Universal Credit

drc

Good question.

It's easy to see how those on low incomes or who work a few hours are going to be squeezed by UC but what is going to be the incentive to get all those households that have never worked to get off their backsides (especially the ones who have loads of children to maximise their benefits currently)?

MissMoneypenny

carebear13 wrote: »

can i just ask- with regards to both parents working.
we both work , hubby full time and me part time, however we both earn over the nmw.
how would the rules affect us, our kids ar e 14,9,4 and 8 months., regarding having to both work a certain amount of hours according to age of the youngest.

With regards to the working conditions of UC; your family are already complying as your household already have an income from working, of 35 hours x the minimum wage, per week.

zagfles

strangeotron wrote: »

Aside from your tedious and offensive stereotypes which are not supported by any evidence whatsoever,

Oh dear. Try the numpties on DT, that's their level of discussion. People have have the "it's not worth working" attitude because it's true, it really isn't worth working for a lot of people. Are you really stupid enough to think people jump at the chance of taking a job cleaning toilets for a net gain of a few pence per hour, which is the reality faced by a lot of people? I wouldn't, and very few sane people would. The attitude is caused by the reality of a benefits system with massive marginal rates on the lowest paid. Do you really think marginal rates of 90-100% don't put people off working?

UC will be a massive disaster. It won't pay to work part time because people claiming UC in palce of things like tax credits will be forced to look for full time work or find full time hours or lose their benefits.

Yes it will. People will much better off working part time even if they are expected to seek full time work. Which you'd know if you understood the first thing about UC.

Never mind the massive IT errors and failings within the system itself. It is not ready. Noone with any knowledge or expertise believes it will be so and next year is going to see a huge crisis as a result.

There are bound to be IT problems and the introduction will probably be a chaos, especially if they rush it. Just like tax credits were. But the underlying principles will make a much better and fairer benefits system.

Of course if you after a discussion at the level of "it's the Tories so it's bound to be unfair and nasty" go over to DT, you'll get your level of debate. On the other hand, if you've read the white paper, policy briefing notes etc and want to discuss the technicalities rather than throw political bulls**t around, stick around here!

MissMoneypenny

drc wrote: »

Good question.

It's easy to see how those on low incomes or who work a few hours are going to be squeezed by UC but what is going to be the incentive to get all those households that have never worked to get off their backsides (especially the ones who have loads of children to maximise their benefits currently)?

There is the benefit cap. Plus we don't know for sure what the rules be yet, but the link I gave earlier in this thread about what they intend to do, is worth a read.

zagfles

carebear13 wrote: »

can i just ask- with regards to both parents working.
we both work , hubby full time and me part time, however we both earn over the nmw.
how would the rules affect us, our kids ar e 14,9,4 and 8 months., regarding having to both work a certain amount of hours according to age of the youngest.

You'll be OK, with a child under 5 you won't have to work, though once over 1 you need to jump through a few hoops (eg work focused interviews), and once your youngest is in school you'd be expected to seek work compatible with school hours. And that's only if your OH doesn't earn enough to cover 35 hours plus whatever hours are expected of you at NMW. So if he works 35 hours at 1.5 times NMW you probably wouldn't have to seek any work till your youngest is 13.

So by the sounds of it you do more than enough already.

zagfles

banner188 wrote: »

UC will have the same effect as when tax credits changed from 16 hours up to 24 hours. It will attack low paid workers.

No it won't. There is no requirement at all in UC to work a certain number of hours, as there is in WTC. You just need to be seeking work. With WTC it only matter what hours you actually work, if you work under 16 you don't get WTC, period. Under UC you just need to be looking.

We have heard of people on less than 24 hours now struggling, but what has happenened to all them who don't even work at all? Absolutely nothing as always.
The UC will go for those who have a work ethic, sanction them etc.. but will leave those hard targets that we all know of, its the same old story. They will try to get low paid workers to do more work because they cannot/will not get the hard targets to work at all.

Low hours/low paid workers are by far the biggest gainers with UC. Those who don't work won't be any better off.

Anyone who believes that this will change under UC is mistaken.

What people miss is the fact there has, and always will be an underclass in any society and no system will change it. In poorer countries, the underclass lives in abject poverty whilst the richer nations have welfare systems to keep this from happening.
These systems they come up with aren't meant for these underclasses, they are meant for any current worker, who plays the game etc..

Yes. UC will reward those who take on low paid jobs for a change.

nannytone_2

BigAunty wrote: »

blimey, that's going to be a shock to the system for the 200,000 plus households with 400,000 plus children who had the hump when the WTC criteria changed from 16 to 24 hours!

Some of them were used to just one of them working just 2 days a week (before the 24 hour change made in April) so they are up to 3 days a week.

Now they may have children that fall within the upper age limit and be expected to work 10 days a week! When they had years of just working 2!

Is it legal for children aged 12 to be at home by themselves?

:rotfl::rotfl:

qorking full time (30+ hours) doesnt necessarily mean leaving kids on their own.

yo be honest, a lot of peopke will think this ruling had been a long time coming.
why should 2 fit and healthy parents of a 12 year old only have to work 24 hours beyween them?

ur ua more than time that parents once again, need to accept responsibility for thei choices.
when my youngest was 12, i worked 10 hours a day. 6 days a week in order to provide.
but that was pre tax credits, when all you needed was a child ib order to claim maximum benefit

carebear13

Thank you miss moneypenny. I thought that was the case but i find it all so confusing as it only ever seems relevant to those relying on benefits/ working few hours.
Zagfles-i slready work. before goin off on mat leave i was doun 27 hiyrs. altho nit sure if will go back to the sane i will be doun at leady 16 at more than nmw. tbh with our income although we recieve tax creduts i am not expecting to recieve anythin at all undet uc.

zagfles

carebear13 wrote: »

Thank you miss moneypenny. I thought that was the case but i find it all so confusing as it only ever seems relevant to those relying on benefits/ working few hours.
Zagfles-i slready work. before goin off on mat leave i was doun 27 hiyrs. altho nit sure if will go back to the sane i will be doun at leady 16 at more than nmw. tbh with our income although we recieve tax creduts i am not expecting to recieve anythin at all undet uc.

Have a look at the UC calculator linked above - and remember there is transitional protection so even if your UC claim is less or even zero, you may be entitled to transitional protection.

carebear13

-first let me apologise for the atrocious spelling, i was on my phone.
i have, but i still dont get it. i cant see what we are going to get properly, and i really dont want to post our income on here for anybody to give us some advice. will take another look. thanks.