Universal Credit New Thread.complete Disaster.

[Harry Sacks]

On 13/10/2018 at 19:52, Dorkins said:

If the Basic Income was funded by capturing land rents through a land value tax then this would reduce the value of land which most bank lending is secured against. Should even it out.

Yes, but that is as likely to happen as a sound money system.

[Captain Kirk]

On 13/10/2018 at 01:03, dom said:

This is my argument against Basic Income. It would just end up expanding bank assets further. We need to ditch this monetary system.

+1

UBI would just be inflationary and we don't need more inflation. The answer, I believe, is to prevent central banks from being able to manipulate the monetary system. If this can't be done then, yes, a new system is needed. I'm not sure what it would be though.

However, if it wasn't for the rentier land system we have then there wouldn't be the incentive to borrow huge amounts of money to buy land and housing. There is probably a lot that can be done in this area.

Paying people not to work is as bad an idea as manipulating the monetary system to inflate asset prices.

[Cryptotrader]

11 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

+1

UBI would just be inflationary and we don't need more inflation.

Paying people not to work is as bad an idea as manipulating the monetary system to inflate asset prices.

Inflationary? Evidence?

As for paying people not to work you only have to look at all the 'non-jobs' thrown at the retiring Tory MP's who helped out the Tax evasion, money laundering and fossil fuel industries. Do as I say not as I do.

[Harry Sacks]

13 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

+1

UBI would just be inflationary and we don't need more inflation. The answer, I believe, is to prevent central banks from being able to manipulate the monetary system. If this can't be done then, yes, a new system is needed. I'm not sure what it would be though.

However, if it wasn't for the rentier land system we have then there wouldn't be the incentive to borrow huge amounts of money to buy land and housing. There is probably a lot that can be done in this area.

Paying people not to work is as bad an idea as manipulating the monetary system to inflate asset prices.

Yes, my own opinion is moving in that way. If window guidance was in the direction of productive assets instead, this could be deflationary as production efficiencies increased. Add a "green ethic" into the mix and we might see change for the better..

[Captain Kirk]

2 hours ago, Cryptotrader said:

Inflationary? Evidence? 

It would be more money chasing the same goods, which is inflationary by definition.

Or, it would be less production due to people not needing to work and the same money chasing fewer goods.

2 hours ago, Cryptotrader said:

As for paying people not to work you only have to look at all the 'non-jobs' thrown at the retiring Tory MP's who helped out the Tax evasion, money laundering and fossil fuel industries. Do as I say not as I do.

Don't necessarily disagree. There are a lot of unproductive jobs out there and many are about accruing the wealth produced into the hands of a few individuals.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Captain Kirk

[Harry Sacks]

2 hours ago, Cryptotrader said:

Inflationary? Evidence?

 

What do the majority of people do when their income increases? Leverage against it by selling a security to a bank, mortgage, personal loan, etc. I'm not saying this would happen but I've yet to see any proposal that would stop it from happening.

 

[Captain Kirk]

14 minutes ago, dom said:

What do the majority of people do when their income increases? Leverage against it by selling a security to a bank, mortgage, personal loan, etc. I'm not saying this would happen but I've yet to see any proposal that would stop it from happening.

 

Good point, that too.

[Cryptotrader]

22 hours ago, dom said:

What do the majority of people do when their income increases? Leverage against it by selling a security to a bank, mortgage, personal loan, etc. I'm not saying this would happen but I've yet to see any proposal that would stop it from happening.

 

So, just a hunch, then.

I think it (UBI) would usher in a new era of high productivity growth. People wouldn't need to work stupidly long hours in jobs that should be automated anyway, they would do work they wanted to do which would increase productivity. People who can't or won't work will not see much change in disposable income. People with lucrative businesses or highly paid jobs would probably see a negative impact to their disposable income. UBI would lead to British society aligning more with the Germanic & Scandinavian models and away from the disastrous US model.

Of course Tories would hate this as they are driven to derive their sense of importance and superiority from people who remain unfulfilled or are down on their luck.

[Harry Sacks]

2 hours ago, Cryptotrader said:

So, just a hunch, then.

I think it (UBI) would usher in a new era of high productivity growth. People wouldn't need to work stupidly long hours in jobs that should be automated anyway, they would do work they wanted to do which would increase productivity. People who can't or won't work will not see much change in disposable income. People with lucrative businesses or highly paid jobs would probably see a negative impact to their disposable income. UBI would lead to British society aligning more with the Germanic & Scandinavian models and away from the disastrous US model.

