Is it legal that the NMW is lower than the benefits cap?

sniggings

bigk77irl wrote: »

When I went to the job centre to see if I could claim as my hours had dropped way below the 16 hours they told me that I could not receive any JSA as I had not paid in enough in contributions and I would not get income based as well...talk about a kick in the teeth!!!!!....As for the whole NMW v BC debate the government wants to make work pay but yet when it comes to the crunch work still doesn't pay. As for housing I am of NO fixed abode as I cannot afford to rent, my council class me as not in need and if I could private rent I would not be able to afford bills because of the nature of my work. I am a reformed alcohol-dependant who three years ago quit drink and has been trying to rebuild my life since...but because of my age and my work circumstances I hit a brick wall every time.

Tell me is that fair?

good for you for turning your life around...but I do not mean this harshly but again you are comparing your case with a benefit claimant that is in a totally different situation to yourself, so of course it will look unfair.

If you are comparing two things they have to be the same, if you are unable to rent because of problems, then this perfect benefit claimant you have in mind would also be unable to rent, so would not be getting £18k a year. If they can claim then so can you.

if someone out of work can claim £18k then so can you, if you can't then it's either you are earning too much or you are not claiming because of personnel problems, if it's the latter then you can hardly argue you are being unfairly treated, fact is much more is paid to those in work than those on the dole.

As said a single person to claim £18k a year would have to be living in a high rent area such as London, if you too are living in London you would get the same housing benefit as they would if your income was low enough, so sorry but you need to get out of your head the Tory mantra that those on the dole are living it up, only £5 billion out of a welfare budget of over 200 billion is paid to those on unemployed, we give near 3 times the unemployment budget away in foreign aid each year, we can argue if that is justified or not, but it clearly shows that the 5 billion we spend on unemployed is not the big problem the Tories are making it out to be, they want to distract everyone from the real issues, that the poor are getting poorer, the rich richer, house prices and rent and wages are the problem here, not the £18k cap for the unemployed, as said you too can claim just as much as someone on the dole, it's just up to you to get to a place in your life where you can.

Morglin

Bring back the fair rents officers we used to have, for private lets, and the welfare bill would plummet overnight.

A huge amount of welfare goes on paying rent for both working and non working tenants, and in London, at least, the rents are extortionate!

Lin

zagfles

Morglin wrote: »

Bring back the fair rents officers we used to have, for private lets, and the welfare bill would plummet overnight.

A huge amount of welfare goes on paying rent for both working and non working tenants, and in London, at least, the rents are extortionate!

Lin

So are house prices. You can't expect anyone to rent an extortionately priced house for a reasonable rent. They may as well sell up and invest the capital elsewhere for a better return.

bigk77irl

sniggings wrote: »

if someone out of work can claim £18k then so can you, if you can't then it's either you are earning too much or you are not claiming because of personnel problems, if it's the latter then you can hardly argue you are being unfairly treated, fact is much more is paid to those in work than those on the dole.

As said a single person to claim £18k a year would have to be living in a high rent area such as London, if you too are living in London you would get the same housing benefit as they would if your income was low enough, so sorry but you need to get out of your head the Tory mantra that those on the dole are living it up, only £5 billion out of a welfare budget of over 200 billion is paid to those on unemployed, we give near 3 times the unemployment budget away in foreign aid each year, we can argue if that is justified or not, but it clearly shows that the 5 billion we spend on unemployed is not the big problem the Tories are making it out to be, they want to distract everyone from the real issues, that the poor are getting poorer, the rich richer, house prices and rent and wages are the problem here, not the £18k cap for the unemployed, as said you too can claim just as much as someone on the dole, it's just up to you to get to a place in your life where you can.

That is the thing i'm trying to get at...a single person can claim a package worth up to £18200 per year, but as soon they start work then the system then changes and 9 times out of 10 they cant claim any extra help. The whole BC v NMW argument is linked in with the cost of living(CoL). After watching Panorama last night it should open peoples eyes that the flip side of capitalism is that there will always be a huge divide between rich and poor.

Who gets annoyed that bills go up wages don't rise in line to cover those ever rising bills? I am an avid reader of MSE and have cut back as much as I can but cant cut back much further otherwise there will be harsher choices to make.

How comes in times of austerity the ones at the bottom get hit the hardest? Why not the ones at the top who caused this mess in the first place?(for those uneducated people it was the bankers who gave out easy credit so that people got into trouble in the first place) They seem to get away scot-free and still get their huge bonuses, yet if us lesser mortals had done what they had done then we would have been out of a job

Indie_Kid

bigk77irl wrote: »

That is the thing i'm trying to get at...a single person can claim a package worth up to £18200 per year, but as soon they start work then the system then changes and 9 times out of 10 they cant claim any extra help.

