Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
durhamborn

Universal Credit New Thread.complete Disaster.

Recommended Posts

On 28/10/2018 at 08:49, 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 I can't find this page now as it appears to have been replaced by some UC stuff.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. 

Sounds reasonable.

Share this post


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

Sounds reasonable.

Entirely, yes it is. 

I would question the movies of those who pick one word out of a 2-month old post and attack it.

Share this post


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

Actually I want to stop both.  Although often reducing housing benefit would harm the wealthy as well as the lazy with one stone.  It would harm the Wilsons (who are allegedly wealthy) for a start.

 

One the subject of wind turbines subsidises I think they are probably a bad idea unless they really ARE saving the environment in which case they are a good idea - even if they enrich those who are already wealthy. 

Agreed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/12/2018 at 13:30, iamnumerate said:

Do you have a link for that? I think it is quite reasonable.

 

Actually I want to stop both.  Although often reducing housing benefit would harm the wealthy as well as the lazy with one stone.  It would harm the Wilsons (who are allegedly wealthy) for a start.

 

One the subject of wind turbines subsidises I think they are probably a bad idea unless they really ARE saving the environment in which case they are a good idea - even if they enrich those who are already wealthy. 

I'd rather you had answered this;

Quote

I always wonder what the motives are of people who obsess about £60 a week PIP or £200 a week tax credits but are always ready to overlook the vastly greater benefits that are paid to the wealthy.

In any case, Merry Christmas everyone on here!

Share this post


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

I'd rather you had answered this;

In any case, Merry Christmas everyone on here!

Merry Christmas to you.

 

I thought I had answered that.  I dislike all subsidizes to rich or poor (some of course go to both) unless there is a good environmental or social reason (in which case I don't mind who it goes to).*

 

*I don't want to start debating if farming etc subsidies fall into such a category because they would take us off topic.

 

I hope you have good time and maybe debate this later this week.  If I can get to a PC.

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, macca13 said:

The Royal Family are the UK’s biggest benefits claimants.. 

Time to send the Queen on the Jeremy Kyle show.. Ask her who she stole all her land off.. 

Who indeed, Harold Saxon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

Universal credit: U-turn on two-child cap on benefit

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46827301

It is not a complete U-turn

Quote

Amber Rudd said those with children born before the system began in 2017 would remain exempt, as she aimed to ensure it was "compassionate and fair".

This seems fair and good for the environment.  If we believe in climate change we should not be paying people to have lots of Children.

 

Share this post


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

It is not a complete U-turn

This seems fair and good for the environment.  If we believe in climate change we should not be paying people to have lots of Children.

 

Rudd also hinted that from next year benefits will be unfrozen. Which came as no real suprise to me as I believe the govt needs to start spending heavily again to keep the economy afloat. Spending like Corbyn and McDonnell, in fact. While pretending to be champions of fiscal rectitude.

Spend, spend, spend. But they won't be calling it austerity this time.

Share this post


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

Rudd also hinted that from next year benefits will be unfrozen. Which came as no real suprise to me as I believe the govt needs to start spending heavily again to keep the economy afloat. Spending like Corbyn and McDonnell, in fact. While pretending to be champions of fiscal rectitude.

Spend, spend, spend. But they won't be calling it austerity this time.

A retired Baby Boomer associate was unaware that benefits had been frozen...

Edited by rantnrave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Council estate capitalist said:

I'm hoping mold illness claims against scumbag landlords.

Lawyers in America say, Mold = Gold. 

We have had the whiplash fiasco......the holiday food poisoning, what about the extortionate payday loans?.......where those with the least are forced to pay the most?.....blame and claim.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help feeling that there has been so much negative baggage now associated with the words "Universal Credit" that it's now the new 'poll tax' and the next time Labour are in power it will be abolished (indeed the pledge to abolish it will be one of the cornerstones of their election campaign).

Universal Credit always seemed a sensible idea to me - give a single benefit to reduce admin associated with 5-6 benefits - but it's been rolled out so slowly, and with so many problems along the way, that it seems the voting public are sick of it before it's even been fully implemented.

