To think Universal Credit still won't get the long term unemployed into work and targets the wrong people?

(121 Posts)
retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:14:20

UC (and the bedroom tax) is wrong on so many levels that its hard to know where to start.

I think one of the concerns is that it still won't get the long term employed, who have chosen to live on benefits, into work.

It targets and hurts the wrong people, those who have a real need of the welfare state.

Take my neighbours for example. They are a couple. Have 5 children. And have never worked a day in their life. They have 2 daughters who have left home and have children of their own (both were teenage pregnancies). They have 2 teenagers living at home who are at college. The youngest child is in primary school.

They live in a 3 bed council house.

Even with the recent JSA changes (having to prove you are looking for work etc) they still haven't been made to find employment.

AIBU to think UC will not change this? That they will still manage to avoid work?

I think UC will end up hurting a lot of people but not targeting the people it should be aimed at.

Dawndonna Tue 26-Mar-13 09:20:52

Actually, as it is something that works in his favour, I think it's entirely possible. It is the government that has fed the press. It is the government that has, on a consistent basis, fed the press the wrong figures, have given them statistics that don't add up, have provided them with the new phraseology and therefore ideology of deserving and undeserving poor. We have not had 'benefit scrounger' stories to this extent before. So yes, without taking individual cases, his government (which includes him as leader) are in all probability quite happy about the situation.

AudrinaAdare Tue 26-Mar-13 09:29:36

I don't think he is cheering, but he did claim the DLA that his party has decided to take away from almost a fifth of genuine claimants and to redefine disability as purely physical. We had come so far with understanding how neurodiversity can impact on people's lives and now...

We need to talk about Ivan

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 09:40:37

bochead You talk a lot of sense.

Feminine Tue 26-Mar-13 09:47:23

I thought that the long term work shy folk , would have to answer to something when UTC comes in confused I thought they would get their benefits cut?

It was the only thing that I assumed might get them out in the workforce.

This thread is telling me that they still will be able to claim as before?

So are we saying that those dreadfully affected by the changes are the disabled and those unable to work?

I despise this situation even more now.

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 09:49:11

dawn - if you think the father of a dead disabled child and the son of a disabled man is pro an increase in disability hate crime, i think you have lost objectivity.

dont you think the bullies at Eton will have mentioned his father's lack of legs once or twice?

PearlyWhites Tue 26-Mar-13 10:29:22

Disabled people are exempt from the benefit cap so the poster doesn't need to worry

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 10:32:36

She isn't exempt Pearly because her case is being reconsidered so she has lost the benefit, during this process, which exempts her from the cap.

niceguy2 Tue 26-Mar-13 10:39:04

I thought the main aim of Universal Credit was not to force the long term unemployed to find a job but instead the objective was to change the current system where there are perverse incentives for people not to work.

At the moment someone who is claiming full benefits often finds that either they are:

1) Worse off by working!
2) Marginally better off but they have to put in 40 hours rather than 0.
3) Put off because the job is zero hours or temporary in nature.

Oh and not to mention make it simpler to apply for one benefit rather than several.

Time will tell if this system is indeed better. Of course it won't be perfect and no doubt there will be examples trotted out where certain people lose out but at least it's a step in the right direction.

I know people who would like to work. Genuinely. But who would take on a zero hour contract when it's such a gamble and so hard to reapply for benefits if things don't work out?

Feminine Tue 26-Mar-13 10:48:51

But I'm still wondering...

If under UTC an intentionally avoiding work claimant still signs on/avoids work will they have their benefits restricted?

Otherwise what incentive is there?

Many deserving people are having their claims cut/done away with. Will the work shy still be able to sit at home?

Boredwench Tue 26-Mar-13 10:52:26

I can understand the frustrations but feel the elephant in the room is being ignored....

Currently as things stand the revenue generated from workers isn't enough to sustain the welfare state. It's all very well wanting this and that etc but if there's no money in the pot, you can't pay with brass buttons. We all want access to the best health, housing, education, state support in difficult times.

