MSE News: Autumn Budget 2021: Universal Credit cash boost confirmed for millions of workers

Muttleythefrog

kaMelo said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

seatbeltnoob said:

As a self employed person who gets some universal credit, I can easily earn a bit more money to help pay for christmas by doing extra jobs. If I was a parapalegic I couldn't do anything and I would have to make ends meet by doing without central heating for a few hours or skipping meals.

What an utterly bizarre (and thoroughly wrong) assumption.  May I refer you to people such as Arthur Williams, Sophie Morgan, Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, Ade Adepitan, Frank Gardner, oh, and the farmer in our village who became paralysed last year and still works on the farm now that he has suitable wheels.  Far from 'can't do anything'.

*I'm not holding these people up as an example of 'every paraplegic person can definitely work' because everyone is different, but rather to show that no condition or injury automatically leaves people completely incapable.

I couldn't agree more, in fact hopefully this is one positive to come out of the pandemic.
There is a labour shortage, employers are going to have to widen their view when looking for new talent and maybe look upon disabled people more favourably than they have done when considering applications for jobs.

Many disabled people are very capable, qualified and want to work, the pandemic has proven that given the right circumstances, for example those with mobility problems, remote working is a viable option.

Of course not everyone can work but  I don't see how helping those in work a bit more is a "Nail in the coffin" for those who can't. It's not a zero sum game. People live complex lives and one policy change can have a positive or negative effect depending upon your circumstances. For those in the groups mentioned earlier there is extra support available over and above the standard rate. It will never be enough, it never has been and never will be but the suggestion that helping working people is detrimental to those who can't is just not correct.


.

Because the cost of living is rising significantly in terms of basics like rent, gas and electric... yet at the same time the government is removing the 'temporary uplift'... it has made its political decisions and these decisions regarding the same benefit cannot be looked at in isolation especially when the chancellor himself is trying to justify them in the same context and use the language of mitigation. In basic terms (and using his language regarding tax which I find odd) he is giving a tax cut to low earners (don't have a problem with that) but that seem to come at a price for those not in work for one reason or another who are seeing their money cut not increased. So there is a very real impact on ability to live... extra lives will surely be lost as a result particularly over winter.

So I'm afraid I have to disagree on your last point - government taxation and spending cannot be looked at in isolation of all other such....their job (or a chancellor's) at the end of the day could be summed up as 'balancing the books'. They have decided to further subsidise employment (or assist some low paid if we're looking at it from claimant perspective) through the mechanisms of Universal Credit at around the same time as saving themselves the cost of the uplift. It's an attempt to fend off criticisms from Tory MPs (and others) who do not like the elimination of the U/C uplift... in fact the changes were played out in parliament 'to the tune of Iain Duncan Smith' who had been a leading voice of criticism but who now is "over the moon".

Further, but somewhat unrelated one may argue, the DWP was refusing to release findings of its own report into the disabled claimant experience... I wonder why.. could it be because many struggle to get what they are entitled to in the first place... i.e. struggle to get that extra support available above a standard rate (which may be required for extra costs of living of course).   https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/164/work-and-pensions-committee/news/157721/government-urged-to-publish-research-into-disabled-peoples-experiences-of-benefits-system/

kaMelo

Muttleythefrog said:

kaMelo said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

seatbeltnoob said:

As a self employed person who gets some universal credit, I can easily earn a bit more money to help pay for christmas by doing extra jobs. If I was a parapalegic I couldn't do anything and I would have to make ends meet by doing without central heating for a few hours or skipping meals.

What an utterly bizarre (and thoroughly wrong) assumption.  May I refer you to people such as Arthur Williams, Sophie Morgan, Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, Ade Adepitan, Frank Gardner, oh, and the farmer in our village who became paralysed last year and still works on the farm now that he has suitable wheels.  Far from 'can't do anything'.

*I'm not holding these people up as an example of 'every paraplegic person can definitely work' because everyone is different, but rather to show that no condition or injury automatically leaves people completely incapable.

I couldn't agree more, in fact hopefully this is one positive to come out of the pandemic.
There is a labour shortage, employers are going to have to widen their view when looking for new talent and maybe look upon disabled people more favourably than they have done when considering applications for jobs.

Many disabled people are very capable, qualified and want to work, the pandemic has proven that given the right circumstances, for example those with mobility problems, remote working is a viable option.

