Universal Credit New Thread.complete Disaster.

[durhamborn]

25 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

Remember: it was all going to be 100% completely rolled out by 2013, originally.

 

Exactly.We knew it wouldnt work at the start of this thread.The government based cutting welfare on the fact everyone would come off tax credits onto UC.So far i dont think there are any families with children on,at least no more than a few.They should of simply reformed tax credits.Only one amount for children however many you have,much lower allowed earnings before means testing kicks in (£2k a year),and much tighter hours rules once the child is at school.The aim i was tipped off was that they wanted to reduce welfare to where it ran out for a couple with two children at 1.5x minimum wage.They started down the road (two child limit/welfare freeze),but bottled the other reforms because a woman fiddling hers cried on Newsnight.

[mrtickle]

It was Question Time, but I agree with your summary.

 

[Blod]

Tax credits had only one purpose and that was to create dependence on handout. It has worked spectacularly as not only have the the recipients but the employers lapped it up. In fact it has become a lifestyle choice. It has fuelled the cash inhand economy that hides in plain sight. 

Unless UC was just a name change for TCs it was doomed. That is what they should have accepted but that would have meant not being able to alter rates till beyond the parliamentary term. Then when they achieved their next term in government started to 'tidy' rates and scope of it.

[spyguy]

7 hours ago, Blod said:

Tax credits had only one purpose and that was to create dependence on handout. It has worked spectacularly as not only have the the recipients but the employers lapped it up. In fact it has become a lifestyle choice. It has fuelled the cash inhand economy that hides in plain sight. 

Unless UC was just a name change for TCs it was doomed. That is what they should have accepted but that would have meant not being able to alter rates till beyond the parliamentary term. Then when they achieved their next term in government started to 'tidy' rates and scope of it.

Not originally.

Its always worthwhile iterating the idea behind tax credits.

TC were a bit on wonkery brought in by Clinton.

They are to address the issue that Western countries attach benefits to kids - no western country wants to see shoeless kids pulling food out of bins. So, country and politics depending, people with no income/low wage were given benefits.

Great! Except what happens is that there's a significant number of parents who,. on having kids, will just sit aorund i ntheir 20s, 30s, 40s, doing fckall but cash benefit cheques. Thats OK whilst you have dependent kids but there's a couple of problems.

1) Benefit parents beget benefit parents. Its quite shocklng when you look at the numbers. The cause are complex. There's an element of kids tend to do what their parents did. There's another issue that the kids just dont know what work is and how to get it. There's another issue that having to work socilises you and makes people grow  up - the most dysunfctional sh1thead I know are 2-3 generations of benefit deps.

2) You end up with people in their 4s 50s who are totally unemployable, having spent the years where they should have been acquring skills doing fckall. Again, try socialisign with someone who's not worked for 15+ years - they are fcking nuts. And nut becaus theyve spent all that time smokign skunk - although quite a few do.

The UK had a system of family allowance, brought in inthe 70s. This is the benefit that some SJW types bankg on about n that tax credits have already existed. Im a family allowance kid- lazy useless, work dodging father. It was fckall - about 60/w topup  for 4 kids i nthe 80s if I remember. It stopped us rummaging i nthe bins but its nowehre near anything like ther 1500/m average TC payout.

Back to Clinton and his benefit reforms. Thet are dead simple - work or we find you work. Dont work and we cut your benefits and kick you out od social housing. If you work we will give you a ~$400 topup and you keep your medical benefits and whatnot.

The benefits reforms were Clintons biggest success in the US. That success will be felt ioging forwards as more kids live in whats called a working household. It stops areas slinkign into shitholes. And it provides social pressure to people who dont work - 'Lazy fcker, takign my tax and doing nothing'

It does not amtter is the jobs is not very productive - the idea is that you work for your benefits. 38h/w.

Sweden has a similar system. But they are a bit overwhelmed at the mo by importing the next few generation of dosser from the 3rd world. We'll see how many last when the full reliation of living in a cold country and having to work hits home.

In the UK Brown picks up on the success and tries to address the ~20% of working age fmailies living on benefits in the late 90s.

Ill be the saviour of the world! Itll be like a new NHS! Ill be the greatest PM ever!!!!

(This is how Brown thinks)

Rather than making it simple - work 40h/w and well top up your money by £400/m - which is something I *strongly* agree with, Brown fkced it up.

First, he made the system so complex that noone understood it. So, rather than people on benefit being topped up ~400m they paid out too much money and ended up owing the DSS ~10k.

Huge opanis, so Brown brough in the fckup we have now - TCv2 - 16h work required to pull in 1500/m of cash.