Of course Tories would hate this as they are driven to derive their sense of importance and superiority from people who remain unfulfilled or are down on their luck.

Show me an economic theory or policy that isn't based on a "hunch".

We've kind of had this already with tax credits and the self employed. 

I'm certain UBI would end up inflating assets through leverage, cancelling itself out in a few years. The Germans have a totally different banking system to us. Most communities are served by small, local banks of which there are over 1500. We're worlds apart in that respect.

Edited October 16, 2018 by dom

[Cryptotrader]

53 minutes ago, dom said:

I'm certain UBI would end up inflating assets through leverage

Asset inflation seems to be doing rather well without UBI, so far!

[Harry Sacks]

2 hours ago, Cryptotrader said:

Asset inflation seems to be doing rather well without UBI, so far!

Sure, but look at all the other transfers that are doing exactly the same thing. Housing benefit, Tax Credits, and the the big ones like the Single Farm Payment and QE. All transfers, all leveraged, all driving asset prices.

[Tulip_mania]

Now I may be slightly late to the party on this one, but just noticed that Universal Credit introduces the (previously applied to JSA, but not tax credits) limits on savings, so benefit is reduced with savings of over £6,000 and stopped with savings of over £16,000. Now clearly this is going to make saving for a deposit somewhat more challenging. It probably won't have an immediate effect, given the glacial roll out of UC, I'm almost expecting them to abandon migration and just do it for new claims/change in circumstance. But over time, given there are over 5 million households claiming tax credits it might start to eat away at demand. Possibly more noticeable in cheaper areas outside of London where people earning say £20-30k, particularly with a tax credit top up can reasonably expect to buy.

[Council estate capitalist]

1 hour ago, Tulip_mania said:

Now I may be slightly late to the party on this one, but just noticed that Universal Credit introduces the (previously applied to JSA, but not tax credits) limits on savings, so benefit is reduced with savings of over £6,000 and stopped with savings of over £16,000. Now clearly this is going to make saving for a deposit somewhat more challenging. It probably won't have an immediate effect, given the glacial roll out of UC, I'm almost expecting them to abandon migration and just do it for new claims/change in circumstance. But over time, given there are over 5 million households claiming tax credits it might start to eat away at demand. Possibly more noticeable in cheaper areas outside of London where people earning say £20-30k, particularly with a tax credit top up can reasonably expect to buy.

I'd be interested if there are any statistics out there about the savings levels of those likely to claim tax credits. I'm sure there's some cash rich, income poor people claiming TC who'll be caught out but most TC claimants strike me as the so called "just about managing" types. 

I think anyone who's above the limit by a few thousand will merely open an account at the "bank of mattress stuffing". 

 

[jiltedjen]

4 hours ago, Tulip_mania said:

Now I may be slightly late to the party on this one, but just noticed that Universal Credit introduces the (previously applied to JSA, but not tax credits) limits on savings, so benefit is reduced with savings of over £6,000 and stopped with savings of over £16,000. Now clearly this is going to make saving for a deposit somewhat more challenging. It probably won't have an immediate effect, given the glacial roll out of UC, I'm almost expecting them to abandon migration and just do it for new claims/change in circumstance. But over time, given there are over 5 million households claiming tax credits it might start to eat away at demand. Possibly more noticeable in cheaper areas outside of London where people earning say £20-30k, particularly with a tax credit top up can reasonably expect to buy.

every little helps to help slow the ponzi

[mrtickle]

I'd like some help with a fact-check from the HPC hive-mind please. During debates on TV I've been sick of hearing "UC is going to make people £2,000 a year worse off!", WITHOUT context.

If you were previously gifted £10,000/year of benefits and then this changed to £8,000/year, this 2K worse off is serious.

At the other end of the scale, if you were gifted £40,000/year of benefits  and this then changed to £38,000/year, this 2K worse off is NOT so serious, and you should never have been given that much in the first place.

The Labour politicians never shout "my constituent's benefits are being cut from £40K to only £38K!". They are completely silent on the starting amount before the cut.

Please can someone point me to where this overly-emotional "£2,000 a year worse off!" claim comes from? I rather suspect it's way more towards the £40K in benefits end of the scale, and I want to have the figure ready for when it's discussed at work

 

[Giraffe]

Quote

Now I may be slightly late to the party on this one, but just noticed that Universal Credit introduces the (previously applied to JSA, but not tax credits) limits on savings, so benefit is reduced with savings of over £6,000 and stopped with savings of over £16,000. Now clearly this is going to make saving for a deposit somewhat more challenging. It probably won't have an immediate effect, given the glacial roll out of UC, I'm almost expecting them to abandon migration and just do it for new claims/change in circumstance. But over time, given there are over 5 million households claiming tax credits it might start to eat away at demand. Possibly more noticeable in cheaper areas outside of London where people earning say £20-30k, particularly with a tax credit top up can reasonably expect to buy.