It's almost unbelievable that this thread started in 2013 and yet in 2019 it's still nowhere close to being fully and competently rolled out. 

Share this post


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

I can't help feeling that there has been so much negative baggage now associated with the words "Universal Credit" that it's now the new 'poll tax' and the next time Labour are in power it will be abolished (indeed the pledge to abolish it will be one of the cornerstones of their election campaign).

Universal Credit always seemed a sensible idea to me - give a single benefit to reduce admin associated with 5-6 benefits - but it's been rolled out so slowly, and with so many problems along the way, that it seems the voting public are sick of it before it's even been fully implemented.

It's almost unbelievable that this thread started in 2013 and yet in 2019 it's still nowhere close to being fully and competently rolled out. 

It seemed a sensible idea in principle, but I was not sure if it would be easy enough to make worthwhile.  To be honest the benefit cap in many ways did the job, what people care is that those on benefits don't get too much money.

A much better idea would have been trying some form of workfare for people on full time benefits and tax credits to do. I.e. you have to do x number of hours work to get them so to get tax credits you need to work 16 hours in a job and x hours for the council keeping the street clean or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, scottbeard said:

It's almost unbelievable that this thread started in 2013 and yet in 2019 it's still nowhere close to being fully and competently rolled out. 

IIRC it started under Labour, but had cross-party support, like HS2 did.

2013 was either the original or one of the postponed deadlines! I'm tired of the BBC reporting that some 2018 or 2019 deadline will be missed, as if it's only a small delay - it's ALREADY FIVE FULL YEARS LATE.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

IIRC it started under Labour, but had cross-party support, like HS2 did.

2013 was either the original or one of the postponed deadlines! I'm tired of the BBC reporting that some 2018 or 2019 deadline will be missed, as if it's only a small delay - it's ALREADY FIVE FULL YEARS LATE.

The current target of 2023 is crazy, It's the moving people from the old benefits that is holding it all up mostly, + losing several court cases isn't helping to get it finished. 

They are now in the rather absurd situation where there's 2 parallel benefits systems, one of which much more generous to those who are "grandfathered in" under the old rules, I imagine some people will not take jobs/move house/move in as a couple to avoid the loss in benefits that occurs if they are forcibly moved to UC. 

For example if you move from JSA to UC and get DLA/PIP then you lose £1700ish a year. 

I liken the shambolic roll out of UC to the way they scrapped DLA and introduced PIP for working age claimants, All of the DLA claimants were supposed to be reassessed about 5 years ago but I know people still claiming who have yet to be contacted (Who if they were would definitely not get it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New claimants should all be on UC now, so with the 5 year scheduled roll out, it would make sense to focus on transferring families where the youngest is under 12 as the rest will automatically roll off the books in that timescale anyway.  Which should reduce the number of transfers to be done by ~1/3 for Family/Child Tax credits. Increases in the Minimum Wage/minimum hours requirement will mostly do away with WTC for those without kids.

You can't say everyone loses it's  a bit more complicated, as although there are losers, there are also winners, though on average it is a bit less.

They need to reduce the 'taper rate' (% reduction for each extra £ earned) to increase the work incentive, even if it requires continuing the freeze on the overall amounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how we never hear about the winners, isn't it?

It's also massive articles showcasing how much someone will "lose" (it's not money taken away from them, it's less money being given to them - subtly but critically different). And that "loss" is ALWAYS STATED WITHOUT CONTEXT. £X amount less given to them OUT OF HOW MUCH BEFORE? Is it a 5% or a 50%? Etc.

 

Edited by mrtickle

Share this post


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

Funny how we never hear about the winners, isn't it?

It's also massive articles showcasing how much someone will "lose" (it's not money taken away from them, it's less money being given to them - subtly but critically different). 

 

But we can't start asking questions like this without going further and asking if the tax system as a whole is fair.  Maybe these people ought to be being paid more in the first place, then the question of UC wouldn't arise in this form.

Share this post


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

But we can't start asking questions like this without going further and asking if the tax system as a whole is fair.  

Yes we can.

 

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:   286 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.