2016 benefits changes for working people?

zagfles

rogerblack wrote: »

200000 is a credible estimate.

As I understand that figure is firstly based on the original £100 above UC nil-rate band, it's now £300, and secondly the vast majority of whom are in jobs with fluctuating earnings (ie who will know their earnings are likely to dip above and below the nil-rate UC band).

Rather than the scenario you describe of someone who gets a job they assume will pay a steady wage and then loses it after a few months.

If someone knows their income will fluctate through the year, it's clearly unfair if they get more UC than someone else who earns the same average amount in a steady wage job.

So what's the estimate of those affected in the way you described?

MissMoneypenny

benniebert wrote: »

In 1971 the forerunner of Tax Credits came into being with FIS. This was means tested and based on what you earned. You had to work at least 30 hours a week and there was a maximum amount that you would get. Fortunately for the government for the time, take up was very poor believed to be because of the stigma attached to those that dared claim it and by 1986 it was abolished.

That was in the days when it was shameful to claim benefits. These days, people who don't claim any benefits are seen as mugs.

nannytone_2

it was also in a time when more em;loyers paid a wage that a family could afford to live on.
the majority of families at that time had 1 full time worker and possibly 1 part time worker.

tax credits aren't a top up to families, they are a subsidy for poorly paying employers

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That was in the days when it was shameful to claim benefits. These days, people who don't claim any benefits are seen as mugs.

They are. Just like those who didn't claim their child & married tax allowances in the old days.

benniebert

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That was in the days when it was shameful to claim benefits. These days, people who don't claim any benefits are seen as mugs.

I wouldn't call it shameful, I would call if British Pride. As you say no one cares what others think when they claim for every penny that they can get their grubby little mits on. Yes it does actually seem that society now views those that don't make claims to maximise their benefits as complete mugs. Thank God I still believe in British Pride and my country.

benniebert

zagfles wrote: »

They are. Just like those who didn't claim their child & married tax allowances in the old days.

Both of those tax allowances were given automatically every year after notifying the Inland Revenue of the date of birth of the child and the date of marriage. There wasn't an opt out for those allowances. The previous poster hit the nail on the head in saying that those that don't claim benefits nowadays are seen as mugs.
When they stopped the married persons allowance and child tax allowances, they brought out a means tested version. As I have already said, it was poorly supported in that people saw the benefit of having tax relief, but actually claiming Welfare payments was a taboo thing - only the destitute would resort to that, and even then they would think twice about applying for it. You see there was pride in supporting your own family in those days.

zagfles

skcollobcat10 wrote: »

This was in 1971 I married in 1975 and even then people had a sense of pride in bringing up their own families when did it all go so wrong?

Maybe when the govt started replacing all the generous tax allowances you got with payable benefits familes today get?

[Deleted User]

benniebert wrote: »

I wouldn't call it shameful, I would call if British Pride. As you say no one cares what others think when they claim for every penny that they can get their grubby little mits on. Yes it does actually seem that society now views those that don't make claims to maximise their benefits as complete mugs. Thank God I still believe in British Pride and my country.

You know I agree with you and majority of your posts, but what does Sir think a Judge will make of this, you know when national minimum wage just doesn't pay all the bills, or you are underpaying them at minimum, but you haven't accessed the system - should we then try for euthanasia

Batman_100

rogerblack wrote: »

Not quite.
The regulations do not as I understand them care at all about how much you spend, only how much you earned.
If this is considerably over your entitlement to UC - including housing costs - then the 'surplus earnings' provisions may kick in, and you be not entitled to UC for a period.

It does not matter if the reasons you spent this money were entirely reasonable.

OK, so how do these surplus earnings provisions work?


And does this apply to contribution based JSA as well as UC?


This is all getting very confusing.

Weary_soul

So much for a simplified system....