Of course not everyone can work but  I don't see how helping those in work a bit more is a "Nail in the coffin" for those who can't. It's not a zero sum game. People live complex lives and one policy change can have a positive or negative effect depending upon your circumstances. For those in the groups mentioned earlier there is extra support available over and above the standard rate. It will never be enough, it never has been and never will be but the suggestion that helping working people is detrimental to those who can't is just not correct.


.

Because the cost of living is rising significantly in terms of basics like rent, gas and electric... yet at the same time the government is removing the 'temporary uplift'... it has made its political decisions and these decisions regarding the same benefit cannot be looked at in isolation especially when the chancellor himself is trying to justify them in the same context and use the language of mitigation. In basic terms (and using his language regarding tax which I find odd) he is giving a tax cut to low earners (don't have a problem with that) but that seem to come at a price for those not in work for one reason or another who are seeing their money cut not increased. So there is a very real impact on ability to live... extra lives will surely be lost as a result particularly over winter.

So I'm afraid I have to disagree on your last point - government taxation and spending cannot be looked at in isolation of all other such....their job (or a chancellor's) at the end of the day could be summed up as 'balancing the books'. They have decided to further subsidise employment (or assist some low paid if we're looking at it from claimant perspective) through the mechanisms of Universal Credit at around the same time as saving themselves the cost of the uplift. It's an attempt to fend off criticisms from Tory MPs (and others) who do not like the elimination of the U/C uplift... in fact the changes were played out in parliament 'to the tune of Iain Duncan Smith' who had been a leading voice of criticism but who now is "over the moon".

Further, but somewhat unrelated one may argue, the DWP was refusing to release findings of its own report into the disabled claimant experience... I wonder why.. could it be because many struggle to get what they are entitled to in the first place... i.e. struggle to get that extra support available above a standard rate (which may be required for extra costs of living of course).   https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/164/work-and-pensions-committee/news/157721/government-urged-to-publish-research-into-disabled-peoples-experiences-of-benefits-system/

I get your points but come to the totally opposite conclusion.
The row around the removal of the temporary uplift in UC has just ensured no Government will ever again introduce a short term temporary measure. Removing a temporary measure causes far more political damage than not introducing it in the first place.

Like walking, to get anywhere you have to put one foot forward.
To restrict changes to those that only affects everyone means you will never help anyone. A classroom of children that only progress at the pace of the slowest is, to coin a phrase, levelling down. By increasing the minimum wage and reducing the taper rate it's completely the opposite of subsidising employment. Incentivising people to work more hours or even at all, as they keep more of it, means people are better off whilst simultaneously reducing costs to the state. Add on the intangible benefits of being in work, This is putting one step forward, making work pay more..

I don't see any way in which this policy change is detrimental, or as stated "A nail in the coffin" of those who can't work. Anyone who can't work is entitled to extra help. No one is suggesting it's a perfect system, it never was and never will be. It has to be simple enough to work yet robust enough to prevent fraud. Inevitably some will fall the wrong side of the line due to those checks and that's unfortunate, here will always be someone whose life is complex and outside what could be envisaged when designing that system. Fine tuning systems to prevent mistakes happening whilst increasing the speed of correcting those mistakes that do should always be a priority.

If you're fit and able but simply not working, well there is lots of work available and it pays more than it did.

zagfles

calcotti said:

seatbeltnoob said:

Nobody even campaigned to have the taper revised. 

Many organisations have said the taper rate is too high ever since it was introduced. Even Ian Duncan Smith, the prime architect of UC, has always said it was too high but the rate was imposed by George Osborne.

Although it was always a lot better that the taper rate for income based JSA/IS at 100%, or the HB taper at 65% which was often compounded with the tax credits taper making a taper rate of around 80%.

Muttleythefrog

kaMelo said:

Muttleythefrog said:

kaMelo said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

seatbeltnoob said:

As a self employed person who gets some universal credit, I can easily earn a bit more money to help pay for christmas by doing extra jobs. If I was a parapalegic I couldn't do anything and I would have to make ends meet by doing without central heating for a few hours or skipping meals.

What an utterly bizarre (and thoroughly wrong) assumption.  May I refer you to people such as Arthur Williams, Sophie Morgan, Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, Ade Adepitan, Frank Gardner, oh, and the farmer in our village who became paralysed last year and still works on the farm now that he has suitable wheels.  Far from 'can't do anything'.

*I'm not holding these people up as an example of 'every paraplegic person can definitely work' because everyone is different, but rather to show that no condition or injury automatically leaves people completely incapable.

