Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
durhamborn

Universal Credit New Thread.complete Disaster.

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

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.

 

The fight against living wages has been going on nearly 40 years now. The investment class don't want them, it spoils their capital returns. Post war welfare capitalism was so successful it had to be usurped with manufactured crisis in many developed nations.

The boomer generation got the best of both worlds, assets paid for by inflation and real capital gains just in time for retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

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.

 

+1

Also if it were not for HB pushing up costs people in full time work would often not need benefits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of focus on this on Question time tonight.

in 2015 when the Tories bottled the proper realignment of this, the only parts they got through were the 2-child limit and other tinkering around the edges, which is due to come in soon.

Cue REPEATED claims of "single parents with x kids will be TWO THOUSANDS POUNDS a year worse off" without the rest of the sentences: "... but I'm not going to mention that they are currently pulling in £30K so that's only £28K"

Cue thunderous applause and cheers from the audience at the calls for the money to be "put back (sic) into the economy" by reversing these "cruel cuts".

And one of the panel called for the reversal of the two-child limit. FFS. With a lot of agreeing applause. That's the ONLY reform that's got any meaning that's happened in the last TEN years, and he wanted to snatch even that away.

The vibe in the room was that if the "cuts" aren't reversed in the budget - "she said austerity was over, she needs to prove it by dishing out extra benefits to those hard-working (but only 2 days a week) people" - then Teresa May is toast. I really really hope nothing is reversed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mrtickle said:

Lots of focus on this on Question time tonight.

in 2015 when the Tories bottled the proper realignment of this, the only parts they got through were the 2-child limit and other tinkering around the edges, which is due to come in soon.

Cue REPEATED claims of "single parents with x kids will be TWO THOUSANDS POUNDS a year worse off" without the rest of the sentences: "... but I'm not going to mention that they are currently pulling in £30K so that's only £28K"

Cue thunderous applause and cheers from the audience at the calls for the money to be "put back (sic) into the economy" by reversing these "cruel cuts".

And one of the panel called for the reversal of the two-child limit. FFS. With a lot of agreeing applause. That's the ONLY reform that's got any meaning that's happened in the last TEN years, and he wanted to snatch even that away.

The vibe in the room was that if the "cuts" aren't reversed in the budget - "she said austerity was over, she needs to prove it by dishing out extra benefits to those hard-working (but only 2 days a week) people" - then Teresa May is toast. I really really hope nothing is reversed.

 

+1 £28k is the same as a nurse gets.

Share this post


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

How much has already been spent trying over the years to implement UC?.......surely the cost v benefits doesn't add up.😉

That never seems to be an issue if its a point of principle or ideology.  Its like the cut backs in staff at the Inland Revenue when the sensible option would be to employ more people and go after some of the rather large sums of tax owed to this country.  Tory ideology seems to be go easy on the wealthy and punish the poor*.

* please note that I am extremely biased; I think this current bunch of Tories are even more despicable than the awful bunch who badged themselves New Labour.

Share this post


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

How much has already been spent trying over the years to implement UC?.......surely the cost v benefits doesn't add up.😉

Probably true although as it has been spent, it might not be worth scrapping it.

What they should have done was is try to introduce on a small scale at first some sort of workfare.  So for example if you get tax credits/ other benefits part of your road should be kept clean or you lose them.

(The exact amount of road could be determined with trial or error).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/10/2018 at 14:17, iamnumerate said:

+1

Also if it were not for HB pushing up costs people in full time work would often not need benefits!

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 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.

However, basic income would be a fixed amount and so would encourage people to move to cheaper areas (not saying it is wonderful).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of rhetoric with universal credit about making it better off for people to be in work. But as already mentioned, the only real way to do this is for it to come from wages. It would also help if the contributory element to benefits was reintroduced. If somebody who worked full time and paid national insurance contributions knew if they lost their job they would receive more than the current 75 quid a week(time limited) plus a financial contribution to retraining if required, then surely that would up the value of working and paying tax. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Captain Kirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by dom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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.