Universal Credit

Maureen43

Even though I entered a monthly income figure, the calculator still wanted to know my weekly hours worked, and the two things don't equate as there is nowhere to say I only work 38 weeks a year.

Maybe that won't matter, as under Tax Credits where they assume (as for all school jobs) that I work 20 hours a week all year round.

banner188

Also, the big issue that UC doesn't deal with, is low paid working couples with a mortgage. Because these couples won't be claiming housing benefit, any gains they have through UC due to working will be lost when they have to pay their mortgage. Then their standard of living will be back down at the same level as a non working couple.
This is my situation and ironic as it sounds I would be better off selling up before UC comes in and getting into social housing and then get HB to make sure we would be better off under UC. Mind you, that is pretty much the situation now under the tax credits system.
Don't get me wrong, I think they are on the right track, overall with UC but there are some gaping holes in the theory that should be addressed.

zagfles

Maureen43 wrote: »

Even though I entered a monthly income figure, the calculator still wanted to know my weekly hours worked, and the two things don't equate as there is nowhere to say I only work 38 weeks a year.

Maybe that won't matter, as under Tax Credits where they assume (as for all school jobs) that I work 20 hours a week all year round.

The hours worked don't make any difference if you use the monthly cycle option. Just enter your annual income divided by 12. It won't matter what you put in the hours.

zagfles

banner188 wrote: »

Also, the big issue that UC doesn't deal with, is low paid working couples with a mortgage. Because these couples won't be claiming housing benefit, any gains they have through UC due to working will be lost when they have to pay their mortgage. Then their standard of living will be back down at the same level as a non working couple.
This is my situation and ironic as it sounds I would be better off selling up before UC comes in and getting into social housing and then get HB to make sure we would be better off under UC. Mind you, that is pretty much the situation now under the tax credits system.
Don't get me wrong, I think they are on the right track, overall with UC but there are some gaping holes in the theory that should be addressed.

Yes this is still a hole in the system, as it always has been. If you have a mortgage you can be worse off in work, as workers with mortgages get no housing help. In fact this looks to be even worse under UC, the regulations seem to imply that even an hour of paid work would lose mortgage interest support, whereas now you can get some if you get some income based JSA or IS, which is possible if you work a few hours.

It's also, like SMI, time limted (max 2 years) and subject to a waiting period which they haven't specified yet.

NPowerUser

banner188 wrote: »

the fact is that, under UC, low paid working couples with one child or less will still be significantly worse off

I thought couples with no children on low income or just one part time bread winner would be better off under UC?

Couples with no children with one of them working 29 hours or less currently get nowt off Working Tax Credits? Under UC they will get something?

john539

Or, maybe sounds too good to be true.

But what would you expect from an untested scheme still in its infancy riding euphoric principles.