"the amount the law says you need to live on.."

missapril75

I believe similar phrases were used for Income Support rates from when it was introduced in 1988 and for Supplementary Benefits in the 70s and, no doubt, prior to that.

Certainly it was common for staff to say the rates were laid down by government.

Annual uprating applied then too - sometimes relating to wages, other times to prices.

ILW

LittleMax wrote: »

Yes, it's the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992

Do I personally agree that the amounts set are enough to live off? No I don't.

And where does it state that that any amount quoted is what is "needed to live off?

nannytone_2

it says it on the benefit award letters.
the law says you need £ xxxx to live off.

then goes on to list all income before giving a final award

annie1975_2

So someone on jobseekers is getting "what the law states you need to live on"...Then from April you have to pay a % in council tax,that then leaves them with "not enough to live on"..Surely they would then be entitled to more money... I assume.

nannytone_2

i was thinking about this the other day.

maybe they will word the letters differently this year .....

zaksmum

nannytone wrote: »

i was thinking about this the other day.

maybe they will word the letters differently this year .....

Well if they do, let's hope they word it in a manner most people can easily understand.

missapril75

nannytone wrote: »

i was thinking about this the other day.

maybe they will word the letters differently this year .....

I doubt it.

AFAIR there has always been something along the lines of "how much you need to live on" (as I said above) and there were always reasons to get less; "voluntary unemployment" deductions (40%!!) from Supplementary Benefit; overpayment deductions; arrears deductions for electric/gas direct; rent arrears deductions.

In cases of multiple deductions there was a limit to prevent too much coming out.

This business of paying something towards council tax....when the poll tax replaced general rates, people on benefits suddenly had to pay 20% of the bill and benefits were not adjusted accordingly. The wording wasn't changed then.

Mind you, there was no forum such as this for people to refer to the confusing expression.

I'm trying to imagine some suitable wording out of Yes Minister.

Sir Humphrey: "I wonder if I might crave your momentary indulgence in order to discharge a by no means disagreeable obligation which has, over the years, become more or less established practice in government service as we approach the terminal period of the year — calendar, of course, not financial — in fact, not to put too fine a point on it, Week Fifty-One — and submit to you, with all appropriate deference, for your consideration at a convenient juncture, a sincere and sanguine expectation — indeed confidence — indeed one might go so far as to say hope — that the aforementioned period may be, at the end of the day, when all relevant factors have been taken into consideration, susceptible to being deemed to be such as to merit a final verdict of having been by no means unsatisfactory in its overall outcome and, in the final analysis, to give grounds for being judged, on mature reflection, to have been conducive to generating a degree of gratification which will be seen in retrospect to have been significantly higher than the general average."
...
Jim Hacker: "Are you trying to say "Happy Christmas," Humphrey?"
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, Minister."

helentay_2

Could I just throw something else into the mix. I have just done some reading about Universal Credit and sanctions.

If you are sanctioned for say a year or two, who will pay for you to live?

No point in talking about a minimum level of income that the law says you need. Under UC that figure appears to be NIL!

nannytone_2

i would assume that there would still be hardship payments of sorts ...

helentay_2

nannytone wrote: »

i would assume that there would still be hardship payments of sorts ...

Maybe, but whatever it is it will be less than 'what the law says you need to live off'

All I will say is that the crime rate will go up in proportion to the number of people who would be expected to live off maybe £30 or so a week for a few years!

I also understand that UC will incorporate ESA, so you are going to have sick, ill and the disabled who are in the Work Group right up until their 65th birthday having to possibly cope with these miserly payments for years on end simply because they cannot cope with the Work Programme.

A very subtle way of getting the number of claimants down - let them freeze or starve to death!!

If they do however manage to get through the three year sanction period they then will have to repay all of the hardship payments back out of the benefits they then receive following the three years unless they go back onto another three years sanction period!!

All I will say is that if my mum and dad don't bother to claim Pension Credit now and wait for UC to come into being and dad gives up his Support Group ESA in favour of claiming carers allowance for mum, it looks like that he will have to claim JSA. Well there is no way that could ever happen - not with his ill health! So he may be one of the first of the three year sanction recipients!