 

 

 

Switching to means testing for these benefits is massively significant.  

Another big UC change for those that have pumped out kids for the tax credits is that both parents now have to work. You cannot have one parent working 16 hours a week with the other sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle. They BOTH have to get out there or get sanctioned. I fecking love UC. It is going to be a huge shock to some families I know. They have no marketable skills. Only any good at reproduction and working the system. Tax credits have been like reverse eugenics. 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Giraffe

[simvastatin]

27 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

 

 

 

Switching to means testing for these benefits is massively significant.  

Another big UC change for those that have pumped out kids for the tax credits is that both parents now have to work. You cannot have one parent working 16 hours a week with the other sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle. They BOTH have to get out there or get sanctioned. I fecking love UC. It is going to be a huge shock to some families I know. They have no marketable skills. Only any good at reproduction and working the system. Tax credits have been like reverse eugenics. 

LOL

Popcorn time for you

[bushblairandbrown]

14 hours ago, mrtickle said:

I'd like some help with a fact-check from the HPC hive-mind please. During debates on TV I've been sick of hearing "UC is going to make people £2,000 a year worse off!", WITHOUT context.

If you were previously gifted £10,000/year of benefits and then this changed to £8,000/year, this 2K worse off is serious.

At the other end of the scale, if you were gifted £40,000/year of benefits  and this then changed to £38,000/year, this 2K worse off is NOT so serious, and you should never have been given that much in the first place.

The Labour politicians never shout "my constituent's benefits are being cut from £40K to only £38K!". They are completely silent on the starting amount before the cut.

Please can someone point me to where this overly-emotional "£2,000 a year worse off!" claim comes from? I rather suspect it's way more towards the £40K in benefits end of the scale, and I want to have the figure ready for when it's discussed at work

 

I once went through the Camden Council website "how much am I entitled to claim" page for exactly this reason about 3+ years ago. I can't find this page now as it appears to have been replaced by some UC stuff. I found a single mum with 2 kids working 16 hours a week was entitled to (allowance, housing contribute, kids allowance, tax credits) just shy of £40k in benefits.

I don't necessarily think this is too much to give a single mum to raise two kids in London. I'm sure they would have a pretty uncomfortable life on that amount. However, that figure cemented my opinion that parents working typical and productive jobs trying to raise children in London had become a twisted joke. 

There needs to be a discussion about whether it is reasonable for the state to support the raising of children in London when living costs are so extortionate versus most of the country. My feelings are if you have children in London and need benefits you should be required to move somewhere cheaper to be entitled to claim. 

Edited October 28, 2018 by bushblairandbrown

[nothernsoul]

The current mess  is where social and economic policy has led us. The benefits system is a response to a society with large numbers of single parent households and skilled/semi skilled manufacturing jobs going overseas. New Labour resigned themselves to all of this, and used tax credits to fill the holes in the low value service economy we have now. Gordon brown slyly called them tax credits(instead of the more accurate benefits) and made sure eligibility extended far enough to make it electorally impossible for the tories to ditch them. 

[Captain Kirk]

1 hour ago, bushblairandbrown said:

There needs to be a discussion about whether it is reasonable for the state to support the raising of children in London when living costs are so extortionate versus most of the country. My feelings are if you have children in London and need benefits you should be required to move somewhere cheaper to be entitled to claim. 

I tend to agree with that. There is no need for people to live in London when they can't afford to. I, personally, would hate to live in London and probably couldn't afford to anyway.

Also, if London is such a wealthy place then let the free market sort it out. If Londoners want good teachers, nurses and bins emptied regularly then they can pay for it either by paying privately or by paying higher property taxes so the council can pay higher wages.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Captain Kirk
rearraged it

[winkie]

2 hours ago, bushblairandbrown said:

I once went through the Camden Council website "how much am I entitled to claim" page for exactly this reason about 3+ years ago. I can't find this page now as it appears to have been replaced by some UC stuff. I found a single mum with 2 kids working 16 hours a week was entitled to (allowance, housing contribute, kids allowance, tax credits) just shy of £40k in benefits.