Its fcking insane.

And he did this in 2002ish, just as the EE started to arrive in the UK. ~2 years before the EEs started cottoing on, that expect 60k turned into somwhere around - 6m EE turning up in the UK - dont beleive the 2M numbers, its BS.

UK vote for Brexit down to being overwhelmved by EErs wokring 16h in Sklops or cleaning.

Benefit that was penciled in at a cost of 200m/y - and they were being serious.

Now costs ~25bln/y

Rather than taking people off benefit and into work, its took people out of low and medium paid work onto benefits.

There are now ~40% of working families that get 50%+ of their income from benefits.

At its core, TC is OK but the UK needs the follwoign tweaks:

- 40h/w work.

- No non UK citizens gets benefits. Limited non citizen benefits to JSA providied theyve paid in. Defintely no HB. Free NHS and schoolign for working parents is enough benefits and better than theyd get elsewhere in the world./EU.

 

 

 

 

[Bsmf]

On 26/05/2017 at 8:04 AM, spyguy said:

Contriubtion based!

The UK is a needs based/tax on eanrings. It sounds open to abuse but there is a kicker for EUers - if you are not wroking, there's no tax take so the argument is that they need to supported by the earner.

So, he likes of an EEer workiing, cannot claim for non working spouse or kids.

Contributions based at the moment is crazy, it's exactly the same amount but without many entitlements such as prescriptions, denral and eye tests.

 

Contributions based is only worth it if the amount is in relation to what you used to earn.

[Snafu]

Spy guy: not so sure about the immigrants in Sweden having to work bit. 

[spyguy]

1 minute ago, Snafu said:

Spy guy: not so sure about the immigrants in Sweden having to work bit. 

At the mo they are bing given a pass - poor escapees etc etc etc.

2 years where they are given free schooling to learn the language.

After that grace period ends they will be expected to work. Thats when the fun starts.

Even though I voted remain, the prospect of having all of mainland Europes recent mgirants turn up in the UK to get free, non cotrib benefits would make me vote Out.

[Sithuk]

Spyguy: I'm usually a lurker, but logged in to thank you for the summary on the tax credits history.

[crashmonitor]

15 hours ago, rollover said:

How much does the UC project costs so far?

It's probably about the same as the deficit has increased, ie. about a trillion pounds. We have moved from most of the population being net tax payers to most of the population being net welfare recipients. Social justice innit, just leave the unborn to pick up the tab or housepricecrasher's savings when the Treasury give up trying to service the debt and inflate it away.

[Peter Hun]

4 hours ago, spyguy said:

Not originally.

Its always worthwhile iterating the idea behind tax credits.

TC were a bit on wonkery brought in by Clinton.

They are to address the issue that Western countries attach benefits to kids - no western country wants to see shoeless kids pulling food out of bins. So, country and politics depending, people with no income/low wage were given benefits.

Great! Except what happens is that there's a significant number of parents who,. on having kids, will just sit aorund i ntheir 20s, 30s, 40s, doing fckall but cash benefit cheques. Thats OK whilst you have dependent kids but there's a couple of problems.

1) Benefit parents beget benefit parents. Its quite shocklng when you look at the numbers. The cause are complex. There's an element of kids tend to do what their parents did. There's another issue that the kids just dont know what work is and how to get it. There's another issue that having to work socilises you and makes people grow  up - the most dysunfctional sh1thead I know are 2-3 generations of benefit deps.

2) You end up with people in their 4s 50s who are totally unemployable, having spent the years where they should have been acquring skills doing fckall. Again, try socialisign with someone who's not worked for 15+ years - they are fcking nuts. And nut becaus theyve spent all that time smokign skunk - although quite a few do.

The UK had a system of family allowance, brought in inthe 70s. This is the benefit that some SJW types bankg on about n that tax credits have already existed. Im a family allowance kid- lazy useless, work dodging father. It was fckall - about 60/w topup  for 4 kids i nthe 80s if I remember. It stopped us rummaging i nthe bins but its nowehre near anything like ther 1500/m average TC payout.

Back to Clinton and his benefit reforms. Thet are dead simple - work or we find you work. Dont work and we cut your benefits and kick you out od social housing. If you work we will give you a ~$400 topup and you keep your medical benefits and whatnot.

The benefits reforms were Clintons biggest success in the US. That success will be felt ioging forwards as more kids live in whats called a working household. It stops areas slinkign into shitholes. And it provides social pressure to people who dont work - 'Lazy fcker, takign my tax and doing nothing'

It does not amtter is the jobs is not very productive - the idea is that you work for your benefits. 38h/w.

