Universal credit????

MissMoneypenny

benefitbaby wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, I just get annoyed that so many people were encouraged by DWP to become self-employed to reduce the unemployment number only to find the earnings are not sufficient to sustain a household (especially in a recession) and then need to rely on WTC.

But it wasn't the DWP, it was the last government (Labour) who encouraged people to work just part time/go SE and then claim their new welfare payment "Tax Credits". Not only to give false readings for the unemployment figures, but to allow two or three familes to do just one job (16 hours a week each family) or to create an illusion someone had a business even though they made little to no money. They also created lots of new low skilled 'non jobs'* provided by the state, to help with their plan: but these jobs in councils'/government departments, don't generate money for the country, they cost the country money.

Blair was always quite open about his and Brown's new Tax Credits being a vote winner for Labour. Votes from some Brits and from future potential Labour voters who entered the UK as low skilled immigrants, as they too needed a few hours work to stay in the UK and/or claim immediate welfare if they used the EU route.

We never could generate enough money to pay this Tax Credit bill; not only because it was growing at an alarming rate from new claimants, but because those who didn't work to support themselves or their family, also needed money from the state to pay their housing. So up went the welfare states housing bill too. Plus claimants paid little to no taxes, so this put a strain on the state bills for education, NHS, welfare, services, roads etc.

Labour had to borrow money, lots of money. They also sold the UK's gold reserves when prices were very low and spent all the north sea oil revenue, even though Norway saved their oil revenue for hard times. With China now producing cheap goods during this time, Labour could have been saving for future hard times for the UK, instead of borrowing like an 16 year old with an unlimited credit card.

It's hardly a surprise that the welfare bill has to be cut as we still can't afford it and the welfare bill is still growing! We also have to pay the interest on all the massive borrowing Labour did to finance their plan. The UK can't afford to lose it's AAA rating if we don't make cuts, as the interest rates on this borrowing will go up; which will mean the UK has less money to spend on the UK and the austerity cuts will have to be deeper. We also need to work out a way to pay back the actual loan (not just pay the interest) on all the money Labour borrowed.

In short, if you don't like the cuts, then you should have looked more closely at what Labour was up to. It's a lot worse for those people that didn't vote Labour.

* Don't need the staff.

kaya64

TheBane wrote: »

I must say what a brilliant post. If only most people understood the truth just as you say it here.

Austerity measures will need to get more and more extreme in the UK in the near future, council tax and housing benefit cut backs are only just beginning.

All these moaning about having to move to smaller properties or take in some lodgers should read and understand your post.

why are you judging others ?

LunaLady

feelthelove wrote: »

the plan is to force homeowners out of their homes so the rich can buy their homes when they are sold after repossession and to make the poor poorer

I do hope people won't be stupid enough to vote conman in again because of his blackmail about a referendum to get out of the eu, because conman is a coward and liar , his campaign before getting into power was that he would give us a referendum then he changed his mind .

I don't vote for any of the major parties they are all liars and conmen .

What a ridiculous thing to say, where is your evidence of this?

Do you vote UKIP by any chance?

MissMoneypenny

feelthelove wrote: »

the plan is to force homeowners out of their homes so the rich can buy their homes when they are sold after repossession and to make the poor poorer .
.

Andy, Andy, Andy.

paddedjohn

Idiot, Idiot, Idiot more like.

paddedjohn

TheBane wrote: »

Millions of England's poorest households could face a steep rise in their council tax bills from April.

Some 74% of local authorities in England plan to increase their demands on families whose council tax is currently discounted or even covered in full by the Government.

Independent researchers the Resolution Foundation found some want to charge affected households an extra 20% of the full council tax bill.

Their bills will rise by more than £600 a year at a time when many families are facing a major squeeze because of the slow economic recovery.

The system of council tax benefit will be scrapped in April and authorities will have to set up their own support scheme - although with a 10% cut in funding.

Researchers warned a variation in rates of council tax support could undermine the new universal credit, which is meant to simplify the welfare system and make it pay to work.

skynews

Typical scaremongering, how would their bill rise by £600 per year? even if they dont pay anything at present they will be expected to pay upto 25% depending on the council, this will only happen if your bill is £2400 per year and if thats the case then you are clearly living beyond your means anyway.

The_ICT_Engineer

I just had a look through the draft rules http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531549/part/2 for single person entitlement to claim universal credit. It would seem that under section 10 (Housing), you would not be entitle make a claim if you own your home. Bad luck for any homeowner who get made redundant, which includes myself.


Housing Section 10.

The person must not—

(a)be homeless (within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996(7)) and must currently reside at their usual address;

(b)reside in accommodation in which care, supervision, counselling, advice or other support services (other than services connected solely with the provision of adequate accommodation) are made available to them by or on behalf of the person by whom the accommodation is provided, with a view to enabling them to live there;

(c)own, or partly own, the property in which they reside.

paddedjohn

The_ICT_Engineer wrote: »

I just had a look through the draft rules http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531549/part/2 for single person entitlement to claim universal credit. It would seem that under section 10 (Housing), you would not be entitle make a claim if you own your home. Bad luck for any homeowner who get made redundant, which includes myself.


Housing Section 10.

The person must not—

(a)be homeless (within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996(7)) and must currently reside at their usual address;

(b)reside in accommodation in which care, supervision, counselling, advice or other support services (other than services connected solely with the provision of adequate accommodation) are made available to them by or on behalf of the person by whom the accommodation is provided, with a view to enabling them to live there;

(c)own, or partly own, the property in which they reside.

You would still be entitled to claim UC, theres no need to claim for rent if you own the property although i dont know if they will still allow a claim for mortgage interest.

supernatural619

princessdon wrote: »

If your children are over 5 you would BOTH have to seek work at 35 hrs per week NMW. If child is under 13 1 can restrict to school hours, other needs to get 35 hours at NMW.

So are all employers going to give parents with children hours to suit schools? Not many will do that, believe me i've tried!

MissK2013

Why does it need to be school hours though?

Nearly every school that I have ever known has a breakfast and after school club...