They can:
Working tax credits if they earn under a certain amount, are over 25 and work for at least 30 hours per week
Housing benefit
Council tax support

Very few people out of work will be receiving £18200.

Mr_Lawnmower

bigk77irl wrote: »

That is the thing i'm trying to get at...a single person can claim a package worth up to £18200 per year

As already has been said, very few will get this amount. The very small number of single people who hit the cap are likely be lone parents with several children living in an area of very high housing cost.


What appears to be your central arguments do not need to involve the benefits cap or the minimum wage.

bigk77irl wrote: »

but as soon they start work then the system then changes and 9 times out of 10 they cant claim any extra help. The whole BC v NMW argument is linked in with the cost of living(CoL).

The problem is that the marginal cost of earning a pound working is often a pound, because the current benefits system deducts a pound from the core income benefit for the earned pound. In some cases, the loss of that pound of means-tested benefit results in knock on consequences, making the total cost of earning that pound more than a pound.

One particular problem is that there's a gap between the 16 hours per week of work extinguishes entitlement to out of work benefits and the 24 hours per week that can be necessary to qualify for tax credits.


As has been mentioned further up the thread, Universal Credit addresses the weaknesses relating to the cost of working, but like all major reforms, it contains other flaws. The Universal Credit roll out is proving so troublesome that UC only currently applies to a few thousand people in the pathfinder areas.


So far as the cost of living outstripping the rise in incomes, this can affect people on benefits more than people in work. I realise that many in work are getting no salary increase whatsoever, but the annual increase in many working age benefits is being deliberately held at 1%.

bigk77irl

Mr_Lawnmower wrote: »

One particular problem is that there's a gap between the 16 hours per week of work extinguishes entitlement to out of work benefits and the 24 hours per week that can be necessary to qualify for tax credits.

In an age where zero hours contracts are becoming the norm rather than the exception, the Tax Credits system seems to be outdated as those who are single and employed on said zero-hours contract are still having to try and work 30 hours a week(in reality most don't even get that magical figure) in order to get the benefit, are being penalised for taking the zero-hours contract.

I'm on one of those said zero hours contract and only get work 3 days a week only getting to the level of 24 hours max(very rare I get that)...6 hours short of the magical 30 hours a week that the tax credits requires to apply for the benefit. Now how is that fair? Employers now are using the zero-hours contract as a mainstay of their workforce rather than full time 30+ hours for it means that they can cut costs and the temporary worker will be the future of business.

bigk77irl

Indie_Kid wrote: »

You can't get income based because your income is too high.

Benefit cap has nothing to do with NMW.

My income may be too high but it is too low to pay any national insurance which the LEL class 1 limit is £109 so please tell me how is that fair that I totally miss out on any help because I am in that no mans land?

StormyWeather_2

bigk77irl wrote: »

My income may be too high but it is too low to pay any national insurance which the LEL class 1 limit is £109 so please tell me how is that fair that I totally miss out on any help because I am in that no mans land?

Can you not get another job that has guaranteed hours? These 0 hour contracts no good for someone who is relying on the income. It's ok for a second income or someone still living with parents.

BigAunty

bigk77irl wrote: »

My income may be too high but it is too low to pay any national insurance which the LEL class 1 limit is £109 so please tell me how is that fair that I totally miss out on any help because I am in that no mans land?

I am against zero hours contracts and not very fond of temporary ones either - they suit the employer, not society, and definately not the recipients. Our benefit system is too cumbersome and complex to sort out claims in a timely and accurate way, particularly for those with variable income.

However, I am for the principle that single people without dependents should not receive significant supplements when they have part time work - I appreciate that some can't get work because of low opportunities for longer hours. I can see why the govt doesn't offer the live/work lifestyle for those without dependents/disabilities that other groups get.

If the govt offer tax credits to single people without disabilities, dependents and below the age of 25 who work part time, then the UK will see a new generation of households where fit and able employees choose to work part time because they receive state top ups and don't pay any tax - that's economic disaster. Imagine leaving school at 16 and straight away applying for tax credits on the principle of 'well, why should I work 40 hours when I can get nearly as much by working just 16'.

Tax credits have unfortunately eroded the distinction in disposable income for some households where they enjoy a similar standard of living to their neighbours who work much longer hours and have much higher employment income.

For example, under the DWP figures published a few years ago, two families of 3 children with identical housing costs have nearly identical disposable incomes even though one earns around 9k and the other 34k. There is only around £150 a month difference in their net incomes due to tax credits and housing benefits enjoyed by the household where one adult works part time. It may be different now due to benefit policy changes but that illustrates why so much resentment has built up because of in-work credits which have been seen to cripple work ethic and being self sufficient.