Sweden has a similar system. But they are a bit overwhelmed at the mo by importing the next few generation of dosser from the 3rd world. We'll see how many last when the full reliation of living in a cold country and having to work hits home.

In the UK Brown picks up on the success and tries to address the ~20% of working age fmailies living on benefits in the late 90s.

Ill be the saviour of the world! Itll be like a new NHS! Ill be the greatest PM ever!!!!

(This is how Brown thinks)

Rather than making it simple - work 40h/w and well top up your money by £400/m - which is something I *strongly* agree with, Brown fkced it up.

First, he made the system so complex that noone understood it. So, rather than people on benefit being topped up ~400m they paid out too much money and ended up owing the DSS ~10k.

Huge opanis, so Brown brough in the fckup we have now - TCv2 - 16h work required to pull in 1500/m of cash.

Its fcking insane.

And he did this in 2002ish, just as the EE started to arrive in the UK. ~2 years before the EEs started cottoing on, that expect 60k turned into somwhere around - 6m EE turning up in the UK - dont beleive the 2M numbers, its BS.

UK vote for Brexit down to being overwhelmved by EErs wokring 16h in Sklops or cleaning.

Benefit that was penciled in at a cost of 200m/y - and they were being serious.

Now costs ~25bln/y

Rather than taking people off benefit and into work, its took people out of low and medium paid work onto benefits.

There are now ~40% of working families that get 50%+ of their income from benefits.

At its core, TC is OK but the UK needs the follwoign tweaks:

- 40h/w work.

- No non UK citizens gets benefits. Limited non citizen benefits to JSA providied theyve paid in. Defintely no HB. Free NHS and schoolign for working parents is enough benefits and better than theyd get elsewhere in the world./EU.

 

 

You maths is ********.

20.7 million households, 17.3 are '.working',  40% of that is 7.08million

£25billion WTC between 7.08million households= £3531.07 per household per year or £294.25 per month

Thats nowhere near 50% of a working families income. and far lower than the £400/month that you agree too.

 

 

 

 

[Peter Hun]

https://fullfact.org/economy/tax-credits-how-much-has-spending-increased-16-years/

3million, 17% of working households are eligible for WTC

Its £28bullion /3million =£9333.33 on average

[Peter Hun]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/617128/Child_and_Working_Tax_Credits_statistics_finalised_annual_awards_-_2015_to_2016.pdf

 

[spyguy]

2 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

 

 

You maths is ********.

20.7 million households, 17.3 are '.working',  40% of that is 7.08million

£25billion WTC between 7.08million households= £3531.07 per household per year or £294.25 per month

Thats nowhere near 50% of a working families income. and far lower than the £400/month that you agree too.

 

 

 

 

Tax credits have blurred working and not working.

Youre looking at the wrong figure. You need to ask how many working age family receive 50%+ of their income in benefits.

Youve been gamed.

Middlesbrough claims tl have sn unemploymenr rate of 6%. A quick walk about town will show thats a crock of sh1te.

Discount DLA, discount 16h tax credits, duscount all the made up public sector jobs.

The UK needs a better stat than unemployed. Its do bent and meaningless you might as well record employment rates as colours.

Theres only one number that matters - how many families are generating net tax revenue. With a personal allowance and TCs the number is less than 20%.

 

[Tulip_mania]

From the linked documents there are a total of 4.28 million 'families' from 3 groups (in work with kids, out of work with kids, in work without kids) claiming various tax credits. So the average is about £500/month. Though obviously some of these aren't working and others working just enough hours to trigger the payments.

Essentially there needs to be a lower total amount (sum you get when you add all the 'elements' and a lower taper rate. 2 child rule should help, as would stopping the ADHD and autistic loophole to get the disabled payment. 

[lid]

I'm all for the upping the hours suggestion, but are there enough 40 hours per week jobs to go around?

[regprentice]

3 hours ago, lid said:

I'm all for the upping the hours suggestion, but are there enough 40 hours per week jobs to go around?

The fragmented 16 hour contracts on offer now came about largely as a result of the rules. I recall a receptionist at my old work point blank refusing a promotion as she had to stay under 16 hours a week(or similar). So contracts have evolved to 'suit' peoples requirements and 4 short shifts of 4 hours (supermarkets etc) has worked to some employers advantage in allowing them to structure shifts to deny comfort breaks, lunch breaks etc. 

