Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
durhamborn

Universal Credit New Thread.complete Disaster.

Recommended Posts

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_money_matters/3273590-Tax-credits-help-please-very-stressed

We began claiming tax credits in February this year to keep us afloat and survive on my SMP. I worked in a nursery so don't earn much and my partner is a self-employed musician and earns next to nothing. 
However last September (2017, before we were claiming tax credits) my partner's mum bought us a house- she transferred about £300,000 from a trust fund to him 

 

 

 

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_money_matters/3278046-tax-credits-please-help-seems-way-too-much-money-pic-attached

 

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_money_matters/3200113-Universal-credit-I-appear-to-be-better-off-working-part-time-can-this-be-right

 

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_money_matters/3272121-universal-credit

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/05/2018 at 12:13, Jeremy424 said:

Indeed. Was sceptical of those claiming to have 'bad backs', but for the past 5 years I have been having issues with mine with no injury as such (chronic and constant shooting/burning pains in lower back and down leg, but I work, and have not claimed and have never claimed benefits) I'm more careful about how I treat others. The problem is that there's no test as such to quantify the pain and its relation to how much you can/can't do. It also fluctuates so you just know that people are making judgments about you by just seeing you on a better day. Tbh some days you wish you'd just have a limb broken because at least it would heal rather than live with the constant, energy draining pain.

Me too. I have the exact same symptoms, caused by tronchial bursitis and a bulging disc at the bottom of my spine. Like you said, some days are better than others, but when it's bad, it's bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has profited from the failure and high cost of the implementation of UC?....must of created many new jobs trying to do a job that is obviously is not working.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is predominantly about UBI, but introduced me to the story about Speenhamland which has interesting resonance with TC/UC:

who-really-stands-to-win-from-universal-basic-income

Quote

In 1795, a group of magistrates gathered in the English village of Speenhamland to try to solve a social crisis brought on by the rising price of grain. The challenge was an increase in poverty, even among the employed.

Quote

The magistrates at Speenhamland devised a way of offering families measured help. Household incomes were topped up to cover the cost of living. A man got enough to buy three gallon loaves a week (about eight and a half pounds of bread), plus a loaf and a half for every other member of his household.

Quote

As the Speenhamland system took hold and spread across England, it turned into a parable of caution. The population nearly doubled. Thomas Malthus posited that the poverty subsidies allowed couples to rear families before their actual earnings allowed it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cryptotrader said:

Food bank use will soar after universal credit rollout, warns charity

While Teresa May keeps popping up, like a demented jack-in-the-box with a stuck record, cooing soothely about the 'just about managings' - the Universal Credit debacle continues.

Charity that relies on on funding/charity.

UK benefits needs replacing, simnplifying.

Equaly, working age people need to be working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cryptotrader said:

Most people on benefits are working.

Full time or part time?  If part time surely they should be encouraged to work full time and claim less benefits?

I know quite a lot of people on tax credits who don't want to work full time, why should their lifestyle choice be subsidized?

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Full time or part time?  If part time surely they should be encouraged to work full time and claim less benefits?

I know quite a lot of people on tax credits who don't want to work full time, why should their lifestyle choice be subsidized? 

It amazes me how people can live in this Country and yet be so utterly ignorant about the lives of millions of their fellow countryfolk. Let me know how you could work full time in Wetherspoons or an Amazon fullfillment centre and survive without benefits? I'm allright, Jack and I read the Daily Mail!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cryptotrader said:

It amazes me how people can live in this Country and yet be so utterly ignorant about the lives of millions of their fellow countryfolk. Let me know how you could work full time in Wetherspoons or an Amazon fullfillment centre and survive without benefits? I'm allright, Jack and I read the Daily Mail!

Weird I was asking about the percentage of people who work part time and get benefits, and you start attacking what you think I think, without bothering to ask what I think.  Also I was asking about part time nothing to do with full time.

In case you are interested in what I think, I think people who work full time and need benefits should get them.  (Although I think housing should be cheaper so they need less or ideally none).

 

Now can you please answer my question

Quote

Full time or part time?  If part time surely they should be encouraged to work full time and claim less benefits?

I know quite a lot of people on tax credits who don't want to work full time, why should their lifestyle choice be subsidized?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well when you see that companies employ people on zero hour contract with the aim of not giving more than 12 hours of work to avoid paying NI, yes it does not create an incentive for employer to provide longer hours of work

 

FYI the value is £116 a week for 2018/19 source: https://www.litrg.org.uk/tax-guides/employed/what-national-insurance-do-i-pay-employee

Edited by Freki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Weird I was asking about the percentage of people who work part time and get benefits, and you start attacking what you think I think, without bothering to ask what I think.  Also I was asking about part time nothing to do with full time.