I couldn't agree more, in fact hopefully this is one positive to come out of the pandemic.
There is a labour shortage, employers are going to have to widen their view when looking for new talent and maybe look upon disabled people more favourably than they have done when considering applications for jobs.

Many disabled people are very capable, qualified and want to work, the pandemic has proven that given the right circumstances, for example those with mobility problems, remote working is a viable option.

Of course not everyone can work but  I don't see how helping those in work a bit more is a "Nail in the coffin" for those who can't. It's not a zero sum game. People live complex lives and one policy change can have a positive or negative effect depending upon your circumstances. For those in the groups mentioned earlier there is extra support available over and above the standard rate. It will never be enough, it never has been and never will be but the suggestion that helping working people is detrimental to those who can't is just not correct.


.

Because the cost of living is rising significantly in terms of basics like rent, gas and electric... yet at the same time the government is removing the 'temporary uplift'... it has made its political decisions and these decisions regarding the same benefit cannot be looked at in isolation especially when the chancellor himself is trying to justify them in the same context and use the language of mitigation. In basic terms (and using his language regarding tax which I find odd) he is giving a tax cut to low earners (don't have a problem with that) but that seem to come at a price for those not in work for one reason or another who are seeing their money cut not increased. So there is a very real impact on ability to live... extra lives will surely be lost as a result particularly over winter.

So I'm afraid I have to disagree on your last point - government taxation and spending cannot be looked at in isolation of all other such....their job (or a chancellor's) at the end of the day could be summed up as 'balancing the books'. They have decided to further subsidise employment (or assist some low paid if we're looking at it from claimant perspective) through the mechanisms of Universal Credit at around the same time as saving themselves the cost of the uplift. It's an attempt to fend off criticisms from Tory MPs (and others) who do not like the elimination of the U/C uplift... in fact the changes were played out in parliament 'to the tune of Iain Duncan Smith' who had been a leading voice of criticism but who now is "over the moon".

Further, but somewhat unrelated one may argue, the DWP was refusing to release findings of its own report into the disabled claimant experience... I wonder why.. could it be because many struggle to get what they are entitled to in the first place... i.e. struggle to get that extra support available above a standard rate (which may be required for extra costs of living of course).   https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/164/work-and-pensions-committee/news/157721/government-urged-to-publish-research-into-disabled-peoples-experiences-of-benefits-system/

I get your points but come to the totally opposite conclusion.
The row around the removal of the temporary uplift in UC has just ensured no Government will ever again introduce a short term temporary measure. Removing a temporary measure causes far more political damage than not introducing it in the first place.

Like walking, to get anywhere you have to put one foot forward.
To restrict changes to those that only affects everyone means you will never help anyone. A classroom of children that only progress at the pace of the slowest is, to coin a phrase, levelling down. By increasing the minimum wage and reducing the taper rate it's completely the opposite of subsidising employment. Incentivising people to work more hours or even at all, as they keep more of it, means people are better off whilst simultaneously reducing costs to the state. Add on the intangible benefits of being in work, This is putting one step forward, making work pay more..

I don't see any way in which this policy change is detrimental, or as stated "A nail in the coffin" of those who can't work. Anyone who can't work is entitled to extra help. No one is suggesting it's a perfect system, it never was and never will be. It has to be simple enough to work yet robust enough to prevent fraud. Inevitably some will fall the wrong side of the line due to those checks and that's unfortunate, here will always be someone whose life is complex and outside what could be envisaged when designing that system. Fine tuning systems to prevent mistakes happening whilst increasing the speed of correcting those mistakes that do should always be a priority.

If you're fit and able but simply not working, well there is lots of work available and it pays more than it did.

Because it cannot be looked at in isolation and recent U/C changes will leave many more in difficulty... for some £20 a week is a significant proportion of income and when costs of things that are essential to sustaining life are seeing some notable increase that must have impact on those for whom those basic costs consume all or most of their budget. 

I'm not talking about a policy affecting everyone... in fact there is still the legal action regarding people in same circumstances trying to get the £20 rise of their income related benefit that didn't see the same uprate as U/C. The fact that 6 previous Tory DWP ministers have objected to the £20 elimination and yet seem somewhat appeased by the taper rate tamper.... should be telling you they are politically linked.... and I've spoken to other Tory MPs since the budget who sing the same tune having previously been critical... which returns me to your first point... yes... it is about politics and in this case appeasement of critical voices leaving the workless, sick and disabled affected by recent changes in a worse situation.

Obviously regarding "checks"....and those falling wrong sides of lines... not so much unfortunate as continuation of poorly functioning system... but of course we might have confirmation of that if we can see the latest report! There are other groups that fell foul of 'lines' too.. but deliberately so... but when the PM himself couldn't understand why people subject to a no recourse to public funds condition ( a central tenet of his own party's immigration policy in recent times) can't just claim Universal Credit where do you begin?

Anyway I take some of your points... and indeed I hope the recent changes do help some in low pay etc. I can only hope the death rate isn't increased too much by people suffering from big price hikes in things like gas... while facing a government advising them to open their windows to blow away a virus.

zagfles

kaMelo said:

Muttleythefrog said:

kaMelo said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

seatbeltnoob said:

As a self employed person who gets some universal credit, I can easily earn a bit more money to help pay for christmas by doing extra jobs. If I was a parapalegic I couldn't do anything and I would have to make ends meet by doing without central heating for a few hours or skipping meals.

What an utterly bizarre (and thoroughly wrong) assumption.  May I refer you to people such as Arthur Williams, Sophie Morgan, Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, Ade Adepitan, Frank Gardner, oh, and the farmer in our village who became paralysed last year and still works on the farm now that he has suitable wheels.  Far from 'can't do anything'.

*I'm not holding these people up as an example of 'every paraplegic person can definitely work' because everyone is different, but rather to show that no condition or injury automatically leaves people completely incapable.

I couldn't agree more, in fact hopefully this is one positive to come out of the pandemic.
There is a labour shortage, employers are going to have to widen their view when looking for new talent and maybe look upon disabled people more favourably than they have done when considering applications for jobs.

Many disabled people are very capable, qualified and want to work, the pandemic has proven that given the right circumstances, for example those with mobility problems, remote working is a viable option.

Of course not everyone can work but  I don't see how helping those in work a bit more is a "Nail in the coffin" for those who can't. It's not a zero sum game. People live complex lives and one policy change can have a positive or negative effect depending upon your circumstances. For those in the groups mentioned earlier there is extra support available over and above the standard rate. It will never be enough, it never has been and never will be but the suggestion that helping working people is detrimental to those who can't is just not correct.


.

Because the cost of living is rising significantly in terms of basics like rent, gas and electric... yet at the same time the government is removing the 'temporary uplift'... it has made its political decisions and these decisions regarding the same benefit cannot be looked at in isolation especially when the chancellor himself is trying to justify them in the same context and use the language of mitigation. In basic terms (and using his language regarding tax which I find odd) he is giving a tax cut to low earners (don't have a problem with that) but that seem to come at a price for those not in work for one reason or another who are seeing their money cut not increased. So there is a very real impact on ability to live... extra lives will surely be lost as a result particularly over winter.

So I'm afraid I have to disagree on your last point - government taxation and spending cannot be looked at in isolation of all other such....their job (or a chancellor's) at the end of the day could be summed up as 'balancing the books'. They have decided to further subsidise employment (or assist some low paid if we're looking at it from claimant perspective) through the mechanisms of Universal Credit at around the same time as saving themselves the cost of the uplift. It's an attempt to fend off criticisms from Tory MPs (and others) who do not like the elimination of the U/C uplift... in fact the changes were played out in parliament 'to the tune of Iain Duncan Smith' who had been a leading voice of criticism but who now is "over the moon".

Further, but somewhat unrelated one may argue, the DWP was refusing to release findings of its own report into the disabled claimant experience... I wonder why.. could it be because many struggle to get what they are entitled to in the first place... i.e. struggle to get that extra support available above a standard rate (which may be required for extra costs of living of course).   https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/164/work-and-pensions-committee/news/157721/government-urged-to-publish-research-into-disabled-peoples-experiences-of-benefits-system/

I get your points but come to the totally opposite conclusion.
The row around the removal of the temporary uplift in UC has just ensured no Government will ever again introduce a short term temporary measure. Removing a temporary measure causes far more political damage than not introducing it in the first place.

Like walking, to get anywhere you have to put one foot forward.
To restrict changes to those that only affects everyone means you will never help anyone. A classroom of children that only progress at the pace of the slowest is, to coin a phrase, levelling down. By increasing the minimum wage and reducing the taper rate it's completely the opposite of subsidising employment. Incentivising people to work more hours or even at all, as they keep more of it, means people are better off whilst simultaneously reducing costs to the state. Add on the intangible benefits of being in work, This is putting one step forward, making work pay more..

