MSE News: Universal credit - Most claimants unprepared, Citizens Advice says

Morlock

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

Once people are into the swing on monthly payments things should be ok.

Until they get sanctioned to meet Jobcentre targets which don't exist (cough).

BigAunty

zagfles wrote: »

The trouble is that if you chase targets, like the previous govt were obsessed with, then they're probably a success. By reducing the difference between the average and the bottom, you reduce "child poverty", by increasing part-time work, you reduce unemployment stats.

You create poverty traps and destroy incentives, but who cares as long as the right boxes are ticked. Just like hospital targets...

Yes, I recall a journalist who was highly critical of tax credits and said that Labour missed a trick to end child poverty because by focussing their money on 'innocents', they did not resolve the actual cause of the poverty, just alleviated a symptom. According to her, they should have targetted the worklessness of adults in their households to end the poverty.

I think Frank Field regards tax credits as a trap because it actually extended benefits to more sectors of the population, raising the percentage of dependency.

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

By reducing the difference between the average and the bottom, you reduce "child poverty", by increasing part-time work, you reduce unemployment stats.

Tax Credits didn't end, and could never end child poverty, as they give the childrens welfare money (in cash) to their parents.

We see post after post on here where parents are asking what other benefits they can get now that their Tax Credits have reduced/ended, as their child has left home and they (the parent) can't survive on the money they have coming in.

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Tax Credits didn't end, and could never end child poverty, as they give the childrens welfare money (in cash) to their parents.

We see post after post on here where parents are asking what other benefits they can get now that their Tax Credits have reduced/ended, as their child has left home and they (the parent) can't survive on the money they have coming in.

Which is why I put "child poverty" in quotes. The measure the govt use for "child poverty" is equivilised household income, so giving money to parents will reduce "child poverty" as they measure it even if the parents spend it on stereotypical chav stuff like fags, booze, sky subscription and the bingo.

Anyone with any common sense realises this is a stupid measure, about time this govt has the balls to ditch it...

MissMoneypenny

BigAunty wrote: »

I think Frank Field regards tax credits as a trap because it actually extended benefits to more sectors of the population, raising the percentage of dependency.

While also now enabling employers to lower wages and increase their workers dependancy on the welfare state.

Frank Field is keen on the old Labour mantra of "a fair days work for a fair days pay" which ended of course, with Tax Credits. For those that would rather work a full week than claim, they often now have little choice when their employers reduced their employees wages, knowing Tax Credits would pay the missing salary.

Which also brought in another problem. Pre Tax Credits, we would work extra hours if we wanted extra money and we were use to going without extras because we had children. For those on income based benefits such as Tax Credits, their benefits are reduced if they earn more money and we see many people on here saying "it isn't worth me working extra hours" and they don't earn any extra money they wanted.

MissMoneypenny

zagfles wrote: »

Anyone with any common sense realises this is a stupid measure, about time this govt has the balls to ditch it...

It's going to be a massive job to get people off Tax Credits as many haven't known anything else! They expect to be given money every week to keep their baby and are often shocked and upset when this money is reduced or stopped.

FBaby

I don't believe for a second that tax credits were introduced to help those on low income per se. I believe it was a calcualated exercise to keep the economical growth going.

What do people who work part-time (or where only one member of tha family working) get that other don't? Time and energy, which allow them to go and spend, in return keeping the economy flowing.

The government has announced that part-time job have florished since 2007 and I'm not surprised at all. Of course, those relying on benefits will claim that this is because companies are now majorly offering part-time positions. I personally don't believe it at all. My organisation much much prefer to employ full-time staff....but we don't get them because the roles mainly attract children aged females with lower qualifications. Even when they apply for full-time positions, the majority ask if the post could be made part-time.

In the end, those who lose out are those who work full-time, who once all work related income deducted are often no better off. However, the governement doesn't care to provide a rewards based system. That's not their priority. It is only because it has now gone too far, ie. more and more people getting more tax credits than they pay in that something had to be done.