Universal credit confusion !!!!

Robbie64

bestpud wrote: »

Rubbish! There is always a choice!

How do you think people managed before tax credits! You chose to have 3 children together and should look to each other for support, not the state!

Sheesh, that's a depressing attitude and shows the welfare reforms are long overdue!

Earnings top ups existed long before tax credits, all the way back to 1971. And if you worked for 30 hours or less, all the way back to 1948. They were based on the same principle, albeit less generous.

Universal Credit isn't the solution to a benefits problem that IDS makes it out to be. Regardless of what he says, it's a very complicated system that doesn't make any "better off" calculation any easier.

Don't be taken in by the hype of IDS, The Sun or The Daily Mail.

bestpud

Robbie64 wrote: »

Earnings top ups existed long before tax credits, all the way back to 1971. And if you worked for 30 hours or less, all the way back to 1948. They were based on the same principle, albeit less generous.

Universal Credit isn't the solution to a benefits problem that IDS makes it out to be. Regardless of what he says, it's a very complicated system that doesn't make any "better off" calculation any easier.

Don't be taken in by the hype of IDS, The Sun or The Daily Mail.

They were nowhere near as generous as the top ups of today - not even in the same league.

Hence, people didn't split up when they were stopped!

Either way, it's a terrible attitude to have!

zagfles

Robbie64 wrote: »

Earnings top ups existed long before tax credits, all the way back to 1971. And if you worked for 30 hours or less, all the way back to 1948. They were based on the same principle, albeit less generous.

Universal Credit isn't the solution to a benefits problem that IDS makes it out to be. Regardless of what he says, it's a very complicated system that doesn't make any "better off" calculation any easier.

It will make them easier. Not simple, but easier than now where you have to work out the effect on JSA, HB/LHA and tax credits with their separate rules, disregards, tapers, and criteria for assessing income.

Don't be taken in by the hype of IDS, The Sun or The Daily Mail.

Yes, and there's been complete rubbish in even the broadsheets, I read some incredibly biased bulls**t in the Guardian about UC. Like the sort of rubbish like it seems the OP has read about parents of pre-school children being forced to work.

mummyroysof3

I was also worried about this and had my mind put at rest by asking on this board. Some very helpful people around. Just a point though...I was under the impression that even if you did split up you would be expected to look for work as a single parent anyway

bestpud

mummyroysof3 wrote: »

I was also worried about this and had my mind put at rest by asking on this board. Some very helpful people around. Just a point though...I was under the impression that even if you did split up you would be expected to look for work as a single parent anyway

Yes, once they are 5 but there is talk of making it lower.

Hopefully a clamp down will deter these 'separations' and get people putting family before benefits again!

zagfles

mummyroysof3 wrote: »

I was also worried about this and had my mind put at rest by asking on this board. Some very helpful people around. Just a point though...I was under the impression that even if you did split up you would be expected to look for work as a single parent anyway

Yes, a single parent would basically have the same conditionality applied to them as the "main carer" in a couple where the other half works 35 hours at NMW.

So with an OH working full time, splitting up would increase conditionality rather than reduce it! As a couple, if one person works full time at double the NMW there is no conditionality at all on the other person. And with primary school children, it would only need about 1.5 times NMW.

zagfles

bestpud wrote: »

They were nowhere near as generous as the top ups of today - not even in the same league.

Hence, people didn't split up when they were stopped!

Also they were mainly applied through the tax system (married couples' allowance, child allowances), so you had to earn to make use of them, and of course for the MCA you had to be a couple!

The French system support families through the tax system, and guess what. Far fewer single parents. Or maybe it's just the French are far less likely to run off with another woman/man :rotfl: