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

calcotti

Spoonie_Turtle said:

poppy12345 said:

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.

Given that UC is a monthly benefit the presentation of the change was very misleading. Monthly Work Allowances will presumably be increased by £42/month (assuming they stick to a whole number)

poppy12345

calcotti said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

poppy12345 said:

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.

Given that UC is a monthly benefit the presentation of the change was very misleading. Monthly Work Allowances will presumably be increased by £42/month (assuming they stick to a whole number)

You are correct. See link, which was previously posted in another comment. https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/work-allowance-universal-credit

calcotti

poppy12345 said:..See link, which was previously posted in another comment. https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/work-allowance-universal-credit

Thanks poppy, missed that.

OhWow

zagfles 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.

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.

That's not what I saw 20 years ago. The picker jobs used to be paid well above other hourly wages and were carried out by mothers with children in primary schools who wanted extra money (no Tax Credit benefits then) until the school hoilidays; students; international students; those in the country on the two year Youth Mobilty Scheme visas as well as providing jobs for locals. London used to be full of young Aussies and Kiwis working in restaurants and bars.

https://www.gov.uk/youth-mobility/eligibility

We are already seeing the wages return to a higher level for the pickers

In Australia, for the reciprocal agreement to the UK's 2 year Youth Mobilty Scheme visa, Australia only allowed the second year if that year was spent working on their farms.  These also need to buy their own private health insurance and pay for a medical. It's only this(?) year that Australia have finally allowed that second year without having to work on their farms and have instead brought in visas to get workers on farms.

With the UK giving hundreds of thousands of these Tier 5 Youth Mobilty Scheme visas every year, there is no reason why the UK can't now insist on only having the second year if they work on farms.This would buy time for farmers to invest in modern practices, as they should have been doing instead of using the flow of cheap labour from the EEA. These Tier 5 YMS holders have to pay £1,044 for the visa (£244 visa fee and £800 towards the NHS), they can't have UK public funds, can't bring their family, can't have the visa if they have children they are financially responsible for and the applicant must be young (between the age of 18 to 30).

zagfles

OhWow said:

zagfles 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.

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.

That's not what I saw 20 years ago. The picker jobs used to be paid well above other hourly wages and were carried out by mothers with children in primary schools who wanted extra money (no Tax Credit benefits then) until the school hoilidays; students; international students; those in the country on the two year Youth Mobilty Scheme visas as well as providing jobs for locals. London used to be full of young Aussies and Kiwis working in restaurants and bars.

https://www.gov.uk/youth-mobility/eligibility

We are already seeing the wages return to a higher level for the pickers

In Australia, for the reciprocal agreement to the UK's 2 year Youth Mobilty Scheme visa, Australia only allowed the second year if that year was spent working on their farms.  These also need to buy their own private health insurance and pay for a medical. It's only this(?) year that Australia have finally allowed that second year without having to work on their farms and have instead brought in visas to get workers on farms.

With the UK giving hundreds of thousands of these Tier 5 Youth Mobilty Scheme visas every year, there is no reason why the UK can't now insist on only having the second year if they work on farms.This would buy time for farmers to invest in modern practices, as they should have been doing instead of using the flow of cheap labour from the EEA. These Tier 5 YMS holders have to pay £1,044 for the visa (£244 visa fee and £800 towards the NHS), they can't have UK public funds, can't bring their family, can't have the visa if they have children they are financially responsible for and the applicant must be young (between the age of 18 to 30).

Do many do 2 years? I know loads who've done the youth working visa thing but none that have done more than a year.

Tax credits did exist 20 years ago, it was the WFTC (working families tax credit), and before then there was family credit. Going back even further was the family income supplement, some form of means tested family benefit has been in existance since 1971. On top of child benefit of course.