I don't necessarily think this is too much to give a single mum to raise two kids in London. I'm sure they would have a pretty uncomfortable life on that amount. However, that figure cemented my opinion that parents working typical and productive jobs trying to raise children in London had become a twisted joke. 

There needs to be a discussion about whether it is reasonable for the state to support the raising of children in London when living costs are so extortionate versus most of the country. My feelings are if you have children in London and need benefits you should be required to move somewhere cheaper to be entitled to claim. 

Do not agree.....London has never been a place where only the working rich can live.... gentrification is a sad a sorry state of affairs.....pushing the poor into other areas that already have their own fair share of poor.....London councils are some of the richest in the country......no rent or debt to pay, London is the cheapest place in the country to live, water, CT, IT, transport, choice of food and facilities available to its residents cheapest in the country.....why create suffering to Londoners when they didn't ask for such high inflation of land and buildings when once you couldn't give it away.....?

[Tulip_mania]

19 hours ago, mrtickle said:

I'd like some help with a fact-check from the HPC hive-mind please. During debates on TV I've been sick of hearing "UC is going to make people £2,000 a year worse off!", WITHOUT context.

If you were previously gifted £10,000/year of benefits and then this changed to £8,000/year, this 2K worse off is serious.

At the other end of the scale, if you were gifted £40,000/year of benefits  and this then changed to £38,000/year, this 2K worse off is NOT so serious, and you should never have been given that much in the first place.

The Labour politicians never shout "my constituent's benefits are being cut from £40K to only £38K!". They are completely silent on the starting amount before the cut.

Please can someone point me to where this overly-emotional "£2,000 a year worse off!" claim comes from? I rather suspect it's way more towards the £40K in benefits end of the scale, and I want to have the figure ready for when it's discussed at work

 

I think the 'average' amount claimants get for the stuff that's being rolled into UC (WTC/CTC/HB etc) is around £10k/year, this was based on the no inflation indexing 'costing' them around £200-250 and inflation was about 2.3%.

[mrtickle]

9 hours ago, bushblairandbrown said:

I once went through the Camden Council website "how much am I entitled to claim" page for exactly this reason about 3+ years ago. I can't find this page now as it appears to have been replaced by some UC stuff. I found a single mum with 2 kids working 16 hours a week was entitled to (allowance, housing contribute, kids allowance, tax credits) just shy of £40k in benefits.

I don't necessarily think this is too much to give a single mum to raise two kids in London. I'm sure they would have a pretty uncomfortable life on that amount. However, that figure cemented my opinion that parents working typical and productive jobs trying to raise children in London had become a twisted joke. 

There needs to be a discussion about whether it is reasonable for the state to support the raising of children in London when living costs are so extortionate versus most of the country. My feelings are if you have children in London and need benefits you should be required to move somewhere cheaper to be entitled to claim. 

Absolutely, I agree 100%.

But at the same time, I also take issue with concept the "it's ok to gift someone £40 in benefits" idea, even if it's outside London; and i'm not discussing how comfortable it should be. I'm discussing the principle that the vast majority of people who work FULL TIME don't earn anywhere near that much. So I believe that it is utterly perverse and unfair on full time single workers to give someone else that much money for working just TWO measly days per week.

[spyguy]

10 hours ago, bushblairandbrown said:

I once went through the Camden Council website "how much am I entitled to claim" page for exactly this reason about 3+ years ago. I can't find this page now as it appears to have been replaced by some UC stuff. I found a single mum with 2 kids working 16 hours a week was entitled to (allowance, housing contribute, kids allowance, tax credits) just shy of £40k in benefits.

I don't necessarily think this is too much to give a single mum to raise two kids in London. I'm sure they would have a pretty uncomfortable life on that amount. However, that figure cemented my opinion that parents working typical and productive jobs trying to raise children in London had become a twisted joke. 

There needs to be a discussion about whether it is reasonable for the state to support the raising of children in London when living costs are so extortionate versus most of the country. My feelings are if you have children in London and need benefits you should be required to move somewhere cheaper to be entitled to claim. 

Well lets frame this against people wotking.

Uk mexn wage is 28k. Keeping it simple, theyll pay about 8k in payroll taxes - employee and employer.

That 40k of benefits sucks up payroll tax take of 8 average workers. Thats insane.

To that 40k of benefits youve nhs costs and schooling -  5k kid head.

[simvastatin]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/universal-credit-error-forces-man-13493254#ICID=ios_TMNewsApp_AppShare_Click_Other

Universal Credit error forces man to eat out of bins after being left with just £26 for month