LAID OFF v UNIVERSAL CREDIT CLAIMANTS

rk0604

I was laid off from my new job early in the lock down. I had to claim UC. Obviously this meant I lost hundreds of pounds in monthly income. We know the UC payments have increased across the board, so where laid off people lost income, people that had already been on UC had their income increased. So on the face of it it looks like people who were already unemployed had a 'pay rise' but people who were working had a 'pay cut'.  This cannot be right and my point is shouldn't people who were in employment but lost their jobs through no fault of their own, be in a better financial position than people who had been on UC for months? (I have left out self employed people from this point as I don't know the rules pertaining to that and it is not relevant to my point).  Your thoughts please. 

elsien

My thoughts are that I thought we'd got away from the idea of the deserving vs the undeserving. 
People can be employed and claiming UC so your presumption that all UC claimants are unemployed is incorrect.  

poppy12345

rk0604 said:

(I have left out self employed people from this point as I don't know the rules pertaining to that and it is not relevant to my point).  Your thoughts please. 

Some people that are self employed have also claimed UC. They may also have claimed the 1st SEISS grant too and may claim the 2nd SEISS. They were also entitled to the increase standard allowance of UC. Of course the SEISS will count as income in the month it's received for UC purposes. They couldn't separate those that are working from those that aren't working so the increase applied to everyone claiming UC.

GHolmesAdmin

You're all heart.

mobilejo

Why do you think someone who started claiming UC after coronavirus is any more entitled than someone who was claiming before?

"This cannot be right and my point is shouldn't people who were in employment but lost their jobs through no fault of their own, be in a better financial position than people who had been on UC for months?"

Do you believe that everyone claiming UC before was just lazy and didn't want to work, but that people claiming after coronavirus are hard working but unlucky? How many people on UC before coronavirus do you think ended up there because they lost their jobs due to no fault of their own too? 

The fact is, whatever you did in the past, you're claiming benefits now like all the other UC claimants. You're not a special case - you have to be assessed in the same way as other claimants as that is the only fair way to do it. 

hb2

Ah yes, "I am hard done-by; you are unlucky; they are scroungers"

rk0604

OK, you all seem to have missed my point. I am the last person to judge who deserves what, that was not my point! I was merely pointing out that people who were already claiming UC had a pay rise, which is great and yes I also pointed out that they have gained out of the pandemic and people who were laid off have lost.  What is wrong with saying that? I did not say I deserve more, they deserve less. 

Jeremy535897

rk0604 said:

OK, you all seem to have missed my point. I am the last person to judge who deserves what, that was not my point! I was merely pointing out that people who were already claiming UC had a pay rise, which is great and yes I also pointed out that they have gained out of the pandemic and people who were laid off have lost.  What is wrong with saying that? I did not say I deserve more, they deserve less. 

Look at it a different way. If the UC "pay rise" had not happened, you, as well as existing claimants, would be getting less. Would you prefer that? 

poppy12345

rk0604 said:

 they deserve less. 

Why is that? What makes you more worthy than anyone else?

Jeremy535897

poppy12345 said:

rk0604 said:

 they deserve less. 

Why is that? What makes you more worthy than anyone else?

I don't think that is what was said. Read it as "I didn't say "I deserve more". I didn't say "they deserve less"". Otherwise why the "which is great" comment about the "pay rise"? I think the issue is about fairness. Is it "fair" that someone who worked sees their income drop to UC, and someone who doesn't work sees their income rise? But benefits aren't designed to be fair. They are a safety net. Yes, someone "used" to living on UC will have welcomed the increase, and someone with rather more commitments who was used to a much larger income will struggle. But they would have struggled even more on the old level of UC.

poppy12345

Jeremy535897 said:

poppy12345 said:

rk0604 said:

 they deserve less. 

Why is that? What makes you more worthy than anyone else?

I don't think that is what was said. Read it as "I didn't say "I deserve more". I didn't say "they deserve less"". Otherwise why the "which is great" comment about the "pay rise"? I think the issue is about fairness. Is it "fair" that someone who worked sees their income drop to UC, and someone who doesn't work sees their income rise? But benefits aren't designed to be fair. They are a safety net. Yes, someone "used" to living on UC will have welcomed the increase, and someone with rather more commitments who was used to a much larger income will struggle. But they would have struggled even more on the old level of UC.

Ah yes i did misread that, thanks. Well, they couldn't apply the increase to "certain" people, it had to be applied to everyone claiming UC and tax credits. Regardless of what the OP thinks, there's really nothing anyone can do.