In case you are interested in what I think, I think people who work full time and need benefits should get them.  (Although I think housing should be cheaper so they need less or ideally none).

 

Now can you please answer my question

 

Well, I don't know the answer - maybe there are stats available - sorry if I wrongly stereotyped you.

I have heard, anecdotally and in the media that there is a big problem with people who want more hours but can't get them. I guess there are some who work part-time as 'a lifestyle choice' - but this could be down to many factors such as caring for an autistic kid or an ill parent or sibling. Who are we to judge what kind of lifestyle is worth subsidising? I know a few people who are carers, struggling financially, and if they walked away it would cost the State many tens of thousands a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cryptotrader said:

Well, I don't know the answer - maybe there are stats available - sorry if I wrongly stereotyped you.

I have heard, anecdotally and in the media that there is a big problem with people who want more hours but can't get them. I guess there are some who work part-time as 'a lifestyle choice' - but this could be down to many factors such as caring for an autistic kid or an ill parent or sibling. Who are we to judge what kind of lifestyle is worth subsidising? I know a few people who are carers, struggling financially, and if they walked away it would cost the State many tens of thousands a year.

Apology accepted

Well I think the Government should judge whether expenditure is worthwhile or not and we as tax payers should be able to have a view.  No one says about other expenditures who are we to judge?

Carers are tricky because the genuine ones provide a service but it can be abused.

Personally I think the benefit system is both too generous for some and not enough for others.  For example I think it is unfair when people get housing that most people who work cannot afford.  However if you lose your job there should be more help.

I don't think a national system can be run properly, I would look at trialing locally run systems like Switzerland if I were in charge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Freki said:

Well when you see that companies employ people on zero hour contract with the aim of not giving more than 12 hours of work to avoid paying NI, yes it does not create an incentive for employer to provide longer hours of work

 

FYI the value is £116 a week for 2018/19 source: https://www.litrg.org.uk/tax-guides/employed/what-national-insurance-do-i-pay-employee

+1  Of course if you tax something you get less of it, that is why cigarettes are taxed!

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the government could easily change those threshold effects and not encourage a perverse use of zero hour contracts that stucks some employee on a ridicule low amount of time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Freki said:

So the government could easily change those threshold effects and not encourage a perverse use of zero hour contracts that stucks some employee on a ridicule low amount of time

The problem with changing the threshold effects is that sometimes you want part time work e.g. saturday work in a shop and this could introduce a new threshold as it would be more work etc for the shop.  Also in the case of a student who works on Saturdays it could mean that the Governments spends almost as much collecting the NI as they receive.

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cryptotrader said:

It amazes me how people can live in this Country and yet be so utterly ignorant about the lives of millions of their fellow countryfolk. Let me know how you could work full time in Wetherspoons or an Amazon fullfillment centre and survive without benefits? I'm allright, Jack and I read the Daily Mail!

Ive worked 50h/w in a Pub and warehouse work.

There's lots of running aorund but its not impossible.

And its hardly like working in a coal mine ffs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Freki said:

So the government could easily change those threshold effects and not encourage a perverse use of zero hour contracts that stucks some employee on a ridicule low amount of time

Zero hour contracts should only exist for people eaninng ~£100+/h.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Freki said:

Threshold effects are bad, the more you smooth things out, the more likely you won't have any perverse effect.

True, or we could just abolish employeers NI, increase the employee by the same amount and raise minimum wage by the same!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes whatever works, but the idea an employer will rather employ 2 people on 12h rather than 1 on 24h because it optimises its tax is nuts. And if people in London and near large economic hubs can give a finger to those offering those 12h/w, people in more rural and less economically active one have less choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I know quite a lot of people on tax credits who don't want to work full time, why should their lifestyle choice be subsidized?

EXACTLY!

Unless you CANNOT work full time (and having children isn't an excuse; being disabled or a carer is a good reason), you should NOT be getting any top-up benefits at all. I know people do now, and I don't agree it's correct.

Benefits should only be paid to people who have health/disability issues, or those looking for work. Once you are in full time work, there shouldn't be benefits. The money needs to come from the wages, NOT the taxpayer.

 

Edited by mrtickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   296 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.