I don't see any way in which this policy change is detrimental, or as stated "A nail in the coffin" of those who can't work. Anyone who can't work is entitled to extra help. No one is suggesting it's a perfect system, it never was and never will be. It has to be simple enough to work yet robust enough to prevent fraud. Inevitably some will fall the wrong side of the line due to those checks and that's unfortunate, here will always be someone whose life is complex and outside what could be envisaged when designing that system. Fine tuning systems to prevent mistakes happening whilst increasing the speed of correcting those mistakes that do should always be a priority.

If you're fit and able but simply not working, well there is lots of work available and it pays more than it did.

Indeed, the Laffer curve works for those on low incomes as well as high incomes.

The real test will be whether we start seeing vacancies being filled in low paid jobs we've always relied on foreigners for, eg fruit and veg picking.

Thrugelmir

Muttleythefrog said:

kaMelo said:

Muttleythefrog said:

kaMelo said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

seatbeltnoob said:

As a self employed person who gets some universal credit, I can easily earn a bit more money to help pay for christmas by doing extra jobs. If I was a parapalegic I couldn't do anything and I would have to make ends meet by doing without central heating for a few hours or skipping meals.

What an utterly bizarre (and thoroughly wrong) assumption.  May I refer you to people such as Arthur Williams, Sophie Morgan, Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson, Ade Adepitan, Frank Gardner, oh, and the farmer in our village who became paralysed last year and still works on the farm now that he has suitable wheels.  Far from 'can't do anything'.

*I'm not holding these people up as an example of 'every paraplegic person can definitely work' because everyone is different, but rather to show that no condition or injury automatically leaves people completely incapable.

I couldn't agree more, in fact hopefully this is one positive to come out of the pandemic.
There is a labour shortage, employers are going to have to widen their view when looking for new talent and maybe look upon disabled people more favourably than they have done when considering applications for jobs.

Many disabled people are very capable, qualified and want to work, the pandemic has proven that given the right circumstances, for example those with mobility problems, remote working is a viable option.

Of course not everyone can work but  I don't see how helping those in work a bit more is a "Nail in the coffin" for those who can't. It's not a zero sum game. People live complex lives and one policy change can have a positive or negative effect depending upon your circumstances. For those in the groups mentioned earlier there is extra support available over and above the standard rate. It will never be enough, it never has been and never will be but the suggestion that helping working people is detrimental to those who can't is just not correct.


.

Because the cost of living is rising significantly in terms of basics like rent, gas and electric... yet at the same time the government is removing the 'temporary uplift'... it has made its political decisions and these decisions regarding the same benefit cannot be looked at in isolation especially when the chancellor himself is trying to justify them in the same context and use the language of mitigation. In basic terms (and using his language regarding tax which I find odd) he is giving a tax cut to low earners (don't have a problem with that) but that seem to come at a price for those not in work for one reason or another who are seeing their money cut not increased. So there is a very real impact on ability to live... extra lives will surely be lost as a result particularly over winter.

So I'm afraid I have to disagree on your last point - government taxation and spending cannot be looked at in isolation of all other such....their job (or a chancellor's) at the end of the day could be summed up as 'balancing the books'. They have decided to further subsidise employment (or assist some low paid if we're looking at it from claimant perspective) through the mechanisms of Universal Credit at around the same time as saving themselves the cost of the uplift. It's an attempt to fend off criticisms from Tory MPs (and others) who do not like the elimination of the U/C uplift... in fact the changes were played out in parliament 'to the tune of Iain Duncan Smith' who had been a leading voice of criticism but who now is "over the moon".

Further, but somewhat unrelated one may argue, the DWP was refusing to release findings of its own report into the disabled claimant experience... I wonder why.. could it be because many struggle to get what they are entitled to in the first place... i.e. struggle to get that extra support available above a standard rate (which may be required for extra costs of living of course).   https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/164/work-and-pensions-committee/news/157721/government-urged-to-publish-research-into-disabled-peoples-experiences-of-benefits-system/

I get your points but come to the totally opposite conclusion.
The row around the removal of the temporary uplift in UC has just ensured no Government will ever again introduce a short term temporary measure. Removing a temporary measure causes far more political damage than not introducing it in the first place.

Like walking, to get anywhere you have to put one foot forward.
To restrict changes to those that only affects everyone means you will never help anyone. A classroom of children that only progress at the pace of the slowest is, to coin a phrase, levelling down. By increasing the minimum wage and reducing the taper rate it's completely the opposite of subsidising employment. Incentivising people to work more hours or even at all, as they keep more of it, means people are better off whilst simultaneously reducing costs to the state. Add on the intangible benefits of being in work, This is putting one step forward, making work pay more..

I don't see any way in which this policy change is detrimental, or as stated "A nail in the coffin" of those who can't work. Anyone who can't work is entitled to extra help. No one is suggesting it's a perfect system, it never was and never will be. It has to be simple enough to work yet robust enough to prevent fraud. Inevitably some will fall the wrong side of the line due to those checks and that's unfortunate, here will always be someone whose life is complex and outside what could be envisaged when designing that system. Fine tuning systems to prevent mistakes happening whilst increasing the speed of correcting those mistakes that do should always be a priority.

If you're fit and able but simply not working, well there is lots of work available and it pays more than it did.

... while facing a government advising them to open their windows to blow away a virus.

Politics before common sense. The sooner people again take personal responsibility for themselves the better. 

nicx83

Taken out the incorrect part of my post as I clearly had not read it properly (so many changes to keep up with) 

Even so I hope it does encourage more people to do some work mostly because of the impact it can have on their mental health to get out and meet more people, new friendships in the work place. 

My work place is stressful but I honestly couldn’t have got through covid without being able to talk to my colleagues some of which have become lifelong friends over the years. 

poppy12345

nicx83 said:

Because the disregarded earnings have also gone up to £500 from £293 for those with rent included in the calculation. It now pays to work some hours as it means someone could do roughly 10 hours a week work and still keep their full benefit entitlement this is certainly a plus as for those just on a standard income (approx £73.10 a week) it would double their weekly income (excluding rent) . As previously legacy benefits would have meant income support/ job seekers etc would have ended in this case.

i hope it does encourage more people to do some work mostly because of the impact it can have on their mental health to get out and meet more people, new friendships in the work place. 

My work place is stressful but I honestly couldn’t have got through covid without being able to talk to my colleagues some of which have become lifelong friends over the years. 

Not eveyone qualifies for the work allowance. It's only those that have either LCW/LCWRA or have a qualifying young person on their claim. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-work-allowances/universal-credit-work-allowances

Also the work allowance certainly hasn't increase from £293 to £500 for those that claim help with the rent. The £500 increase is per year...

zagfles

poppy12345 said:

nicx83 said:

Because the disregarded earnings have also gone up to £500 from £293 for those with rent included in the calculation. It now pays to work some hours as it means someone could do roughly 10 hours a week work and still keep their full benefit entitlement this is certainly a plus as for those just on a standard income (approx £73.10 a week) it would double their weekly income (excluding rent) . As previously legacy benefits would have meant income support/ job seekers etc would have ended in this case.

i hope it does encourage more people to do some work mostly because of the impact it can have on their mental health to get out and meet more people, new friendships in the work place. 

My work place is stressful but I honestly couldn’t have got through covid without being able to talk to my colleagues some of which have become lifelong friends over the years. 

Not eveyone qualifies for the work allowance. It's only those that have either LCW/LCWRA or have a qualifying young person on their claim. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-work-allowances/universal-credit-work-allowances

Also the work allowance certainly hasn't increase from £293 to £500 for those that claim help with the rent. The £500 increase is per year...

Yes, more info here https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/work-allowance-universal-credit

Spoonie_Turtle

poppy12345 said:

nicx83 said:

Because the disregarded earnings have also gone up to £500 from £293 for those with rent included in the calculation. It now pays to work some hours as it means someone could do roughly 10 hours a week work and still keep their full benefit entitlement this is certainly a plus as for those just on a standard income (approx £73.10 a week) it would double their weekly income (excluding rent) . As previously legacy benefits would have meant income support/ job seekers etc would have ended in this case.

i hope it does encourage more people to do some work mostly because of the impact it can have on their mental health to get out and meet more people, new friendships in the work place. 

My work place is stressful but I honestly couldn’t have got through covid without being able to talk to my colleagues some of which have become lifelong friends over the years. 

Not eveyone qualifies for the work allowance. It's only those that have either LCW/LCWRA or have a qualifying young person on their claim. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-work-allowances/universal-credit-work-allowances

Also the work allowance certainly hasn't increase from £293 to £500 for those that claim help with the rent. The £500 increase is per year...

Oh I missed that!  Wow, completely different from how it sounded.