Universal Credit

banner188

How would the sanctions work where there is a couple with children, where one parent works and the other doesn't. If the non working parent was sanctioned, so would the working parent. Hardly fair?

nannytone_2

it all deppends on the ages of the kids.
if the kids are over 5. then both parents are expected to seek work.

that will be the contract.
whats the point in having that contract if non compliance isnt sanctioned?

in the case you stated .... would it be the benedits system that was to vkame or the non compliabt partner?

banner188

I understand, but it could cause families to break apart with the arguments caused with one partner resenting the other, an unintended consequence i feel.
Then it will cost the state more with more single parents.

nannytone_2

i am on esa.
my condition cannot improve, it can only get worse.
i am in the wrag and i comply with the conditions vecause it is my only source of income.
i dont understand why it is so difficult to grasp.

if a partner isnt compliant and it causes resentment and break up .... is that the responsibility of the system?
families with kids have been over indulged by the system for many years.
abd it will be hard for some to come to terms with it.
but we used to burn witches too.
just because the system used to allow certain things, doesnt make it right

banner188

I am all for changing the system but do you honestly believe that a single parent with 2 children is going to be heavily sanctioned? It is a bit of a pipe dream, the sentiment is there but the reality will be something different.
I know people who can't hardly read and never worked in their lives and have 3 or more kids. These people are not employable and the working world isn't interested in employing them.
If you believe that the system is suddenly going to sanction these people, plunging their children into poverty, I think you will be sadly mistaken.

BigAunty

nannytone wrote: »

it all deppends on the ages of the kids.
if the kids are over 5. then both parents are expected to seek work.

Currently, parents with any age of dependent only have to work 24 hours between them to qualify for WTC (used to be a ridiculous 16).

What's the work requirement in terms of hours that they will be compelled to do under UC once their youngest reaches 5?

nannytone_2

as i understand it... the requirement for lone parents is much the same as it is now.
under 5 ... np requirement to work
between 5 amd 12 ... need to work 16 hours
over 12 ... full time employment

banner ... why are they going to be heavily sactioned?
the requirements dont seem that hard to comply with

princessdon

So in a nutshell desipite the fact I am to some extent a single parent (as my OH works away) and has always worked, nothing is really going to change and I'll still pay for those who use benefits as a lifestyle choice and by Zagfels even be increased?

Bloody great

nannytone_2

it will change a lot for 2 parents with children
2 x parents with a child unfer 5 will be expected to have one parent working full time ( as opposed to 24 hours now)
chilf under 12 but over 5 ... one parent working full time the other working 16 hours
child over 12 both parents working full time.

they dont have to be actually working, but can be looking for work under the same restrictions as JDA now.
they will have to prove what steps they are taking to find emp;loyment or will be sanctioned

zagfles

princessdon wrote: »

So in a nutshell desipite the fact I am to some extent a single parent (as my OH works away) and has always worked, nothing is really going to change and I'll still pay for those who use benefits as a lifestyle choice and by Zagfels even be increased?

Bloody great

You need to use the same reasoning as those who claim (with good evidence) that lowering the top tax rate can increase the tax take. When the Tories cut the top rate from 60% to 40% in 1988, the tax revenue from the top earners increased. Labour agreed with it as for 12 years 11 months of their 13 years in power they were quite happy with the 40% top rate set by the Tories (they only raised it in April 2010 one month before the election as an elephant trap for the Tories, and are full of hypocritical whinging now).

Anyway it's exactly the same at the bottom end. Currently there are massive marginal rates on those at the bottom, particularly for those with kids. There is a very unfair spread of jobs, resulting in the UK having more children in workless household than any other EU country.

It's because there is far less incentive for a household with kids to get a job than there is for single people or couples without kids. And where one of a couple with kids has a job, there's greater incentive for the second adult to get a job than there is for a workless household.

UC provides a massive incentive switch. It won't happen straight away, but the "it's not worth working" attitude will start to disappear, or at least reduce a lot, when people start seeing that those who do get up of their backsides and get a job will be significantly better off, even those with kids, even single parents.

So although it appears UC pays more, it could well save the govt long term. Right now those who have the biggest welfare entitlement are by far the least incentivised to work. Under UC that changes. Even in a market with no extra jobs - a fairer share of jobs will result in a lower welfare bill plus greater equality.