[Sheeple Splinter]

1 hour ago, regprentice said:

The fragmented 16 hour contracts on offer now came about largely as a result of the rules. I recall a receptionist at my old work point blank refusing a promotion as she had to stay under 16 hours a week(or similar). So contracts have evolved to 'suit' peoples requirements and 4 short shifts of 4 hours (supermarkets etc) has worked to some employers advantage in allowing them to structure shifts to deny comfort breaks, lunch breaks etc. 

Apparently, primary schools have to play Tetris 16 with part-time workers e.g. midday supervisors, breakfast and afterschool club positions. 

[adarmo]

4 hours ago, lid said:

I'm all for the upping the hours suggestion, but are there enough 40 hours per week jobs to go around?

A unit of supply becomes a unit of demand. So, in the medium term, yes. 

Will there be enough patsies to go out to work to pay people not work in the mid to long term? 

[spyguy]

8 hours ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

Apparently, primary schools have to play Tetris 16 with part-time workers e.g. midday supervisors, breakfast and afterschool club positions. 

Unless you have a alrge, low skilled work force, near a large number of people - thjink Tescos tills in a large town - the whole 16h is a nightmare.

Partner's school is having to mange 4 people where 1 would have done the work. And its not a simple matter of 40/4 = 16h. You have to mange the 16h, so they want to do different hours, fall out, ring in sick. You end up having to maintain 4 backups for the 4 x 16h workers.

 

I come from a depressed economic region - not that youd guess by the cars and spending and reported unemployment figures. But noone works. There are a couple of medium size manufacturing and food processing plants. Nothign that big - about 50-10 employees. When Ive been in the work force consist of under 25s and over 50 i.e. too young or too old to have kids.

 

[Peter Hun]

17 hours ago, spyguy said:

Tax credits have blurred working and not working.

Youre looking at the wrong figure. You need to ask how many working age family receive 50%+ of their income in benefits.

Youve been gamed.

Middlesbrough claims tl have sn unemploymenr rate of 6%. A quick walk about town will show thats a crock of sh1te.

Discount DLA, discount 16h tax credits, duscount all the made up public sector jobs.

The UK needs a better stat than unemployed. Its do bent and meaningless you might as well record employment rates as colours.

Theres only one number that matters - how many families are generating net tax revenue. With a personal allowance and TCs the number is less than 20%.

 

 

You make up the numbers to fit your agenda. I not being gamed, you are bullshitting.

[Houdini]

9 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

 

You make up the numbers to fit your agenda. I not being gamed, you are bullshitting.

That's because you are in London and we are up north where people can and do play the game to maximise their income... They probably do it around there but I doubt you socialise with people who do that - having had children we know a lot of people who know how to play the game correctly... 

I dread to think how many people my neighbour's cafe employs but everyone apart from them do 4x4hr shifts - its not worth his time or theirs getting them to do more than that plus it covers the lunch time rush..

The thing I find ironic is I'm probably in the top 2% of income around here and I won't move because I still think the houses I want are vastly overpriced...

Edited October 1, 2017 by Houdini

[Peter Hun]

17 minutes ago, Houdini said:

That's because you are in London and we are up north where people can and do play the game to maximise their income.

Its true that I don't look outside the window and count 4million unemployed people and check how much they have in their pocket.

I use the statistics and published figures because they are correct .

[spyguy]

Classify them correctly.

Drop employed and unemployed. Replace with supported by state benefits and, self supporting.

Id also track public sector employment as a %

Trying to come to a conclusion of how good the uk is doing by looking at the official unemployment rate is nuts. Uks been fiddling it for almost 40 years.

[Houdini]

9 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Its true that I don't look outside the window and count 4million unemployed people and check how much they have in their pocket.

I use the statistics and published figures because they are correct .

And we watch how our neighbours and shops work and can tell you anecdotally exactly how people play the game.

The phrase you need to understand is lies, damn lies and statistics...  If you are looking at  figures all they show is self reported absolute unemployment and not the underemployment that tax credits creates nor the way disability living allowance allowed true unemployment figures to be hidden... 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Houdini

[Princekie]

27 minutes ago, spyguy said:

 

Trying to come to a conclusion of how good the uk is doing by looking at the official unemployment rate is nuts. Uks been fiddling it for almost 40 years.

I don't even have to do that.

I just look at the infrastructure and make my own conclusion. My 17 mile journey to work along roads that are full of potholes, and are often completely under water (literally). The local hospital, with its ancient peeling wallpaper, cracked lino flooring, warped and damaged polystyrene ceilings and filth everywhere. The local council who are often unavailable to take your call unless you're grassing a neighbour up for some minor infraction.

Every year here seems to get worse.