Universal Credit Couples AET and Household CET

Soconfused14

Is this definitely happening in Sept this year.
Ive tried for loads of jobs but only got 2 interviews and neither got back to me.
Worried I will be penalised.

Will the disregard be per person too as it seems wrong to treat you as a couple for some things but not others? 

Spoonie_Turtle

Soconfused14 said:

Is this definitely happening in Sept this year.
Ive tried for loads of jobs but only got 2 interviews and neither got back to me.
Worried I will be penalised.

Will the disregard be per person too as it seems wrong to treat you as a couple for some things but not others? 

(Edit: I assume you mean for earnings.)  There is only a disregard if you have a dependent child or LCW/RA on the claim.  In that case it's the same for singles and couples, the only difference is whether you claim help with housing costs or not.

NedS

NF2304 said:

NedS said:

Tommy_77723 said:

NedS said:

tifo said:

NedS said:

calcotti said:

guysl80 said:

If you consider my situation I always earn 2 to 2.5 times of the AET expected from Jan 2023. Some months I have a nil award or less than £230 due to high income . But my wife is not working and so far she has not been asked to looking for a job.

Even though I earn more than the expected amount will she be asked to look for work once the new changes are implemented.

As already advised we don’t yet know clearly how things will work. We need for details. However my interpretation is that the implication is
- that if you earn over the AET threshold for one person but less than CET your partner would be required to look for work (unless excluded for some other reason), and
 - if you earned more that the CET for a couple then your partner would not be required.

I'd amend the above to read household CET, which for a couple is 2 times the individual CET. i.e, the working partner must earn enough for both to be over their individual CET's for the non-working partner not to have to look for work. If the working partner is only exceeding their own CET, then that will move them into the Working Enough regime, but not their partner.

As it stands at the moment, if 1 partner earns above the AET but below the CET then both are placed in light touch (personal experience though i then got LCW and then have work preparedness requirements) and no work search requirements. I would think that it would be the same with going above CET otherwise there is no point reaching that threshold. Thinking about it logically, 1 person in the couple can be earning £988 (current AET) and both have no work requirements yet it's said on here that if 1 couple earned above CET then the other person would need to work search or 1 person is would be expected to earn 2 x CET which is a high paid job.

Maybe, but don't forget the distinction between Working Enough and Light Touch, and the non-working partner is only in Light Touch by way of the Couple AET which is going to be abolished.

Earnings of £988 (current couple AET) would place both members of the couple into Light Touch, neither would be in the Working Enough regime (assuming 35h/week conditionality).

Earnings above the CET (around £1315; 35h x NMW) would place that person in Working Enough and their partner would still remain in Light Touch (due to the couple AET). If the couple AET is abolished (as proposed), they'd be in Intensive unless their partner earns enough for BOTH of them - 2 x CET, or approx £2630/month.

So the effect of the Couple AET rate being removed is that the working partner must now earn £2630 instead of £988 to get their partner out of looking for work.

Would this £2630 a month be before or after monthly deductions?

I earn above this before deductions (£2668).

But my take home pay is £1976

That would be net pay (take home) as that is what UC takes into consideration. Don't forget AET/CET thresholds will also rise in April by nearly 10% as NMW rises from £9.50 to £10.42/hour, so the CET is likely to be around £1410 (for 35h), and for 2 x CET would be around £2820 net after April.

Government policy intent here is pretty clear - they don't want partners sat at home not working. Both members of a couple will be expected to look for work if they are not the main carer of child under 3 or sick/disabled etc.

It’s actually based on gross earnings not net -
when you say UC take the amount you earn usually I think most people assume net as under the AET amounts are wages that wouldn’t have Tax and No deducted as below the tax threshold , I did try to post a link to the Parliament data stating it’s gross pay but I’m unable to post links! 

Yes, you are correct and I was mistaken in my post above - AET and CET thresholds are both gross, not net, threshold values.

For the AET, that should largely be irrelevant as people should not generally be paying tax or NI on earnings below £12,570pa (1047.50/month) hence gross and net earnings are broadly the same.

However, for the CET it does matter.

What I am unclear about is whether the UC system is comparing a claimant's gross earnings against the gross CET threshold when deciding if they have met the CET and should be moved into working enough, or if it is evaluating the claimants net earnings against a gross threshold (which would be inherently unfair). The confusion probably stems from the fact that all other calculations in UC are based on net earnings, not gross, although the UC system does have access to the gross earnings figure so may well be using it in this instance when evaluating earnings against the gross CET.

Another anomaly is that the AET is based on NLW rate (currently £10.42) regardless of age (so those on lower hourly rates due to their age must work more hours to meet the AET) whereas the CET is based on the age-related NMW rates so does not unfairly penalise those U23s on lower hourly rates.

calcotti

NedS said:

What I am unclear about is whether the UC system is comparing a claimant's gross earnings against the gross CET threshold when deciding if they have met the CET 

Refer to regulation 90(6) which states that the claimant earnings used are to be gross earnings, 

Aaron77r

Any update on this? Looks like couples aet is being abolished so my partner will have to always work 18hrs+ as well as me from september?

They've really pushed this in the last year or so, it's probably easier for them to target people already working than tackle the 2.5+million who are allegedly all too sick to work at all. 

Spoonie_Turtle

Aaron77r said:

They've really pushed this in the last year or so, it's probably easier for them to target people already working than tackle the 2.5+million who are allegedly all too sick to work at all. 

Such an unnecessary, judgemental comment.  Not to mention the implication is just plain wrong.

poppy12345

Aaron77r said:

it's probably easier for them to target people already working than tackle the 2.5+million who are allegedly all too sick to work at all. 

I have a health condition that sadly means i've been unable to work for about 10 years but i would love to be able to work. I would love to have good health but sadly i don't. I tell you what, why don't you have my health condition and see exactly what it's like to live 24/7 with constant severe pain. You'll soon go running back to your job.

Please don't judge others because it's really not nice!

Aaron77r

Apologies for any upset wasnt intentional, obviously alot of people will be too sick to work at all even wfh/light duties but going by the news etc there is allegedly a crisis of sickness in working age people as well as cost of living etc. Government seems to be going after mainly mothers with part time jobs and young children with this, might change when they get kicked out but who knows.

Spoonie_Turtle

Aaron77r said:

Apologies for any upset wasnt intentional, obviously alot of people will be too sick to work at all even wfh/light duties but going by the news etc there is allegedly a crisis of sickness in working age people as well as cost of living etc. Government seems to be going after mainly mothers with part time jobs and young children with this, might change when they get kicked out but who knows.

Hardly a surprise since the onset in 2020 of a mass disabling event … !

huckster

How many could work, but they are waiting for NHS treatments that have been delayed ?

I have spoken to about a dozen people in the last month, who would be back working, if they could afford cost of private hospital operations/treatments.

Many of these people still have employment contracts, but sick pay has run out or they are self-employed but cannot work.

Part of the issue is the under investment in some of the support services such as the NHS over the last 20 years. Yes Governments spend record sums each year, but the cost of providing modern health services is much more than any Government feels able to commit, without increasing taxes.