Tax credits and universal credit

Domfrizby

It has been said time and time again, the banks always win.

All those thinking get huge mortgages and big inflation will wipe it out will be gravely disapointed.

If there is a currency crisis in the pound sterling which all those leveraged property buyers hope for, there will be a new monetary system to replace the pound sterling which died. Maybe a super Pound backed by gold or something like Jim Rickards predicts.

He also predicts mortgages and secured debts being revalued to the new currency.

If the banks hold the deeds to the mortgaged properties they have the last say.

drc

As far as I can see, UC is even more generous than the current benefits system if you are in a workless household and only really "punishes" those who are in work of some sort (I guess they are the easy target). Someone posted a link to all the different elements, such as the child element and the element that is the equivalent to jobseekers allowance and it is slightly more generous than the current equivalents. The only people it will affect are those with savings as your rightly say, so it will do little to get workless households back into work. Of course there is some conditionality but, for example, single mothers with children below the age of 5 are not subject to this and presumably those that are hardcore benefit claimants will just go on to have another child just before the conditionality aspect kicks in?

Domfrizby

drc wrote: »

As far as I can see, UC is even more generous than the current benefits system if you are in a workless household and only really "punishes" those who are in work of some sort (I guess they are the easy target). Someone posted a link to all the different elements, such as the child element and the element that is the equivalent to jobseekers allowance and it is slightly more generous than the current equivalents. The only people it will affect are those with savings as your rightly say, so it will do little to get workless households back into work. Of course there is some conditionality but, for example, single mothers with children below the age of 5 are not subject to this and presumably those that are hardcore benefit claimants will just go on to have another child just before the conditionality aspect kicks in?

Thats not quite right, the new UC system encourages hardcore benefit claimers to work.

At the moment a couple on hardcore benefits is allowed to earn £20 a fortnight, the new system they can earn £200 per WEEK before it reduced their beenfits.

This is encouraging these hardcore benefit claimers as you call them to get up off their butts and earn something.

Roota_2

robmatic wrote: »

You've missed out the actual big winner if that is the case: leveraged real estate purchases.

You must have been reading Moneyweek.

The mother of all evil, leveraged debt!

TruckerT

This has probably been posted before, but why shouldn't 'Universal Credit' live up to its name, and provide a subsistence allowance to all.

Peeps would then be able to choose whether or not to work in order to provide a better standard of living.

TruckerT

robmatic

TruckerT wrote: »

This has probably been posted before, but why shouldn't 'Universal Credit' live up to its name, and provide a subsistence allowance to all.

Peeps would then be able to choose whether or not to work in order to provide a better standard of living.

TruckerT

Who would fund this?

TruckerT

robmatic wrote: »

Who would fund this?

The employers. They would be relieved of the need to pay for their employees' basic needs.

All income above the Universal Credit would be taxable, and employers, instead of paying a 'minimum wage', would pay a tax for every employee.

TruckerT

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

This has probably been posted before, but why shouldn't 'Universal Credit' live up to its name, and provide a subsistence allowance to all....

Otherwise known as Citizens Income, Guaranteed Minimum Income, and various other names.

Was Liberal Democrat policy at one time. Until they did the arithmetic and dumped it. Currently Green Party policy. Which presumably means they can't to arithmetic.:)

antrobus

robmatic wrote: »

Who would fund this?

Taxpayers. Who else is there?

TruckerT wrote: »

The employers. They would be relieved of the need to pay for their employees' basic needs.

But what of the people who have no employer?

TruckerT

antrobus wrote: »

But what of the people who have no employer?

They will either be self-employed (and therefore outside of the loop, as now), or they will be claiming benefits (as now).

TruckerT