conditions under UC.

Yes, all will be subject to the same conditionality and sanctions.
Hence, why the sanction regime was just spruced up as a precursor to universal credit.

Morlock

The only real major changes here are lowering the ages of children, at which the parents' conditionality levels increase.

Sixer

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I didn't say they would have to "sign on weekly". I said that under Universal Credits, the old tax credit claimants would have the same conditions as job seekers. Tax Credits and income based JSA are both income based welfare payments and claimants will now (rightly) be treated the same, under Universal Credits.

We see a lot of tax credits claimants on these forums looking down on other welfare claimants because; for some reason known only to themselves; they think "tax credits aren't really benefits". They ignore the fact they have to declare their income every year and this affects how much tax credits they are given; or that they may be claiming more welfare money under TCs than those on other welfare payments.

But in all the things on it I have read so far on UC, there doesn't seem to be any exceptions/different rules, for those who ended up on UC because they claimed tax credits, compared to those who ended up on UC because they claimed income based JSA or ESA. It seems all claimants will have to meet the same conditions under UC. Unless you have read something different to me?

From the draft regs (I think you also quoted them earlier):

Application of Work Related Requirements to Claimants in Work
246. At the launch of Universal Credit our intention is that the core conditionality regime will apply to groups roughly equivalent to those subject to the current conditionality regime. Therefore (at current benefit levels) it is not intended that those with earnings above a lower cut off will be subject to an intensive conditionality regime. We are though exploring various options for offering support to those with higher earnings, up to the conditionality threshold outlined at paragraph 224. We are planning a series of pilots to run after October 2013 where we will trial various approaches.

I read that as "if you're already working a bit and getting some money, we're going to be realistic about it".

I predict that the system will be overcome and the conditionality regime for the low income self-employed and underemployed will end up as a pointless box-ticking exercise, as I said earlier. Having said that, the real mickey-takers (eBayers making three sales a year or whatever) might actually get the proverbial kick in the proverbial place. But overall? They stand absolutely no chance of this working in the way you hope it will, Miss M. None whatsoever.

nannytone_2

i havent read the whole thread as i have a nigraine coming ... so apologies if this has already been mentioned ....

it says 'slightly disabled' and severely disabled'

does anyone know how it is going to be judged?

Sixer

And just as an idea of the sheer numbers of people we're talking about:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9708047/Underemployed-workers-jump-by-1m-since-financial-crisis.html

There are 3.05m underemployed workers in the UK, earning on average a (very low) £7.49 an hour.

The very idea that a system with fewer workers, that is brand new, that is also dealing with the sick, the disabled, the totally unemployed, the lone parent with newborn, with an entirely brand new IT system and regular closures of Jobcentres, will be on top of a stringent conditionality regime for all of them AND the underemployed is um... oh, well I said it before. Pie in the sky.

BurnleyBob

With Britain's national debt currently at £1,096 billion quid and the government's most optimistic forecast having it above £1,400 billion in 2015 then my gasted will be flabbered should the annual welfare bill be higher after the introduction of UC than it was before given the Con Dems enthusiasm thus far for cutting people's welfare income.

Also, from what I've read, a sanction on a claimant's ESA, JSA or Tax Credits would automatically sanction other UC elements claimed. People in those categories who also claim Housing Benefit would be particularly vulnerable to a draconian compliance regime.