The number one thing that fucks me off the most is those who choose to have children knowing the state will support them, don't pay smart with me flamers.... You know some do it on purpose. It doesn't help you get programmes like OEM showing endless couples who've decided they want a child but neither of them work. In the current economic climate that is morally wrong.

Tough decisions have to be made, benefits need to be reformed... Don't patronise those of us who do have friends we know quite clearly have no intention of ever working, it's not as rife as the media portray but ain't just a handful of people either.

SneezingwakestheJesus Tue 26-Mar-13 10:54:40

As long as they go through the motions like they do now on JSA, then yes, the people who intentionally avoid work will be able to sit at home. If they refuse to look for work or do any activities set for them to improve employability then they will be sanctioned. Its basically the same as it is now except its supposed to look even more desirable to be in work than it is now.

niceguy2 Tue 26-Mar-13 10:57:59

The sanctions as I understand it will remain in place. But as Sneezing says, those who are currently successfully avoiding getting a job will probably continue to do so.

It is getting much harder though and I've noticed quite a few people who in the past were happy to sit at home are now looking for work. I'm not sure if it is the tightening up or the fact that the money they are receiving is being cut which has had the most effect.

FasterStronger Tue 26-Mar-13 11:00:19

but couldn't they be placed on workfare?

also where someone appears to be working cash in hand and claiming but difficult and expensive to prove?

Feminine Tue 26-Mar-13 11:01:18

Thanks for the explanations niceguy and bored smile

Feminine Tue 26-Mar-13 11:03:07

So the workfare element is different then?

I thought many unemployed were being forced to do that?

I don't understand how many people are still able to do nothing, yet be perfectly able to work?

SneezingwakestheJesus Tue 26-Mar-13 11:04:03

Workfare is one of the activities they could be set to improve employability and they would be sanctioned if they refuse. But workfare exists now so its not a new threat to the people who make a career of staying on benefits.

SneezingwakestheJesus Tue 26-Mar-13 11:04:43

Unless they implement it to more people, sooner and more often I suppose.

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 11:09:29

How do people get away with not doing workfare?

I find it hard to tie in what I hear about sanctions and people being left with no benefits when I see my neighbours doing nothing all day with no loss.

BlackMaryJanes Tue 26-Mar-13 11:13:34

I'm so sad reading about UC sad (and it won't even effect me).

Can labour undo all this when they come back into power? I hope so.

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 11:14:24

Will there be the money for them to undo it?

niceguy2 Tue 26-Mar-13 11:15:16

I doubt Labour will BlackMary. Labour haven't even said what they will cut if they get into power.

Out of interest what do you not like about UC?

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 11:29:34

Labours lack of policies is increasingly frustrating.

SneezingwakestheJesus Tue 26-Mar-13 11:57:16

I wonder if labour are using the UC fear and keeping quiet about what they will change and stuff to get more votes? People might be so fed up how it is now that they will vote blindly for labour so labour are wary of saying something that could stop that so they just say very little.

retrorita Tue 26-Mar-13 12:06:51

Honestly, they could anything and people would vote for them just to stop another 5yrs of the Tories.

Currently as things stand the revenue generated from workers isn't enough to sustain the welfare state.

So start making the multi-national corporations and banks to pay their fair share of taxes as well. They're not just here because they can get away with paying bugger-all tax - they take advantage of the additional benefits of operating in this country as opposed to cheaper locations, such as efficient infrastructure, good security, transport and communication networks, lack of corruption, enforceable rule of law. Let them start paying a fair wack.

And this Government is committed to REDUCING worker taxes even further - this is and always has been a central tenet of Conservative political thinking, regardless of how appropriate or feasible it might be. The idea of a 'trickle down' economy, where giving people more money in their pay-packets through raising tax-thresholds and cutting top rates of tax in the hope it will spark a high street boom, and removing the incentive to save money by offering interest rates lower than inflation (so we all rush off to spend our lovely extra dosh!) has been proved wrong for years and years.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now